{"id":2083,"date":"2007-08-09T10:34:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-09T16:34:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/2007\/08\/2008-calendar-shifts-again-creating-uncertainty\/"},"modified":"2007-08-09T10:34:00","modified_gmt":"2007-08-09T16:34:00","slug":"2008-calendar-shifts-again-creating-uncertainty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2007\/08\/2008-calendar-shifts-again-creating-uncertainty\/","title":{"rendered":"2008 calendar shifts again, creating uncertainty"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>South Carolina Republicans forced a rewrite of the nation\u2019s presidential primary calendar today by moving their primary date up to Jan. 19. <\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The move triggers a shift in the entire calendar because, by law, New Hampshire<\/st1:state> must move up its primary and, when that happens, Iowa<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> must move up its caucuses. That throws not only the calendar but campaign strategies into uncertainty.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

For Gov. Bill Richardson<\/a>, it\u2019s bad news. He is moving up in the polls, but slowly, and the more the contests move up, the less time he has to catch the frontrunners.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Before today\u2019s announcement, Democratic contests were set for Jan. 14 in Iowa<\/st1:state>, Jan. 19 in Nevada<\/st1:state>, Jan. 22 in New Hampshire<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> and Jan. 29 in South Carolina and Florida. It was Florida<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> that threw a kink into the plan in May by disregarding the wishes of the national Democratic and Republican parties and scheduling its primary for January. A number of other states had moved their contests to Feb. 5, but no other state had breached the line between the first and second month of the year.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Richardson and others pushed last year to add South Carolina<\/st1:state> and Nevada<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> to the January lineup for Democrats to ensure a more diverse group of voters was heard in the early stages of the primary season. South Carolina Democrats have not announced whether they\u2019ll move up the date of their contest.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

On the Republican side, the dates for Iowa<\/st1:state>, Nevada<\/st1:state> and New Hampshire<\/st1:state><\/st1:place> before today\u2019s announcement were the same as those of the Democratic contests, but the South Carolina GOP had set its primary for Feb. 2.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

South Carolina<\/st1:state> also made clear its intention to be the first in the south to vote, prompting the move when Florida<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> stepped ahead of the South Carolina GOP.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The change forces New Hampshire<\/st1:state><\/st1:place>, by law, to move its primary for Republicans to at least Jan. 12. If no other states move up primaries, New Hampshire<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> could keep its Democratic contest on Jan. 22, but it has traditionally held both together.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Keeping with its tradition of holding the first-in-the nation primary on a Tuesday, New Hampshire<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> could move both contests to Jan. 8.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

That would force Iowa<\/st1:state><\/st1:place>, by law, to move its first-in-the-nation caucuses to Dec. 31 of this year or earlier. If New Hampshire<\/st1:state> decides to hold its contest closer to Jan. 12, that would keep Iowa<\/st1:state><\/st1:place> in the first few days of January.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

In case you\u2019re wondering, a primary system allows voters to cast a ballot at a polling place. A caucus system \u2013 used in 14 states and the District of Columbia<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> \u2013 requires that voters meet and listen to speeches before casting their votes.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

One scenario could have New Hampshire<\/st1:state>\u2019s contest on Jan. 8 and Iowa<\/st1:state><\/st1:place> in mid-December because of the difficulty of getting people out to vote during the holidays. That would put the first contest \u2013 and one of two on which Richardson<\/st1:place><\/st1:city> is staking his presidential hopes \u2013 a little more than four months away. It took him six months to climb from below the margin of error to competing for third place in Iowa<\/st1:state> and New Hampshire<\/st1:place><\/st1:state>.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

There\u2019s another X-factor: Other states could move up their contests. One thing is likely: Iowa<\/st1:state> will hold the first caucuses, and New Hampshire<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> will hold the first primary. Perhaps Richardson<\/st1:city><\/st1:place>\u2019s strategy of focusing on those two states is his best option.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

We won\u2019t know how this works out for awhile. New Hampshire<\/st1:state> isn\u2019t planning to finalize its primary date anytime soon, and Iowa<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> won\u2019t likely make any moves before that.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

South Carolina Republicans forced a rewrite of the nation\u2019s presidential primary calendar today by moving their primary date up to Jan. 19. The move triggers a shift in the entire calendar because, by law, New Hampshire must move up its primary and, when that happens, Iowa must move up its caucuses. That throws not only […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2083","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2083","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2083"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2083\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2083"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2083"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2083"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}