The Great Primary Calendar re-shuffle Megathread

[BushKenya]

This means with the refusal of Nevada to move its caucus date to January 17.  New Hampshire will likely go December 6 or 13 which is just 7 1/2 - 8 1/2 weeks from now!! The candidates will be spending much of November, including Thanksgiving, almost exclusively in New Hampshire.

As if this presidential race wasn't screwed up enough as it is.

Edit: Won't Iowa have to move its caucus to before NH?

That would mean a November Iowa Caucus

[M]

This means with the refusal of Nevada to move its caucus date to January 17.  New Hampshire will likely go December 6 or 13 which is just 7 1/2 - 8 1/2 weeks from now!! The candidates will be spending much of November, including Thanksgiving, almost exclusively in New Hampshire.

As if this presidential race wasn't screwed up enough as it is.

Edit: Won't Iowa have to move its caucus to before NH?

That would mean a November Iowa Caucus

Jeez. If so, Perry would need to release his ad buys NOW. And time would pretty much be up for anyone else but Cain and maybe Romney to prevail there.

[Lief]

NH going in December and then nothing happening for about a month screws over Mitt Romney hard.

[Mr. Morden]

This means with the refusal of Nevada to move its caucus date to January 17.  New Hampshire will likely go December 6 or 13 which is just 7 1/2 - 8 1/2 weeks from now!! The candidates will be spending much of November, including Thanksgiving, almost exclusively in New Hampshire.

As if this presidential race wasn't screwed up enough as it is.

Edit: Won't Iowa have to move its caucus to before NH?

No, they don't "have to".  It's an open question as to whether they would or not.  My guess is no, they'd just let NH go first if it wants to go in December.  Certainly, Iowa isn't going to move into November, just a few days after Thanksgiving.

NH going in December and then nothing happening for about a month screws over Mitt Romney hard.

Don't worry, because Romney's opponents are here to bail him out:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20119904-503544.html

Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman Thursday threatened to boycott the Nevada primary caucus if officials there keep their date of Jan. 14, just 11 days after the first-in-the-nation voting event in Iowa.

And now Bachmann, Gingrich, and Santorum are saying the same thing (according to Josh McElveen at WMUR....still haven't found a real news article to confirm that):

Twitter link

Twitter link

Will Nevada now fold?  Or do they not care about the second tier candidates skipping their caucus?

[Mr. Morden]

http://www.newhampshire.com/article/20111013/NEWS0605/110609989

Primary Status has learned that following Jon Huntsman's lead on the issue this morning, also pledging to boycott Nevada are Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, with Michele Bachmann also a possibility.

Rick Perry is also considering the move, while Mitt Romney's campaign says he will not boycott.

[New Hampshire] House Speaker Bill O'Brien is calling on candidate to “respect the primary and boycott the Nevada caucus,” said his aid, Greg Moore. The O'Brien move is in reaction to Nevada Republicans' decision to schedule its caucus on Jan. 14, 2012, which may force Secretary of State Bill Gardner to schedule the New Hampshire Primary in December.

Perry is considering boycotting a caucus in a state where the governor has endorsed him?

[Lief]

Wow, what the hell is wrong with these people? Moving NH to December would essentially make it irrelevant, which would be a significant blow to Romney's campaign.

[Mr. Morden]

Here's Nate Silver's take on potential early December NH primary, including this fun graphic showing what the calendar would look like if NH goes on Dec. 6:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/early-new-hampshire-primary-could-backfire-on-romney/

[Yelnoc]

Wow, what the hell is wrong with these people? Moving NH to December would essentially make it irrelevant, which would be a significant blow to Romney's campaign.

They should be applauding New Hampshire's decision, at least in private.  The only person for whom it makes sense to oppose Nevada's early date is Huntsman, who needs to win New Hampshire and then be relevant.

[A dog on every car, a car in every elevator]

http://www.newhampshire.com/article/20111013/NEWS0605/110609989

Primary Status has learned that following Jon Huntsman's lead on the issue this morning, also pledging to boycott Nevada are Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, with Michele Bachmann also a possibility.

Rick Perry is also considering the move, while Mitt Romney's campaign says he will not boycott.

[New Hampshire] House Speaker Bill O'Brien is calling on candidate to “respect the primary and boycott the Nevada caucus,” said his aid, Greg Moore. The O'Brien move is in reaction to Nevada Republicans' decision to schedule its caucus on Jan. 14, 2012, which may force Secretary of State Bill Gardner to schedule the New Hampshire Primary in December.

Perry is considering boycotting a caucus in a state where the governor has endorsed him?

Isn't it obvious Perry would be way smarter to now boycott New Hampshire in defense of Iowa?  It might boost him/damage his rivals there where he has a better chance.  Even if some others joined the boycott of New Hampshire, it'd just put a huge asterisk next to a Romney win there.  Perry is going to get embarrassed in New Hampshire no matter what and he's being handed on a silver state platter, a perfect excuse not to compete there.  You'd think the campaign that dodged Ames to great success would have figured this out by now.

[Likely Voter]

Why is everyone picking on NV and threatening a boycott when it was FL that caused this problem. Plus SC chose to go 10 days before FL, making the problem even worse. If SC went a week before FL, then everyone goes on a Tuesday and everyone gets the same week buffer zone.

[True Federalist]

Why is everyone picking on NV and threatening a boycott when it was FL that caused this problem. Plus SC chose to go 10 days before FL, making the problem even worse. If SC went a week before FL, then everyone goes on a Tuesday and everyone gets the same week buffer zone.

South Carolina has traditionally held the GOP primary on a Saturday and that was not going to change n matter what.  When FL moved to the 31st, that forced SC to the 21st, as they were not going to schedule it 3 days before FL under any circumstances. The Democrats were willing to settle for only 3 days before FL in 2008, but not the GOP, and that was in part to downplay any advantage Obama might gain in South Carolina if Hillary did poorly, which she did.

Nevada wants a Saturday caucus, so that forced them to the 14th.  Nevada was willing to share the date with the the SC GOP Primary in 2008 because for them, the Democratic race was the important one given that Romney was expected to easily win Nevada, which he did, and as I said, the SC Dems obligingly gave Nevada a 7 day window. The Democratic nomination is meaningless this time, so that doesn't pertain.

If the mess is to be straightened out, Florida needs to go later.  The nomination race will still be going strong until at least March, so February 21 would give Florida a two week window in which the candidates would concentrate there. That would also allow both SC and NV to go 1 week later and give NH the room in needs to avoid a December primary.

[Mr. Morden]

If the mess is to be straightened out, Florida needs to go later.

There's no mechanism for that to happen, since the Florida legislature is out of session, and won't be back in session until after the primary.  Besides, Florida doesn't care about New Hampshire going in December.  Why should they care?

Anyway, Florida also wouldn't have scheduled their primary on Jan. 31 if Colorado and Minnesota hadn't scheduled their caucuses for Feb. 7.  It doesn't make much sense to "blame" any one state for this.  It's the "fault" of the entire primary system, in which the national parties set rules with toothless penalties for breaking them, and still expects the individual states to follow their rules, even when they see following the rules as going against their self interests.  As I said a year ago, the RNC was delusional to think that they could successfully move the beginning of primary season back to February, given the way the incentives work, and the fact that a single state can unravel the whole thing.  There's no real way to "fix" this as long as the individual states are running their own elections.

With regard to the candidate boycotts of Nevada.....if it's just Bachmann, Gingrich, Huntsman, and Santorum, then I doubt that'll be enough to get the Nevada GOP to change the Jan. 14 date.  Most of them were never going to campaign much in Nevada anyway.  How many of them will even be in the race by Jan. 14?  Unless Nevada gets some kind of pressure from, say, Romney or Perry or the RNC, I don't see them changing their minds.  Though I wouldn't bet the farm on that.  You never know.

Also, there's a debate in Nevada on Tuesday.  I'm guessing we'll actually get a question in the debate on the primary calendar now, and whether the candidates are going to campaign in Nevada.

EDIT:  Oh, and most of these boycott threats are not really ironclad.  They're mostly saying that if Nevada is within a week of NH, they'll boycott Nevada.  Well, if NH follows through on a move to December, then Nevada stays on Jan. 14 and will not be within a week of NH.  Does that mean no boycott?  Only Santorum specifically says he will boycott the state if it stays on Jan. 14:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65930.html

[Mr. Morden]

Romney, Perry, and Paul all say they will not join a boycott of Nevada:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/13/huntsman-to-boycott-nv-in-favor-of-nh/

The only major candidate who hasn't weighed in is Cain.

[BushKenya]

Is there still a meeting scheduled for Sunday to determine the dates for Iowa and New Hampshire?  What time is that meeting scheduled for?  A third question, will we have a definite calendar with Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada by the time we wake up Monday morning or will this linger for a couple more weeks closer to Halloween?

[Mr. Morden]

Cain will boycott Nevada as well:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66013.html

but that doesn't seem to apply to the debate being held there in a few days.  Most of the candidates will participate in the debate (except Huntsman), but the only ones promising to campaign in Nevada after that are Romney, Perry, and Paul.

Is there still a meeting scheduled for Sunday to determine the dates for Iowa and New Hampshire?  What time is that meeting scheduled for?  A third question, will we have a definite calendar with Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada by the time we wake up Monday morning or will this linger for a couple more weeks closer to Halloween?

The meeting on Sunday is just for the Iowa GOP.  It is likely that they'll vote on an Iowa caucus date at that time.

I don't know when Bill Gardner will decide the NH primary date.  He could easily take the decision into November with him.  There's no way to know.

Regarding a "definite" decision from Nevada.....as far as the Nevada GOP is concerned, they've already made it "definite", and they're voting on Jan. 14.  Of course, it's still theoretically possible for them to change their minds, just like it's theoretically possible for virtually any of the caucus states to change their minds.  That doesn't mean they're likely to do so though.

[Mr. Morden]

A December primary in NH would strain the finances of cities across the state, since they haven't budgeted for it:

http://www.wmur.com/new-hampshire-primary-extended-coverage/29488154/detail.html

Most town budgets lack the money for the primary to be held before January. Linxweiler said that if the primary is pushed to December, the town would somehow have to come up with extra money.

Also, it looks like a NH primary on Jan. 3 may be logistically impossible for Manchester:

Manchester has another possible complication. If the primary was moved to Jan. 3, the city would have a difficult time taking part.

"There are no ward moderators, there are no selectmen, because we all must be sworn in that day," Gatsas said. "By our charter, it says on the first Tuesday of January, we must be sworn in, and that's Jan. 3."

[A dog on every car, a car in every elevator]

Bachmann boycotting Nevada.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-bachmann-nevada-20111014,0,4796870.story?track=icymi

[Joe Republic]

I like how this mess is all Nevada's fault, and in no way Florida's (or New Hampshire's). 

In fact, New Hampshire's argument makes little sense.  If they feel like Nevada is forcing them to push their primary forward, why did they never do so when Iowa first jumped ahead of them?  Oh yeah, because they have caucuses, not a primary, so it never really mattered as far as they were concerned.  So what the frick is the difference here?

[Tender Branson]

For the future, I would favor a system like the one that is used in the Champions League group draw, in which there would be pots for 10 groups of 5 states each. And every week for 10 weeks in a row there would be primaries held in 5 states that were drawn before into this group.

Or eleven weeks/groups, with the overseas territories.

[Mr. Morden]

If NH does go for December, will Iowa follow them into December to maintain their first in the nation status?  No one really knows:

http://ames.patch.com/articles/iowans-split-on-leapfrogging-election-contestssome-iowans-shrug-off-possible-2011-contests-and-say-keep-caucus-in-january

[Likely Voter]

but then wouldnt NH jump back into January once IA jumped out?

[State Comptroller Atkins]

If NH does go for December, will Iowa follow them into December to maintain their first in the nation status?  No one really knows:

http://ames.patch.com/articles/iowans-split-on-leapfrogging-election-contestssome-iowans-shrug-off-possible-2011-contests-and-say-keep-caucus-in-january

If New Hampshire sets it's date for December 6th, and Iowa still wants to go first, then wouldn't Iowa have to be held in November?

[Mr. Morden]

but then wouldnt NH jump back into January once IA jumped out?

Maybe, but not necessarily.  The whole thing's rather unclear.  Like I said a few posts ago, Jan. 3 would be logistically difficult for Manchester (NH's largest city).  But then, December is logistically difficult as well.

If NH does go for December, will Iowa follow them into December to maintain their first in the nation status?  No one really knows:

http://ames.patch.com/articles/iowans-split-on-leapfrogging-election-contestssome-iowans-shrug-off-possible-2011-contests-and-say-keep-caucus-in-january

If New Hampshire sets it's date for December 6th, and Iowa still wants to go first, then wouldn't Iowa have to be held in November?

I doubt Gardner is serious about Dec. 6.  If he goes with December, it'll probably be mid-December.

[BushKenya]

but then wouldnt NH jump back into January once IA jumped out?

Maybe, but not necessarily.  The whole thing's rather unclear.  Like I said a few posts ago, Jan. 3 would be logistically difficult for Manchester (NH's largest city).  But then, December is logistically difficult as well.

If NH does go for December, will Iowa follow them into December to maintain their first in the nation status?  No one really knows:

http://ames.patch.com/articles/iowans-split-on-leapfrogging-election-contestssome-iowans-shrug-off-possible-2011-contests-and-say-keep-caucus-in-january

If New Hampshire sets it's date for December 6th, and Iowa still wants to go first, then wouldn't Iowa have to be held in November?

I doubt Gardner is serious about Dec. 6.  If he goes with December, it'll probably be mid-December.

He could go with December 13 or even 20 as the latter is still the week before Christmas Day.  Really, the only Tuesday that is off the table is probably December 27 as that is Christmas/New Years vacation week.

[Meeker]

I don't think Gardner can go in December due to military absentee ballot rules.