Oy Vey... 'Iowa, New Hampshire Threaten Nation With Early Start To 2012 Primary Season' - HuffPo

[WillyT]

Iowa, New Hampshire Threaten Nation With Early Start To 2012 Primary Season
Jason Linkins - HuffingtonPost
Posted: 12-28-10 04:43 PM

<snip>

...

Now, I have nothing against this, per se, as this arrangement provides an opportunity to finally punish the nation's political reporters for their various sins. Over time, however, voters in the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary have wielded an enormous influence over the larger race for the presidential nominations, with the winners of each anointed with "momentum," and thus a more favorable spate of coverage. (Some fifth place winners are accorded "Joementum," which matters nary a whit to anyone.) Other states bristle at this, because by the time the race for the nomination wends its way around to their voters, the game is basically over.

And so, there's always pressure to make the primary system more equitable. And some states take it upon themselves to straight up muscle in on the turf claimed by Iowa and New Hampshire. That creates a crazy situation where everyone is threatening to move up their primaries to earlier and earlier dates. And that's where we find ourselves today, per Michael Shear in The New York Times:

Officials in both Iowa and New Hampshire are talking once again about moving their contests earlier in 2012 as a way of ensuring that they will remain the first caucus or primary of the next presidential campaign.

As reported by the veteran political reporter John Distaso on Christmas Eve, New Hampshire's secretary of state, Bill Gardner, has warned that the Republican primary may have to be moved up because the proposed Feb. 14 date would land only four days before Nevada's Feb. 18 caucus -- a violation of New Hampshire laws that require the primary to take place a week before a "similar election" is held elsewhere. (Except Iowa, of course.)

If New Hampshire moves, that could force Iowa -- which has similar rules about putting some distance before another state's voting -- into January. That would break a gentleman's agreement between the two parties to try to keep the official start of the 2012 voting in February, where it was for decades -- before that, voting didn't begin in Iowa and New Hampshire until March.

<snip>

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/28/iowa-new-hampshire-threat_n_802084.html

:banghead:

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. Huh? Jan 2008 Primary Schedule:

January 3: Iowa (caucuses)
January 5: Wyoming (GOP caucuses)
January 8: New Hampshire (primary)
January 15: Michigan
January 19: Nevada (precinct caucuses), South Carolina (R primary)
January 26: South Carolina (D primary)
January 29: Florida

[Liberal Veteran]

2. I think some state ought to move their primary to 12:00:000001 am on Jan. 1 2012

Just to piss them off.

Nothing against New Hampshire and Iowa, but their little game of "me first" is stupid.

[AndyTiedye]

3. New Hampshire is One of the Reasons We Can't Have a Progressive Nominee

New Hampshire is where progressive campaigns die.

[Little Star]

4. I believe that progressive campaigns die before the NH primary.

TPTB will never allow us to really have a progressive as our nominee. I don't believe we are actually allowed to pick our own candidate in a primary anymore than we can in a general. The media makes sure that everything goes exactly as planned. Yep, I'm cynical.

[tinymontgomery]

5. Why don't they just start on

January 1st 2011, that's all were going to hear about for the next two years.

[NYC Liberal]

6. Whatever schedule works in favor of Palin, imo.

I am REALLY hoping she is the GOP nominee. Oh what a gift it would be!