Via WaPo: Democrats battle over 2024 nomination calendar as Biden weighs options.
with just days left before Democrats gather on Dec. 1 to decide their presidential nominating order, it remains unclear just how the calendar will sort out. The most important voice in Democratic politics, that of President Biden, has yet to weigh in, and many members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee responsible for deciding the outcome continue to await word from the White House.
The battle appears to be over whether Nevada might leapfrog New Hampshire, with some possibilities that larger states, like Michigan and Minnesota might make a play. Meanwhile, what about South Carolina?
A huge obstacle is that New Hampshire has a law requiring their primary to be seven days earlier than anyone else’s. The article itself makes everyone come across as a bit childish.
The fundamental problems are with the primaries themselves rather than who goes first. Who goes first can certainly matter, although probably not as much many argue, although I have to admit it doesn’t make a ton of representative sense for one of the least diverse states (New Hampshire) in the union to be so pivotal. I also question the logic that small states forcing candidates to engage in diner visits and other “retail politics” activities is the best way to decide who should be a party’s pick to compete for the most powerful office in the world.
The fact that the 2024 Democratic primaries will be uncontested raises the question of whether this is the best or worst year to make a change. It could be the best insofar as it really won’t matter if Biden runs for re-election (which is the most likely outcome), as he will be unopposed and the primaries simply won’t matter. It also means that if NH plays legal leapfrog over whomever the Democrats choose to officially go first there won’t be any actual hard choice for Biden to make in terms of campaigning.
But on the other hand, if the party makes a switch in 2024 would anyone notice? After all, if a tree falls during an uncontested primary, does it make a sound in either Nevada or New Hampshire?
I would love to see a more serious discussion of nomination reform. If we have to stick with primaries I think I would prefer some sort of series of Super Tuesdays rather than the weird notion that tiny states ought to be culling the field, but I do not have especially strong views on exactly what that should look like.
Quite honestly I expect the final result to be a maintenance of the status quo since trying to find a way to overcome New Hampshire’s primary law will be seen as too much trouble.
