One man right now has the final "piece of the puzzle" that needs to be put into place for our Secretary of State to be able to announce a date for the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary. With putting forward the reality of "The December Option" for New Hampshire, other pieces have already fallen into place: Nevada has agreed not to move up but to stay on Saturday, January 19th; Iowa Republicans have agreed to hold their caucuses on Thursday, January 3rd; and Iowa Democrats are close to confirming that they will hold their caucus on that same day. All that opens the second week of January for New Hampshire, and takes discussion of "The December Option" off the table for sure.

For sure, except for one more puzzle piece...

United States Senator Carl Levin of Michigan does good work. As a fellow Democrat, I find him to be courageous, visionary, and certainly experienced. Quite seriously, he is a good man. If he was running for President I'd be giving him a serious look.

Senator Levin has been a national leader on health care accessibility, the minimum wage, senior citizens, and he's gone after corporations through his investigations on Enron and other company abuses. He's worked on campaign finance reform and government openness, things close to my heart, and he's been against the War in Iraq and joined with Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed in offering an amendment this year to reduce troop levels and get us out of what has become a civil war. As a sponsor of the NH House Resolution on Iraq earlier this year, I commend him for that effort.

Right now, Senator Carl Levin is up for my choice of Person Of The Month, and he will win it if he puts the final puzzle piece into the place it belongs. It is he who has been threatening to move Michigan from a likely Tuesday, January 15th date to the same day as New Hampshire's Primary, thus making it impossible for our Secretary of State to set our date, yet.

However, Senator Levin just these past couple of days has been indicating he might -- might -- be willing to firm up the Tuesday, January 15th timeslot for Michigan. That would then allow us to know our own primary date rather soon.

If Carl Levin affirms January 15th, he will win my heart, and a lot of thank you's from Presidential candidates of both parties, their staff, and voters here and elsewhere.

We know that Senator Levin doesn't like New Hampshire a whole lot. At least not our First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary. I'm sure he'd like our foliage, our maple syrup, and maybe even our lobsters. But he thinks our clout in the presidential selection process is way too much.

He makes his views powerfully known. And his power in his own state is obvious since he's almost single-handedly held up the process of our Secretary of State being able to announce a date for our primary, and because of that has made "The December Option" for New Hampshire a real possibility.
...more...

Continue reading "Is The Last NH Presidential Primary Puzzle Piece In The Hand Of Michigan US Senator Carl Levin?" »

Posted by Jim Splaine at 08:44 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

First, a little explanation and history about something I've been hearing a lot lately...

WHY BILL GARDNER? Since I have been so close to the cause of preserving New Hampshire's First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary, dating back to the early 1970s even before Bill Gardner became Secretary of State, I've often been asked why he and he alone has the power to set our primary date. It is a lot of power, and he uses it with care and class.

That "one-call" authority goes back to the first bill about the primary that I introduced in 1975. Initially, I was thinking that a committee to select the primary date would be a good idea. I considered having the Governor, Senate President, House Speaker, and the State Democratic and Republican Party Chairs do it together -- set the New Hampshire date a week ahead of other primaries, and do it jointly by consensus or a vote.

I discussed that concept with then-Governor Meldrim Thomson, and he asked me whether that would remove politics from the decision, or make it worse. That was his somewhat diplomatic way of telling me, "don't be crazy." I gather he had some experience getting people to agree by consensus on things. There's a longer story to it all, but his question got me thinking that indeed if we did create a committee, as some people today would like to do, we'd have a lot of politics involved in the process. Setting the date of our primary shouldn't be based on which party might benefit or not, or which presidential candidate would have an advantage over another. Our Secretary of State cannot make a deal with any party, candidate, or state as he sets our primary date. And that's a good thing.

I decided on giving the sole authority to the Secretary of State, without even talking with the man then holding that job about taking it -- yes, in a galaxy long, long ago we did have a Secretary of State before Bill Gardner. Fact is, that process of a "one-call" primary date has worked very well since 1980 when Bill Gardner first used his authority. He sets our date by using his combination of patience, intelligence, great human skills, and did I mention patience?

A lot of pressure is on Bill Gardner right now. But can you just imagine what would happen if the decision was by a committee of individuals who would negotiate with the candidates they endorse and the powers-who-be of the national parties and other states? What a nightmare. Bill is handling the job well, although at times I bet he does have some nightmares of his own.

Back to the setting of the date for the 2008 election, a couple of weeks ago when I introduced the thought of a primary date on or about December 11th, I did so with the intention of encouraging some discussion about our options and alternatives. In that way, it sure has, and that's a good thing.

That thinking and discussion has to continue just a little longer, because right now New Hampshire is in quite a box, but we have the opportunity to get out of the box.

Here is "The New Hampshire Primary Dilemma Of 2007/2008:"

THE BOX WE'RE IN: If I had my preference, I'd like to see the NH Presidential Primary held in March, a week or more ahead of other states. Then the primaries and caucuses could go through to June or so. But that's not going to happen. It's a new world.

Other than looking at a December option, we're really limited to Tuesday, January 8th, Wednesday, January 9th, and Thursday, January 10th as the only possible dates that I can see. I'd like to hear alternatives, but really -- what are they?

Right now, we're looking at a "33 Day National Primary." There will essentially be a one month national primary and caucus system. Through no doing of our own, we are starting the process on January 3rd in Iowa, and ending it on February 5th in a bundle of states. It will start, and stop, within a time period of just 33 days. That's just about 800 hours, give or take a couple. Not good. Our primaries and caucuses used to be a "season" that began in February or March, and continued through June. Not this time.

"Backloading" remains a role that New Hampshire can fill if the Secretary of State moves into December. Consider that as a real reason for looking at a December option. Only he right now can add three weeks to the process -- making the election season from December 11th or so to February 5th, instead of January 3rd to February 5th. It should scare all of us to know that the national parties are trying to get this over so quickly.

THE PRIMARY/CAUCUS SCHEDULE: One cannot consider the need of a December option for New Hampshire without seeing the big picture of what is happening in January. Fortunately at the moment, part of the potential schedule of state primaries and caucuses is still in flux, so New Hampshire doesn't need to move into December unless forced to. All the tea leaves aren't sorted quite yet.

But here's the problem: As things have shaped up or shaken out, the Iowa Republicans have chosen a date of Thursday, January 3rd for their caucuses. Iowa Democrats are leaning toward that date or Saturday, January 5th, and may be considering Monday, January 14th. A lot of logistics have to be planned for a caucus so they require more lead-time than New Hampshire does. If Iowa Democrats go to Thursday, January 3rd with their Republican neighbors, and Michigan remains on Tuesday, January 15th, we end up having a good possibility of going to Tuesday, January 8th. Not an ideal situation, but not bad either.

But if Iowa Democrats go to Saturday, January 5th, that gives Democrat Presidential candidates just Sunday and Monday to campaign here if New Hampshire's Primary is on Tuesday, January 8th. And, we still don't know for sure what Michigan is planning. U.S. Senator Carl Levin of that state says he is committed to reducing New Hampshire's role in this process. I first met him in November of 1999 at a Washington meeting at the National Democratic Headquarters when he spoke against New Hampshire's status. I don't think he likes us much, but I bet he'd love our foliage this time of year.

...more... That December Option & Getting To "Yes" On January ...more...

Continue reading "Our New Hampshire Presidential Primary Dilemma - Putting The Puzzle Together" »

Posted by Jim Splaine at 06:28 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

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, while most others then thought it would 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 ours 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, that 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...

Continue reading "How About A December New Hampshire Presidential Primary?" »

Posted by Jim Splaine at 11:10 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)