tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post4180207487369491924..comments2024-03-26T05:22:08.256-04:00Comments on Frontloading HQ: Bill Gardner Discusses New Hampshire/Nevada on Face to FaceJosh Putnamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-17399934614339662102011-10-04T11:19:58.999-04:002011-10-04T11:19:58.999-04:00If the Nevada GOP decides first and chooses Januar...If the Nevada GOP decides first and chooses January 14, the most likely outcome is that New Hampshire ends up on January 3. This non-Saturday idea will get some press and that will likely put some pressure on Gardner, but not enough to tip the balance (In fact, probably not even close to tipping the balance.).<br /><br />Iowa Republicans and Democrats both decided prior to New Hampshire in 2007 -- both prior to the deadlines in both parties to set a date. On the Republican side that was September 24 and for Democrats, it was, I'll have to check, but September 15 rings a bell. Those January 3 dates in 2008 were set in stone as far as I know when the decisions were made in late August/early September. There was, in other words, no thought of revisiting the timing of the caucuses in either party following New Hampshire's decision in late November. <br /><br />As to Iowa holding caucuses after New Hampshire as a means of avoiding December, that is counter to everything the Iowa GOP has said. IAGOP Chair Matt Strawn has made it quite clear that unlike 2008, they will decide after New Hampshire. Though that doesn't scream "We're going first," it does imply it. They may think about that post-New Hampshire option, but about as seriously as Gardner will consider a non-Tuesday primary for New Hampshire. <br /><br />Caucuses in Iowa midweek between Christmas and New Years would be most likely. That would most likely mean a less than eight day window between Iowa and New Hampshire like 2008.Josh Putnamhttp://frontloading.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-24902658531082680422011-10-04T09:24:08.326-04:002011-10-04T09:24:08.326-04:00Clearly, Gardner can wait out Nevada and maintain ...Clearly, Gardner can wait out Nevada and maintain the 7 day window with them if he wants to. The question is whether he can do so while also preventing the primary season from beginning in December.<br /><br />Let's say Nevada comes out tomorrow with a statement that they're going to caucus on Saturday, Jan. 14, which is one preferred date mentioned in this article:<br /><br />http://www.lvrj.com/news/caucuses-sometime-before-jan-21-gop-leader-says-131025468.html<br /><br />What's your best guess for what happens then? NH primary on Jan. 3, and Iowa caucus in December? Or is Iowa being pushed into December sufficiently disastrous for the early states that Gardner would either consider going on a Saturday, or going less than 7 days before Nevada?<br /><br />Or would it be so disastrous for Iowa to go in December that they would even consider (*gasp*) going a few days after NH, just to stay in January? My recollection from 2008 is that not only did the Iowa GOP set their caucus date before NH did, but they maintained ambiguity about whether they'd be open to changing it if Gardner pushed NH up into December. Is a December caucus terrible enough for Iowa that they'd be willing to go second in order to avoid it?astrojobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06643324377144064814noreply@blogger.com