This Day In The Constant Crisis Of The 2012 Primary Calendar

Emily Schultheis points us to Thursday morning's First Read column, which outlines in four paragraphs what is happening with the 2012 primary calendar. As you probably already know, Iowa and New Hampshire are, by divine fiat, the "first-in-the-nation" contests, and everyone who's not "first-in-the-nation" resents this, and so with each new cycle, we get various states waging the Global War On The Primary Calendar. The upshot? Brace yourself for the nightmare scenario!

According to Republicans monitoring this subject, there are two different timeline scenarios. The first is the RNC-sanctioned February start date: Iowa goes Feb. 6, New Hampshire Feb. 14, Nevada, Feb. 18, South Carolina Feb. 28, and Super Tuesday is March 6. The second is the more chaotic January (or even December) start date: States like Arizona and Florida -- risking losing half their delegates and other penalties -- set their primaries early, pushing Iowa, New Hampshire, and other states into January or earlier. Which scenario is more likely? Although this remains a fluid situation, one plugged-in Republican eyeing the calendar process for one of the campaigns says there’s a “99%” chance it begins in early January instead of February. So start making your New Year’s Eve plans in Des Moines now. Or at least buy refundable air tickets.

You see, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has until Sept. 2 to decide if she wants to move Arizona's primary to Jan. 31, and officials in Florida are contemplating doing something similar. If they decide to do this, Iowa and New Hampshire -- which actually has a state law mandating this -- will likely be compelled to move up the schedule. South Carolina and Nevada may follow suit. And then everyone's still unsatisfied! (Especially political reporters!)

And that's before we get into a half-page worth of crystal meth speculation on who these calendar changes benefit. Can this be boiled down? Let's try: the primary season could end up allowing a candidate to score an "early knockout." Unless it doesn't. In which case there will be a "long, bloody battle." It could all end up benefiting Rick Perry, unless it benefits Mitt Romney, in which case, Romney will benefit. Also: Florida! It's important! Especially to Mitt Romney's momentum, unless he has no momentum, in which case it will help someone else's momentum. Or, Florida may not be important at all! Who knows? Maybe the GOP candidate will be determined via "Hunger Games." Honestly, one wonders if it's possible to sit around and contemplate this stuff for months and months without colliding headlong with the barrier of mental health.

Anyway, the bottom line is that all these primaries may start in "January (or even December)," nobody seems to fear the penalties for jumping the set dates, and no one seems to have the necessary vision or leadership to prevent this chaos from intruding into every quadrennial cycle, the end.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

 

 

Comments

[bill coin]

12:50 PM on 09/12/2011

The problem with Barack Obama is his fundamental inability to change his belief system to that of most Americans. He spent his childhood out of this country and as a teenager he was groomed by anti capitalist. Holidays like Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving don't have the same meaning to him. Things like little league baseball, or Boy Scouts don't resinate with him. Frankly, we have been dupped by leftist and humanist into thinking man alone has the power. Barak Obama is a result of our apathy and lack of involvement in things political.

[MBryant]

02:17 PM on 08/26/2011

Other countries hold rational elections in a much briefer time than six months of prep and nearly a year of actual voting. if we retain early November general elections - which seem to work well, it would seem the months of September and October should be adequate for the general electioneering process (debates, etc..). August would be reserved for conventions and therefore the summer - when college students, etc.. are available for campaigns would be good for the primary process. I would recommend that we divide the nation into five ten state regions (NE, AtlSouth, Southwest, Midwest, West) . The three smallest states in each region have their choice of dates in May, the six middle sized states in each region go in June and California, New York, Texas, Illinois and Florida all have their days in July. This would seem to be a workable reform - embracing enough of the tradition and dynamic and collapsing the length of the campaign to somewhat less than half of what it is now.

[satyrday]

09:36 AM on 08/26/2011

Who cares when the republicans decide who will lose to Obama?

The real question is, how much time and money they want to waste?

[CountryBeforeParty]

08:20 AM on 08/26/2011

"How Early With The 2012 Primaries Actually Start?"
======================

This is how you write the headline? Come on...

[sharon cresap]

12:13 PM on 08/26/2011

My thoughts exactly. You beat me to it.

[Dunkleberger Karl]

07:38 AM on 08/26/2011

Time to have the ten smallest states and Peurto Rico take turns having the first primary? caucus! Imagin Peurto Rico @ Christmas time in 2024

[bill coin]

12:53 PM on 09/12/2011

It's time to fight ideas like this. You haven't taken over yet, in fact the war hasen't even started.

[DocSyracuse]

10:53 PM on 08/25/2011

"How Early With The 2012 Primaries Actually Start?"

Check your hl, Mr. Linkins. You write for a living, right?

[madmadmac]

07:41 PM on 08/25/2011

All voteing should be on the same day just like the general election is. The other changes I would like to see is the electorial vote be banished and the media can't release any any voteing stats until the last pole closes on the West Coast. This would stop people from saying there's no reason for me to VOTE the decision is already made. Years ago it was months before the out come of an election was known. What's wrong with a few hours today?

[Kristin Talbott]

06:22 PM on 08/25/2011

How about we just have all the primaries on the same day? The current process gives far too much weight to the voters in some states over others, just as the electoral college does in the general election.

If we implemented a true "one-person, one vote (one EQUAL vote)" policy in both the primary and general elections (which would also include making elections 100% publicly funded and doing away with any campaign contributions by any individual, group or corporation), we might actually get a decently accurate read on what the majority of people in this country really want.

Of course, that possibility is exactly why there's so much opposition to changing the status quo...

[lynettema]

06:08 PM on 08/25/2011

Jason, how did you get this gig? I rarely read thee anymore.

[TwasBrillig]

05:14 PM on 08/25/2011

Implement a rotating regional primary. Every 4 years a different region goes first.

Iowa and New Hampshire should be grateful their monopolies have lasted this long already. Thanks to the goo goo eyed Obamabots in Iowa, we have our weak-kneed, barely a Democrat President. Great job there, Hawkeyes.

[ArkayMI]

05:23 PM on 08/25/2011

Don't blame Iowa for Obama. Clinton-Obama primary fight went on till May 2008, PA primaries I think.

[TwasBrillig]

05:39 PM on 08/25/2011

As Tim Russert said, it was effectively over after Super Tuesday. But, it's hard to see how Obama could have become president without the momentum from his Iowa victory. One state effectively failed to measure the man, and now we are all reaping the consequences of their misjudgment.

I am only singling out Iowa because they were first... They certainly weren't alone. Too many primary voters got caught up in the Obama rhetoric. A fairer primary/caucus system might have helped us avoid such a disappointing President.

[Dunkleberger Karl]

07:41 AM on 08/26/2011

yes it did, and because florida, and michigan in the end were counted at a percentile per vote is an embarrassment!

[CPT America]

04:51 PM on 08/25/2011

I would like to see all primaries/caucuses be held on the same day.

Then the conventions would hold more meaning, instead of the lame affair it is now (IMO).

Also, we do not hold the general elections on different days for different states!

[Dunkleberger Karl]

07:42 AM on 08/26/2011

perhaps we should ?

[rantnragerob]

04:43 PM on 08/25/2011

Perhaps it is a system that pulls the weeds and separates the chaff from the golden kernels. It insures that rock hard granite candidates are presented rather than shifting sands of wantabees.

These early selections by Iowa & New Hampshire are like the preseason, they purge the process of those candidates that do not have the viability, the organization, the cash…and the intelligence… to get themselves elected by the American voter.

May heaven help us if California ever goes first in the process.

[CPT America]

04:56 PM on 08/25/2011

IMO, the way it (primaries) are set up now, we only get the extreme candidates to survive or the ones will ample money.

Candidates that are un-organized or organized with no money will crash and burn.
Candidates that are un-organized or organized with money gets to continue.

Is it right that money should decide if a candidate makes it to the convention?

[ArkayMI]

05:25 PM on 08/25/2011

"Perhaps it is a system that pulls the weeds and separates the chaff from the golden kernels." - Are you sure it is not a system that pulls golden kernels leaving behind weeds and chaff?

[lynettema]

06:11 PM on 08/25/2011

Only if your candidate tanked.

[wsdave]

04:34 PM on 08/25/2011

The next President (whoever it is) will be sworn in on January 20th, 2013. On January 21st, Iowa will be holding it's first Primary for the 2016 elections.

[ArkayMI]

05:26 PM on 08/25/2011

In that case MI will hold its primaries for 2016 elections the day after election day 2012 :-)

[wsdave]

05:45 PM on 08/25/2011

LOL!

[Hutchy]

04:08 PM on 08/25/2011

The answer to this problem is obvious and easy, which is why we will never do it.

[victorponelis]

04:00 PM on 08/25/2011

Part of the problem can be blamed on the useless Electoral College, which magnifies small states over large, and gives outsized influence to rural populations filled with, yes, ethanol-welfare recipients.

[The Open Mind]

12:07 AM on 08/26/2011

With all due respect, I believe that you have it exactly backwards. I agree that the Electoral College is useless; however, the problem is that it concentrates Presidential elections in the large "battleground" states. The meager Electoral College votes from the small states are not worth investing time and money into campaigning there. When was the last time a candidate nominated by either party campaigned in Hawaii, Idaho, Alaska, South Dakota, etc?

What inversely magnifies the influence of small states is having two US Senators from each state. What other rational nation would allow Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota to have the same level of influence in the Senate as, say, New York, New Jersey or California? Surely the framers of the Constitution could never have invisioned that level of disparity. If the Tea Party was honest in their rhetoric about "fixing" Washington they would promote Constitutional amendments to both eliminate the Electoral College and change the two-Senators-per-State ratio.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

[rblackbird]

01:40 AM on 08/26/2011

I disagree with your points, but not to challenge your frustration. Instead, I see these proposals as impractical.To eliminate the electoral college and change the two senator rule, the constitution requires that three fourths of the states vote in favor. Three fourths is 38 states, but if at least 13 states vote "no, the amendments will be defeated.

None of the smaller states would vote to change the two senator rule. Which smaller state would be willing to give up one of its senators? The two senator rule has been around for over 230 years, and changing it would give total congressional power to a small number of states with larger populations. There are enough smaller-population states to defeat the amendment. This rule will not change.

The solution to senate gridlock is for the senate to abolish the filibuster. People should only vote for candidates who promise to abolish it.

A similar problem exists with abolishing the Electoral College. Without it, many small states will be ignored, and the campaign will be fought out only in a few large population areas. The only chance small states will have to make an impact is through the College, because a lot of wins in small states will aid in winning the election.