Nevada caves, New Hampshire gets its way?

The Nevada Republican Central Committee met on Saturday and caved in to the pressure applied by the New Hampshire republicans and moved their primary back to the beginning of February. New Hampshire called for a boycott of the Nevada caucus. The reasons for the boycott were rather weak. New Hampshire is traditionally first in the nation to hold a primary, was the main argument and coming in second was the concern that people would not have time to learn about the candidates. Not having time to get to know candidates almost made me laugh; we have seen multiple debates featuring all of the candidates and most have been campaigning for several months now. To logically say the Nevada caucus would keep voters from getting to know the candidates is ridiculous. Does traditionally first automatically mean you are always first? No, especially when the Iowa caucus is being held on January 3, before the expected date of New Hampshire’s primary; which is expected to be held on January 10.
There is more to this than we know and I don’t think we will ever really know what was behind the outrage of Nevada moving its caucus. New Hampshire state law requires that it hold its primary seven days before any similar contest, but in 1996 and 2000 Delaware held its primary within seven days of New Hampshire. While New Hampshire contends that the Nevada caucus is a similar contest so it must hold its primary 7 days prior to Nevada, which would have made January 7 open to New Hampshire. That was not good enough for New Hampshire, they used the bogus claim I mentioned above about no time to learn about the candidates. Regardless of that, the Iowa caucus is scheduled for January 3, which should mean that to keep its ‘first in the nation’ status New Hampshire would have to hold its primary in December. It does not end there, New Hampshire does not consider the Iowa caucus as a similar contest so Iowa’s date does not matter. Both Nevada and Iowa hold a caucus, but only the Nevada caucus is a similar contest to New Hampshire, what am I missing? A primary is very similar to the general election, the voting booth is open and you vote for the candidate of your choosing. A caucus is much like a meeting. Members all get together at one place and join a group of others supporting the same candidate and decide their delegates to the national convention.
Four states were granted early voting status from the Republican National Committee; these are, in no particular order, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Iowa and Nevada. The one missing is Florida, Florida is not an early voting state and started the whole calendar jumping but only Nevada is being singled out. At the end of September, Iowa Republican Party Chairman said, “The four sanctioned, early states have been very clear that we will move together, if necessary, to ensure order as outlined in RNC rules. If we are forced to change our dates together, we will.” I guess that solidarity was overstated as no one came out to boycott Florida. New Hampshire had no problem with boycott Nevada, they have a website that you can sign the petition, but there is no boycott Florida. Nevada holds a caucus, just like Iowa but according to New Hampshire, Iowa is OK but Nevada is not. Nevada gets shafted by the other early states, the Republican National Committee and a majority of the Presidential candidates.

CNN hosts fight night

Prior to Tuesday’s debate, the Heritage Foundation and the Nevada Policy Research Institute in conjunction with CNN hosted an issues forum. This forum was moderated by David Gergen of CNN and the panel was made up of Mike Franc of the Heritage Foundation, Andy Matthews of NPRI, Alex Garza of the Latin Chamber of Commerce and Heidi Harris a local radio show host. There was a diverse audience present that represented the media, regular people from the western states region and local politicians. This forum was designed to address issues important to the western states and Nevada in particular, but it quickly was dominated by immigration. Those on the panel and in attendance traded jabs on what the role of government should be in immigration. It was such a hot button topic; it dominated nearly the entire forum and left little time to discuss any other issues.
I did not realize at the time, that the fiery debate that afternoon was going to carry over to the Presidential debate that evening, but it did. Right off the bat, Herman Cain’s 999 plan was under attack. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney were also under a constant barrage of attacks from the fellow republicans. The fight within the fight consisted of Romney and Perry arguing so intensely, I thought they were going to go to blows. Maybe next time, CNN will keep some boxing gloves handy just in case. Newt Gringrich again tried to keep the focus on the goal of regaining the White House in November. After Anderson Cooper quit pitting the candidates against each other, they actually had a couple of minutes to discuss some of the issues.
What did we learn from this debate? That the chance of a Perry – Romney ticket is not going to happen. That Ron Paul continues to draw minimal attention from the media and the moderators. That Newt Gringrich may be the smartest person in the race and that Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann are trying to stay relevant. Who won the debate? My knee jerk reaction would be Jon Huntsman, the candidate that boycotted the event because it was in Nevada. As for the candidates on stage, Newt always does well. Ron Paul also did very well on the few answers he was asked and his comments were backed up by the others on stage (with the exception of some foreign policy issues). Perry, Romney and Cain did not look very good, although it would be hard with the constant barrage of attacks they were under. If you could really pick a winner from the candidates on stage, it was probably the same candidate you were supporting prior to the debate.

Let the boycotts begin

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum cancelled his event today in Las Vegas. He has officially joined Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman in boycotting the Nevada caucus. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gringrich has also said he would be boycotting Nevada. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Rep. Ron Paul all came out against the Nevada boycott. Rep. Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain have not committed one way or the other.
Why all the boycotts? As I mentioned yesterday, it all stems from the shake-up of the primary calendar. Those candidates that are boycotting are suggesting that Nevada’s move is upsetting calendar and they are trying to upstage the New Hampshire primary, traditionally first in the nation. I find it very hard to believe that this in Nevada’s fault. The Republican National Committee set rules for the 2012 election allowing New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada the only states that could hold their contests before March of 2012. That all changed when Florida and Arizona threw the calendar on its head by moving up their primary. How come Nevada is the only state facing boycotts? Nevada did not start the calendar jumping, they only jumped ahead to preserve their early voting status that was given to them by the National Committee. Nevada didn’t start the shake-up but is the only state being boycotted by Presidential candidates. Where is the boycott of Florida or Arizona? After all, they started the calendar jumping. What about South Carolina? They jumped ahead of New Hampshire but no boycotts for South Carolina either.
I will be watching the debate tomorrow, it is in Las Vegas and I’m curious about who will be there. I’m expecting to see Rep. Paul, Gov. Perry and Fmr. Gov. Romney on the stage; it won’t surprise me to see Herman Cain up there either. What I don’t expect to see is Santorum, Huntsman, Gringrich or Bachmann on stage for the debate. If they are really going to boycott the Nevada Caucus, I don’t think they should participate in a debate that is held within that state. I also feel it shows a total lack of respect to the citizens of the great state of Nevada to simply dismiss our caucus for the only reason that Nevada was protecting its right as an early voting state. I would also urge all Nevadans to only vote for a candidate that actively campaigns in Nevada, not one that boycotts our state. It shows a total lack of respect to the voters of Nevada and says that our caucus in not important in the nominating process.

All I want for Christmas is a primary?

The republican primary/caucus calendar has been turned upside down. It started with the announcement by Florida that it was moving its primary up to January 31. That violates the Republican National Committee rules that allow New Hampshire, South Carolina, Iowa and Nevada to be the first four states to hold their primary/caucus. Violation of the rules could result in the loss of delegates at the national convention. Nevada faces a similar situation, it recently announced the date of its caucus, January 14, and has been threatened with the loss of half of their delegates. With Florida’s jump into January, the early voting states are all going to do the same thing to preserve their early voting status. South Carolina moved ahead of Florida and is holding their primary on January 21. Iowa is now looking at January 3 to hold their first in the nation caucus, which leaves New Hampshire deciding if they are going to hold their first in the nation primary in December of this year. New Hampshire state law requires that their primary be held seven days before any other contest; that could mean that we could be “decking the halls” with primary contests instead of “boughs of holly.”
What does this mean for the primaries? Nothing really, other than possibly holding the nation’s first republican primary nearly a year before the general election. The only impact is from the reaction from the Presidential candidates. Jon Huntsman, former Governor of Utah and Obama’s Ambassador to China, has decided to boycott campaigning in Nevada as a protest to Nevada moving up its primary. Newt Gringrich, former Speaker of the House has also announced his intention to boycott. Also joining in the boycott are former Senator Rick Santorum and Representative Michelle Bachmann. These candidates are in support of preserving New Hampshire’s supremacy as being first in the nation, even though New Hampshire doesn’t feel that the Iowa caucus doesn’t affect their primary, but Nevada’s does. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are expected to join in. Rep. Ron Paul is the only candidate to come out against the boycott and Herman Cain has not responded one way or the other. My question is this, if six presidential candidates are supporting the boycott of Nevada, is the stage for the debate this Tuesday in Nevada only going to be occupied by Ron Paul?