A few days ago I mentioned the important role that the Democratic and Republican National Committees have in maintaining the importance and relevance of the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary. We will be first by "...7 days or more..." according to our state law, but it is in large part up to the national parties to discourage other states from coming too close to the our lead-off event. With Wyoming, Florida, Michigan, South Carolina. and others making moves, the "penalties" threatened by the DNC and the RNC toward other states moving up their primaries and caucuses have been hard-nosed and hard-ball.

New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley has taken a new leading role, joined by an impressive list of leaders from other states, to stop the crawl of some states coming earlier and earlier. We've seen states already go from February to January, and there is indeed a possibility that they'll take their time machine politics back to the Holidays of his year, if something isn't done by party leaders.

I like most of those efforts, but I can't say I support the "pledge" approach of getting presidential candidates so sign a loyalty agreement not to campaign in any other state -- other than New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, and Nevada -- outside the previously agreed-to Democratic Party schedule.

However, the pledge idea is worthy of the discussion because it hits home the important point that the front-loading we're seeing doesn't help anyone. And it also makes clear that the other states have to decide -- sooner than later -- when their primaries or caucuses will be, so that our Secretary of State can fulfill his lawful obligation to set our primary date "...7 days or more..." ahead of any similar event.

1. The loyalty pledge idea bothers me, and always has, especially because the way we go about successfully remaining first and relevant for the 2008 election cycle will have great impact on the way we go about successfully remaining first and relevant for the 2012 election cycle. A pledge then, if successful now, can be used against us.

2. I have long studied the NH Presidential Primary process ever since I got involved in this cause in the early 1970s, and I'm convinced there are only three ways we can lose our "first" status: 1, by Congressional action, though very doubtful; 2, by an effective bi-partisan boycott of New Hampshire, which might well be mounted against us in 2012; and 3, by the candidates just stopping coming here.

3. This "pledge" is all about precedent -- if a pledge works FOR us now, it can well be used AGAINST us later. Numbers "2" and "3" above can be successfully turned against us later if loyalty pledges work now.

Continue reading "We Can Keep The New Hampshire Presidential Primary Without Resorting To "Loyalty Pledges"" »

Posted by Jim Splaine at 09:31 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, I think we're getting close to having the date of the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary firmed up. Right now, I'm expecting it to be Tuesday, January 8th. At least I hope I'm in the correct year.
Throughout the years that I've worked on this cause -- dating back to even before the 1980 election cycle when Secretary of State Bill Gardner set his first primary date according to the state law -- I've learned that it's an evolutionary process. Our "lead-off" position doesn't happen automatically, and it needs a lot of maneuvering. We've given Bill Gardner the tools he has needed in the laws we have passed dating to 1975 and updated several times since -- but he's the carpenter and he uses those tools very well.

The 2008 Presidential Election cycle has probably been his greatest challenge yet. During the past two years he and I have had the fun, if it can be said to be so, of meeting and talking dozens of times and many dozens of hours about the strategies to keep New Hampshire "...seven days or more..." ahead of any other primary. When the Democratic National Committee began its games a couple of years ago to set Nevada ahead of New Hampshire and in other ways dilute New Hampshire's influence and relevance to the presidential selection process, both he and I said we'd be okay, that New Hampshire would indeed be first, and that the predictions of some pundits that we were about to lose our status were a lot off-base.

The past two weeks Bill has come under some criticism for a couple of his public positions on the actions of South Carolina and Michigan. I have too, since I've stood with him. He asked me to join him at a news conference when the South Carolina Republican Chair visited the State House to announce the date of January 19th for the Republican Party primary in his state. Bill thanked him for his visit here, and I said I was pleased South Carolina Republicans were at least setting their date, because it would encourage other states to firm up theirs - - especially Michigan, where Democrats in particular have threatened to withhold their date until New Hampshire sets ours, which would create quite a lot of confusion come November or December.

Continue reading "For New Hampshire's Presidential Primary: How About Tuesday, January 8, 2008?" »

Posted by Jim Splaine at 11:34 PM| Permalink | Comments (1)