A glimmer of hope to avoid a December date for the New Hampshire primary:
New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner is imperiling the state’s place in the political world by threatening to hold a December primary, New Hampshire GOP Chairman Wayne MacDonald charged Thursday. . . .
MacDonald urged Gardner to hold the state’s election Jan. 10. . . .
Gardner, who has full control over the state’s primary date, released a statement Wednesday saying he was willing to drastically reshuffle the primary calendar to keep New Hampshire at least seven days ahead of the next nominating contest. He said the only way he’d consider Jan. 10 is if Nevada moves its caucus — currently scheduled for Jan. 14 — back three days. On Wednesday night, the Nevada GOP declined to make the move.
Reiterating his confidence in Gardner, MacDonald repeated his call, first reported by the New Hampshire Union Leader, to take a more lax interpretation of the state law that requires a seven day buffer before the next “similar election.”
“There is a difference between a primary and a caucus, so I don’t think Nevada should affect us,” MacDonald said. “The 10th, to me, seems to be the most sensible date.”
That might be just enough of a loophole to allow New Hampshire to save face. Let’s pray Secretary of State Gardner will listen to reason.
If he does do the primary on Jan. 10, who gets screwed? Nevada. Because I think most reporters will be like me: It doesn’t make sense to leave Manchester, N.H., on the morning of the 11th to fly to Nevada to cover their caucus on the 14th, and then get on a plane the 15th to fly to South Carolina (their primary is the 21st). Better to go directly from New Hampshire to South Carolina and let Nevada fend for itself.
So a Jan. 10 New Hampshire primary would probably deprive the Jan. 14 Nevada caucuses of a good bit of press coverage, and might just give me an excuse to come home for a few days after New Hampshire before hitting the road for South Carolina.
