Primary Calendar Happenings

by Chris Bowers, Mon May 28, 2007 at 08:32:04 AM EDT

Michigan is not mobbing to January 29th, as I have often assumed. Last week I received the following bit of information from an anonymous source:
My local Democratic club, and my county party, have been told to secure caucus sites for December 8th and 15th, and January 5th and 12th, along with our scheduled February 9th. The list of sites are to be submitted by June 1st, so it would seem these are the only possible 5 dates.
Personally, despite repeated threats and a clear desire to be one of the earliest states, I doubt that Michigan will have the guts to move to either December of early January. Even if they did move early, it is hard for me to imagine that any of the major candidates would take such a move seriously and compete there. Then again, I thought Michigan was going to move to January 29th, so maybe no one should listen to me when it comes to figuring out the Michigan caucus.

Also, Texas has pulled out of Super Duper Tuesday, Pennsylvania isn't signing up, Montana has bowed out, and Kansas does not appear eager to join up either. However, with little opposition, February 5th legislation has moved forward in Illinois, Georgia, Connecticut. Mark those three down. Right now, about the only February 5th question mark is North Carolina, which has introduced legislation to move to February 5th, but has not acted on that legislation in over three months.

So, here is my best guess at the developing Democratic primary calendar:
  • January 7th: Iowa (rationale)
  • January 15th: New Hampshire (because Iowa and South Carolina will move)
  • January 19th: Nevada
  • January 22nd: South Carolina (rationale)
  • January 29th: Florida
  • February 5th: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah
While still clearly delegate rich, the lack of Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania and, on the Democratic side, Michigan, has made February 5th a little less "Super Duper." Still, the 19 states currently listed on February 5th represent more than 45% of the country's population. Interestingly, February 5th now has a decidedly western, or at least California, flavor to it. This is especially the case if one removes Illinois, New York and North Carolina from the equation, considering those are the home states of Obama, Clinton and Edwards respectively. Representing about 40% of the remaining February 5th delegates, California might end up being the big winner and big decider after all. Then again, it is hard to imagine California making some sort of California specific decision that is free of early state influence and momentum. All of these states February 5th states will probably just end up voting the way the post-Iowa and New Hampshire media narratives tell them to vote.

Tags: President 2008, Primary calendar (all tags)

  • 24 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

24 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings

So where does early voting fit in if this ends up being the new calendar?

by adamterando 2007-05-28 08:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings
people that early vote generally are votes that are very commited to a candidate and wouldn't be
swept away by "momentum".
by nevadadem 2007-05-28 08:58AM | 0 recs
4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings

That's actually not true. There's mobilization involved as well, so sometimes low info voters. I think Henry was really right on target here with the importance of early voting for Clinton.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-05-29 06:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings
Chuck Todd still has it right I think, Iowa and NH are even more important than ever because the media narrative of the race is set up that way, take Hillary, if she wins Iowa and NH she is inevitable and the talk will ber about who her VEEP will be, however if she does badly in Iowa and NH indies go to Obama, the narritive in the race will be that Hillary is unelectable, even voters in Cali that like her will wonder why she did so badly in the 2 swing states where voters really get to know the candidates. In modern times
only Bill Clinton overcame a bad start and thats because Iowa was off the table and the NH narrative was convincing and look at his opposition, Tsongas come on....
by nevadadem 2007-05-28 08:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings

Rhode Island is about to be added for February 5th as well.

by mattmfm 2007-05-28 09:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings

I disagree.  Early voting in Feb. 5th states will be a huge factor.  I know in California, the number of people voting early has gone up every year, regardless the type of election.  It is very convenient, and traditional poll voters are fast becoming accustomed to doing it.

The memo from Hillary's campaign is not some crazy idea.  Early voting has changed the way campaigns strategize, especially with GOTV.

by stuckinsf 2007-05-28 09:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings

Early voting is important but the people that are "undecided" or the soft supporters that decide who actually wins are not voting a month out, remember Kerry got all his votes out in Iowa early and still lost the state. It does hurt the candidates a little who have no organization or money in the big states thought which is another reason Edwards is not going to be the nominee. I  think barring Gore it's Obama or Hillary, despit all who wish otherwise.

by nevadadem 2007-05-28 09:38AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings

I have never seen any statistics saying those who vote by early voting are more strongly for a particular candidate.

by robliberal 2007-05-28 09:51AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings

Edwards is likely to have the unions organising for him in those large states after they make their endorsements in the mid to late summer. It's not like they aren't aware of the early voting issue so they'll be bound to address it in some way. They've still got plenty of time.

Early voting is actually a really, really great situation for strong field campaigns to make a real impact. If they can move in lock in their core supporters early they can't lose them later for whatever reason and they can keep on working their database to get their targeted voters to vote. It's basically like election day gotv to the nth degree and that's where very well organised field can really shine. Labor unions are great a field.

by Quinton 2007-05-29 07:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings

Except a lot of Californians are perennial absentee voters and will have already voted by the time those narratives develop. I'll be voting in CA against Hillary on January 7th.

by Bob Brigham 2007-05-28 09:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings


I harbor the furtive hope that Super-Duper Tuesday will be a split decision in both parties.  Maybe the conventional wisdom will prove correct.  But there's at least a chance that a semi-national primary will give about the same results as the national polls, leaving us with 2-3 first-tier candidates on each side in mid-February.  

I hope this for many reasons, not least of which is that I have always considered primary politics a lifelong subject of harmless fun.  I fall into the (small? large?) fraction of American voters for whom the general election is, in a sense, boring.  I know, today, that in November 08 I will vote for the Democrat (no matter who) over ANY Republican.  Surely there is also some fraction (smaller? larger?) of American voters who take the opposite stance.  They deserve their fun, too.

Speaking of which, does anybody know if that specific question has been polled on a national scale?  It seems to me that the FUNCTIONAL definition of a Dem (or a Rep) in the presidential race is:  will you sign up, today, to vote for your party's candidate over the other party's candidate, regardless who either of them ends up being?  Any bets on what would be the percentages in such a poll?

-- TP

by Rethymniotis 2007-05-28 09:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings

Is there anyone besides me who thinks this is just insane?  I'd really like to see everyone take a deep breath and move one month forward instead of back so the super primary takes place March 4 and no one goes until Iowa on February 4.  Even better, lets start the process in March.  This is just nuts, and the public will be sick of the candidates come September of next year.  Choosing a nominee early isn't going to make Bush leave any sooner.  And although I grant it will help the Dems achieve a single dominant voice, I'm not sure it will be the one I want.

by Mimikatz 2007-05-28 09:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings
Does anybody know which of these states are winner take all and which are proportional?
by dougdilg 2007-05-28 09:46AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings

I believe that there are no longer any winner-take-all Democratic primaries.

by rocric 2007-05-28 12:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings

I believe that there are no longer any winner-take-all Democratic primaries.

by rocric 2007-05-28 12:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings

This time around the New Hampshire, Iowa etc. votes will be totally meaningless. Count the delegates and spend your money where it will really count. No one gives a damn about Iowa and New Hampshire anymore.

by joliepoint 2007-05-28 11:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings

sounds like a Wesley Clark and Joe Lieerman talking point.

by nevadadem 2007-05-28 12:03PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings

Even if early voting starts January 7th in CA, the IA caucuses will have happened on Jan. 7th if they move their caucus, which appears likely to happen,

Then I donot think early voting will have as big an impact as if it stays on Jan. 14th,

If IA moves it up even more than early voting has an even more negligible effect.

by BDM 2007-05-28 12:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Florida primary invalid

It seems that the Dnc has decided that if the flordia primary is held on Jan 29th the Delegates selected will be invalidated

by orin76 2007-05-28 12:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Florida primary invalid

Although both national parties have rules that penalize state parties for moving their primaries up too early, Democrats have harsher ones. Candidates who campaign in Florida would forfeit any delegates won in the state on Jan. 29, according to the new rule adopted by the Democratic National Committee last year. The result could be a candidate winning the popular vote, but earning zero delegates -- the key tally for determining the eventual nominee.

With each state a candidate wins, the candidate is awarded delegates. The candidate with the most delegates becomes the party's nominee.

by orin76 2007-05-28 12:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings

Miranda said they are giving Florida Democrats some options to get around the messy problem. Under one plan, Florida Democrats would voluntarily make the vote on Jan. 29 meaningless, and hold a second nominating process, likely a caucus, more than a week later.

by orin76 2007-05-28 12:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings

This pretty much nullifies the big move bt the DNC to insert Nevada between Iowa and New Hampshire.  Why are we talking about Florida and not Nevada?  In the original scenario, Nevada (by the polls) looked like the big Hillary wall post Iowa that would stop the Iowa/New Hampshire momentum (remember when Dean and Clark were vying for the New Hampshire lead before Kerry 's Iowas win swept all).  

Frankly, I thought that New Hampshire was becoming irrelevant and now, they may be back in the game.

Can Nevada stay between Iowa and New Hampshire?

by David Kowalski 2007-05-29 06:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
We don't need no stinkin' narrative

I don't think the Iowa/New Hampshire narrative is going to matter much.  Supporters of the second-tier candidates might switch to the three or four candidates who still appear viable, but why would voters in California (for example) who finally get a chance for their votes to help determine the nominee (perhaps for the first time in their lives), care one iota what a few thousand people in New Hampshire think?

by Lex 2007-05-29 08:12AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Primary Calendar Happenings

Because of all of the attention the MSM will give to that winner. Advertising works THAT IS WHY IT IS DONE TO SELL PRODUCTS.

Most people donot pay that close attention to voting untill an election is very near. Their is a band wagon effect and people like to vote for a winner. The media attention will splash all over the California market. You cannot buy enough TV time to challenge that free media attention.

by BDM 2007-05-29 08:19AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------