Democrats shook up tradition on Saturday by vaulting Nevada and South Carolina into the first wave of 2008 presidential contests along with Iowa and New Hampshire - a move intended to add racial and geographic diversity to the early voting.
The decision by the Democratic National Committee leaves Iowa as the nation’s first presidential caucus and New Hampshire as the first primary, but wedges Nevada’s caucuses before New Hampshire and South Carolina’s primary soon afterward.
To which the New Hampshirians reply: This means war! “The DNC did not give New Hampshire its primary, and it is not taking it away,” said the Granite State’s governor, John Lynch.
New Hampshire objected loudly to the lineup and has threatened to leapfrog over the other contests to retain its pre-eminent role.
The plot thickens!
Eager to avoid such a rebellion, Democrats also adopted sanctions to penalize presidential candidates who campaign in states that cut in line.
How? By denying them delegates from those states! More here:
The Democratic National Committee voted Saturday to penalize 2008 presidential candidates who defied a new nominating calendar devised to lessen the longtime influence of New Hampshire and Iowa, the two states that have traditionally kicked off the nominating process.
The sanctions will be directed at candidates who campaign in any state that refuses to follow a 2008 calendar of primaries and caucuses that was also approved Saturday. Any candidate who campaigns in a state that does not abide by the new calendar will be stripped at the party convention of delegates won in that state.
That’s a clever idea, but it isn’t going to work:
Despite the vote, the fighting over the calendar may not be over. … Several Democrats said candidates might make the calculation that it is worth losing delegates — assuming New Hampshire defies the party and the party penalizes candidates — to get the attention that might come from an early New Hampshire victory.
I think that calculation would most definitely be correct, so much so that it’s completely obvious, so obvious that everyone will make it and this whole thing will fail utterly.
Because of the way the media covers the primaries, and because the public doesn’t really understand how the system works, delegates don’t really matter in the early weeks of the campaign; momentum matters. And a New Hampshire victory, even if it results in zero delegates, means lots of momentum — and the best way to achieve a New Hampshire victory might be to take a “bold” stand against this DNC decision, as John Kerry, John Edwards and Evan Bayh are already doing. Which is why every single candidate will ultimately take the same “bold stand,” which is why this attempt by the DNC to change the rules of the game is basically doomed to fail. New Hampshire still holds all the cards, delegates or no. (And really, if every single candidate campaigns in New Hampshire — which they will — is the DNC seriously going to follow through on its threat to strip ALL of the candidates of their New Hampshire delegates, thus demoting the nation’s most famous primary to a D.C.-style delegate-less primary, and earning the everlasting ire of Granite State residents? I think not.)
P.S. DNC chairman Howard Dean is from Vermont — New Hampshire’s neighbor to the west. New Hampshire and Vermont do not always get along. This will get ugly fast.
|
Categories: Election 2008
|
August 19th, 2006 at 11:13:12 pm
Ummmm … Brendan … the Sun rose in the East … what do you find surprising in the current Democratic Party leadership doing things like this ?
August 19th, 2006 at 11:53:26 pm
Frankly Alasdair, its utterly ridiculous that in this day and age we place so much emphasis on a state like New Hampshire. And the fact that NH is having a tantrum because it might not be first highlights the problem even more.
August 20th, 2006 at 2:13:04 am
David K: I agree with you in theory. But the system in place has the advantage of 1) making retail politics possible, by allowing a candidate to rise by dint of effort, and 2) making said candidate’s victory or strong showing pay off. All the other suggestions–sectional primaries, a one-day national primary, a first primary in a large state such as California or Florida–tilts everything to name recognition and early money.
What I do love about the primary season is that it does allow a single-digit candidate to gain a head of steam (Gary Hart in 1984 is probably the prototype). My position is that some small state should go first, and that it might as well be New Hampshire. You want Nevada picking the President? (I mean, I love Nevada, especially its Southeast corner, and one Nevada is kind of fun, but come on.)
August 20th, 2006 at 7:05:21 am
David -
I would add something thoughtful, but David nailed it head on. I find the singular emphasis put on NH silly, especially when you end up with a small handful of NE states having their say in the primaries, and then all the other states tend to get stuck with what’s left.
I understand that its far too expensive to hold a national primary all at once, but a rotation of early primaries throughout the states is not only a decent idea, but a good way in getting new blood into the party.
August 20th, 2006 at 9:45:22 am
The DNC is dumb for trying to change this. New Hampshire is mostly inconsequential to who gets the nomination. If it were, our last few Presidents would have consisted of John McCain, Pat Buchanan and Paul Tsongas, who all won the New Hampshire Primary the years they ran. The real test comes when the candidates start hitting the red states like South Carolina anyway.
Also, let’s not forget that Kerry was the candidate of the Democratic establishment in 2004, and look how that turned out. The parties need to spend a little less time trying to game their own nominations and rely more on the voters to decide.
August 20th, 2006 at 10:02:04 am
A few days ago, Brendan asked folks to consider whether or not it was okay for the Pakistanis to use torture to get a confession out of the mastermind of the UK bombing plot. Well, now there are indications that the guy’s statements “under interrogation” don’t jive with reality…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=401426&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=
…If this turns out to be a case of a guy making up shit under duress to stop the torture, what do you say about the use of it then?
August 20th, 2006 at 11:03:21 am
Mad Max, go take another shot of tequila and find a relevant thread. Asshat.
Back to the topic at hand: I agree that depopulated hinterlands which barely deserve to be states only distort the electoral process. All they do in this case (their damage to the Senate aside) is give the media the illusion that there’s an actual contest. And when too many of these bozos get a flush of whimsy, they choose a clown. And when the chosen clown is evil enough, like Buchanan, their choice gives partisans ammo to bash the whole party.
So: f@#$ New Hampshire, f@#$ New England, and put the primaries in places which (1) matter and (2) reflect America’s demographics at the given time. I nominate Missouri and Colorado for the first two primary / caucus states.
August 20th, 2006 at 11:14:49 am
David-
Yeah. I’ll post a comment on a thread from a week ago. Fuck you.
August 20th, 2006 at 1:51:44 pm
Mad Max - so petition Our Fearless Leader and Blog-owner to work his Geek Magic and have any post to which a comment has been added rise to where it’s ahead of the most recent post with no comments …
That way, the posts which arouse no interchange drop off the bottom faster - and the active topics are easier to find and continue …
August 20th, 2006 at 1:55:53 pm
David Ross - don’t get too caught up in the Tyranny of the Simple Majority … there is a reason that the fly-over States have a seeming-disproportionate ability to affect things … and it’s one of the more powerful ‘checks and balances’ of this nation …
Consider this …
Why is only one party squealing like the proverbial stuck pig about this ?
Is each party not equally affected by it ?
Could it be that one party just buys into it way too much … and, by its current indignation, is publicly acknowledging that it keeps choosingthe wrong candidate ?
And the other party keeps adding insult to injury by managing to choose a better candidate in spite of the Primary set-up ?
August 20th, 2006 at 11:34:31 pm
I don’t think you understand the wrath that is boiling in NH. Don’t mess with those Live Free or Die-ers, they’re certifiably crazy! And they will fight their right to a primary to the death. It’s what made that state fun, in a way. Very Patriotic.
August 21st, 2006 at 2:15:37 pm
They should put Us first. / Then everybody would be Obligated to Go to Motherf***ing Connecticut. :]