( - promoted by Dean Barker)
As way of introduction to this idea, if you've been hearing my commentary in Blogs and speeches about the New Hampshire Presidential Primary for a while, you'll note that I've been rather close in some of my predictions. Since I've been working on the cause of keeping New Hampshire "first" and "relevant" longer than most, dating back to the early 1970s, I have seen a lot of strategies employed -- both by our state, and others, and participated in some of those strategies.
When the Democratic National Committee began playing games with the schedule some two years ago and a lot of people said New Hampshire wouldn't survive their sanctions, I said we would, we'd remain "first," and we'd be ahead of Nevada. At this point, Nevada is quite irrelevant to the discussion, and they certainly won't come before us. And about a year ago I suggested we might even see the NH Primary scheduled in the first two weeks of January, when most others thought it might be January 22nd. Now, January 8th is about the latest most people are anticipating that it will be.
Well, now I'd like to introduce another thought -- for others' comments and talk --and that's of a December date.
Just during the past couple of days, there have been strong indications that both Democrats and Republicans in Iowa have determined that they are going to have their Caucuses on Thursday, January 3rd. There is also a possibility the Republicans will hold their Caucus on that date, with the Democrats going Saturday, January 5th.
In light of that, let's do some serious thinking about the options for the date of the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Primary, and also take a look at our opportunities.
If Iowa does go January 3rd or 5th, the problem with setting our date for Tuesday, January 8th would be that for the entire Holiday Season, the Presidential candidates of both parties may well camp out in Iowa. It's not that we should be jealous about that. That's not the point. But the Iowa Caucus is not a real election -- it is an organizational event where it takes intense staff and special interest groups to get their most dedicated supporters to the meeting rooms throughout Iowa on a cold Winter night to stand up, publicly, and "be counted" for their choice. In other words, it's not much of a secret vote, like a "real" election is. The New Hampshire Primary IS a real election, where people go to the polls and vote in privacy to choose their nominee. A Caucus isn't much more than a straw poll, which Iowa's Republicans already had -- a straw poll without the right to vote in secret.
I have no problem with the Iowa Caucus going first before New Hampshire, as has been traditional back to 1972, but I've been concerned that the Iowa Caucus this election cycle is potentially having way too much influence on whether candidates of either party will even remain as candidates after that event is held. It is very likely we'll see some candidates drop out after Iowa, even though a real election won't even have occurred yet.
So, with the very serious possibility that the Iowa Caucuses will be on January 3rd, New Hampshire now has to make a choice. Should we have our primary right after Iowa, with a reduced "window" between it and us, or use this opportunity to have our Presidential Primary during the first two weeks of December? The second Tuesday in December is the 11th, and that date would do some interesting things for us:
1. A NH Primary on or around December 11th would give the Presidential candidates of both parties an opportunity to focus on real voters for the next two months. Our Secretary of State has already announced the Presidential Primary filing period for October 15th to November 2nd. By filing their candidacies, that's the best "pledge" to run here that we can get from the candidates themselves. So by November 2nd, we'll know for sure who is on the ballot, and those ballots can go to the printers. If about the time the filing period ends he sets our official date for sometime during the first two weeks of December, that prevents any other state from jumping ahead of us -- thus guaranteeing our state law requirement of "...7 days or more..." before a similar election. Plus, it pre-dates Iowa by a good three weeks.
2. A NH Primary on or around December 11th would encourage the Presidential candidates and their campaigns to spend intensive, quality time here for all of November into the first week or two of December. We could ask for nothing better for democracy than having some concentrated time with the candidates -- face to face, eye to eye, one-on-one, New Hampshire-style; before the campaigning in the bigger states which vote on January 29th and February 5th really gets underway.
3. A NH Primary on or around December 11th would mean that after our event, the "winners" and those "exceeding expectations" would be exposed to a great deal of nationwide analysis during the Holiday Season as to just why they did so well, or not, and how their showing in New Hampshire will affect the next race in Iowa and other states beginning the first week of January. That contributes to the respected "impact" of the NH lead-off primary, and sets us in good position to remain first and relevant for 2012 and beyond.
4. A NH Primary on or around December 11th would considerably "backload" the "frontloading" of the current schedule, where so many states are going to be holding their election events on January 29th and February 5th. Face it, if the contests begin on January 3rd in Iowa, then New Hampshire (8th?), then maybe Nevada (12th?), then Michigan (15th), then South Carolina (19th), with lots of states scheduled for January 29th and February 5th (Florida, New Jersey, New York, California, Connecticut, Tennessee, Georgia, Alaska, Minnesota, Missouri, and several others), it will all be over in a month. If the NH Primary is moved up a full three weeks or so into December, we can fulfill the role of spreading out the process very, very well, and reduce the impact of the current frontloading.
5. A NH Primary on or around December 11th would greatly enhance the importance of doing well in New Hampshire, yet allow candidates who don't finish so well some time to recover their campaigns. No state, whether Iowa or New Hampshire or any other, should be able to by itself render the knock-out punch to a candidate. We're not about that, nor should we let Iowa be.
...more... |
| The New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary has never been "about us." And the law dating back to the 1970s giving our Secretary of State the authority to set the date of the NH Primary "...7 days or more..." before a similar election is meant to do more than just preserve a tradition. The New Hampshire Presidential Primary is about continuing an election process where people can dream about running for President without having to sell their souls on the issues just to be popular, or sell their future administrations to special interests just to have the money to run. By making sure that we continue to be relevant to the process, we're serving democracy.
Most of the presidential campaigns have been well underway for a year or more, so by setting our primary in December it's not like we're starting the election process itself any earlier. And while we'd be losing the attention of the candidates in those weeks of the Holidays leading to January 8th, we'd be gaining their more intense campaigning here throughout November into December.
Consider that if we do go January 8th shortly after Iowa, the candidates will only have divided time between here and there in December, perhaps focusing on Iowa. If we went to January 15th, the same day as Michigan's "beauty contest," we'd be sharing the January 16th headlines and impact with whatever happened in Michigan, and besides a lot of candidates would be spread out after Iowa from here, to Michigan, and to the South and West where other states are about to hold their contests within the following couple of weeks.
And most importantly, we'd be contributing to spreading out the election calendar so that all the voters' decision-making isn't just from January 3rd through February 5th.
Give an early-December date some thought. Talk about it. Consider the alternatives. I'm not necessarily proposing it yet, but I'm offering it to get us to think even more about our options, which is all part of the process of our Secretary of State setting our date. I think he's listening to all ideas, and it's his decision to make rather soon.
I hope he's not drinking too much coffee. |
