Morning Mix: Nevada, New Hampshire Still In Primary Battle

Last night’s Nevada debate may have brought many of the Republican candidates together on one stage, but it’s done nothing to bring together the early endorsing states, who are still fighting to decide who gets to hold their election contests first.

Even with multiple candidates threatening to boycott Nevada all together, New Hampshire is still considering holding a primary in December, a move that is completely unprecedented.  The Secretary of State is still saying “all options are on the table,” despite pushback even from his own local party to consider just holding the event on January 10th.

Since Iowa has now pulled the trigger and officially made January 3rd their caucus date, regardless of whatever finally shakes out with New Hampshire, they’ve also made sure to  publicly announce their  support for New Hampshire. Iowa has even pointed a finger at Florida for starting the whole early primary mess in the first place when they moved their primary up to January 31st.

But New Hampshire is focusing all of their ire on Nevada, even publishing a “BoycottNevada” website and putting all of their might behind forcing Mitt Romney out of campaigning in Nevada all together.  One local paper wrote, “Romney is willing to sacrifice an institution beneficial to the republic (the New Hampshire primary) for his own political advantage. Of course, Romney could put New Hampshire voters’ minds at ease about his commitment to the primary and the value of selecting candidates the old-fashioned way. He could join the Nevada boycott. Or not. Either way, New Hampshire is watching.”

Then again, after Romney’s biff on the Nevada foreclosure crisis, maybe he’s better off boycotting Nevada anyway.


Photo credit: Jonathan McIntosh


Winn Adams
Winn A6 years ago

Thanks for the info

Jamie Clemons
Jamie Clemons6 years ago

They need to the whole process and start calling it who is the biggest loser... oh wait thats a tv show.

Kate Kenner
Kate K6 years ago

I'm telling you they are like kids who have to be first in line. Why can they not just grow up?

Gisela P.
Gisela P6 years ago

I am from NH. It is written into our laws that we are the first primary. No matter what any other state may do, we will always be the first to vote (or caucus). What is killing this whole Democratic process is the infusion of money from unknown sources (thank you, Citizens United). What we need are laws that limit, not only all of that unlimited funding, but also all of the unlimited campaigning. People tend to only pay close attention near the end of that long road. Let's shorten the road. We all get sick of the endless campaign. We NEED solutions to our problems, NOT more people PROMISING, through all the endless campaigning, that those solutions are in sight. Let's give our elected officials the time to legislate, IF they can remember how to do that. And while the filibuster can be an important tool, it should NOT replace majority rule. We seriously need to get back to what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they set up this unique system of ours. That includes the whole Occupy movement, where the PEOPLE tell their government that it has lost its own way.

Philip A.
Philip Andrews6 years ago

It seems like the states are trying to be more relevant early on in an increasingly irrelevant election process.

patricia m lasek
patricia lasek6 years ago

The debates might be more interesting if you have intelligent people like you suggest, Lee.

Rita White
Rita White6 years ago


lee e.
lee e6 years ago

Why wait 4 years Patricia, why don't we have some Democratic candidates for 2016 out now, have ourselves a few debates, maybe with Hillary and Elizabeth Warren - show 'em what fer!!

patricia m lasek
patricia lasek6 years ago

The campaigning and debates are getting more ridiculous every cycle. Pretty soon they will start 4 years before the next election.