SameOldiesSong t1_j63lxuw wrote on January 27, 2023 at 2:00 PM

Reply to comment by SomeCalcium in DNC gives NH new deadline to meet requirements for FITN primary by IBlazeMyOwnPath

It’s that NH can go second if the Republican-controlled legislature and Republican governor agree to change the state law on primary date and agree to change laws to expand access to voting. Republicans in NH have made it clear well-before the DNC made this ask that they don’t support those measures and won’t agree to them.

SomeCalcium t1_j63s7m7 wrote on January 27, 2023 at 2:46 PM

So NH can indeed go second if they were to go along with the rules? That's not Super Tuesday.

Basically, they're going to throw out our primary results entirely in favor of this law? As an NH Democratic voter, that's far more annoying than NH being moved a week behind SC which is effectively no different than a week after the Iowa caucus.

SameOldiesSong t1_j63vvbk wrote on January 27, 2023 at 3:11 PM

> So NH can indeed go second if they were to go along with the rules?

If they comply with DNC demands that the DNC is well-aware they can’t comply with, then yes. Which is why it is transparent bad faith and the intended effect is to move NH to Super Tuesday. It’s not correct to say NH would be going second under this proposal.

It’d be like me saying that I will vote for Biden in 2024 if he gets single-payer healthcare pushed through. I could pretend that means I’m giving him a chance to win my vote, but we all know that if I set out that criteria, all I’m really saying is I wouldn’t be voting for Biden in 2024.

NH isn’t throwing out Dem primary results, DNC is the one saying they would do that. And yes, I think a lot of NH Dems would be irked by that. Needless fight for DNC to pick.

Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot: Dem gov sits in statehouse and Dems control legislature and RNC says - okay state Republican Party, we are going to not count state Republican primary votes unless the state adopts the gerrymandered congressional map drawn up by Republicans. The Dem reaction, once the laughter stopped, would be something along the lines of: are you serious - who do you think you are - go pound sand.

Dems would be thrilled at the intraparty fighting that comes out of that; state and national republicans fighting. Dems would get to say that GOP doesn’t care about your votes but Dems do. They would get to say that GOP outsiders think they can come into our state and tell us what laws we can have. Dems would get to mobilize in the state (a purple state) and message to voters without any response or pushback from the GOP. Dems would be thrilled to be in the position state GOP are in.

SomeCalcium t1_j63yixk wrote on January 27, 2023 at 3:29 PM

This was going to happen sooner or later. I understand where the DNC is coming from, Iowa was a poor representative of the general electorate and are a poor predictor of what the national election would look like. NH isn't great either, but at least we're more representative of suburbia/college educated voters.

I think you're eyeing this a bit too vindictively. The DNC's purpose here is not to specifically spite NH, but make a more dynamic primary process that will respond to electorate and more relevant to the general election. Hence why you have Georgia and Michigan moving forward since both of those states are more relevant in the general election. In future years they'd likely move other states forwards or backwards based on the general election results. That's a good thing.

I also don't really care what happens with RNC. Their party and their primaries are way more of a shit show than the DNC. Their winner take all system is atrociously bad and it's partly the reason why we ended up with Trump in the first place.

SameOldiesSong t1_j643n0e wrote on January 27, 2023 at 4:02 PM

> This was going to happen sooner or later.

Maybe so. But if that’s the case, they could have gone about it in good-faith. If they were intending to move NH to Super Tuesday, then just say that; just have that be the initial proposal. And if you are going to pick a state that is more racially diverse, pick one that makes sense in the larger scheme of things rather than the one that looks an awful lot like a political kickback to a state that helped propel the current president to the WH. Pick one that is purple or reliably democratic. One that is more religiously diverse and better represents the country and Dem voters on that front.

And I don’t think everyone in the DNC is being vindictive (I certainly think some are), I just think they are needlessly picking a fight that they cannot win. And one that isn’t going to help them with purple voters who have currently sent an all-blue delegation to Washington. And it’s one that hands the GOP a lot of assets that I’m sure they are thrilled to have.

> I also don't really care what happens with RNC.

Nor do Republicans about the DNC. It’s why the DNC will be the ones people blame (to the extent people blame anyone) if they choose to disenfranchise NH voters.

SomeCalcium t1_j646594 wrote on January 27, 2023 at 4:18 PM

I think you overestimate how much voters care about the primary and underestimate how much they care about actual policy. Case in point, the Republicans straight up canceled a bunch of their primaries going into 2020 and voters did not punish them for that.

If Biden is running again, he's the de facto nominee and Democratic primary turn out would be low regardless. If he opts not to run, then maybe this has a small impact. Furthermore, the primary really only impact Democratic voters or Democratic leaning independents, not potential swing voters who don't vote in the primary anyways.

Regardless, whatever small spat happens over the primary will largely be forgotten by the general election. It's actually better to pull off this band-aid now with a sitting Democratic President running for a second term rather than later when the primary actually matters.

SameOldiesSong t1_j64dl8u wrote on January 27, 2023 at 5:04 PM

It may be that primary order is a non-issue for people but the push to move SC first indicates it isn’t a meaningless issue for a lot of other people, its one people put weight on. That people think it is important is why this fight is occurring. And NH’s FITN primary is a part of the political culture of NH, so taking that away is a little more precarious. There’s a reason that all of the State officials felt comfortable coming out strong against this (including state Demparty).

And of those five states you referenced , 3 were deep red so they were never at risk for GOP. The two purple states they played with in 2020, Arizona and Nevada, both went for Biden and both of the toss up Senate seats went blue. Can’t say that the canceled primary was the reason but I don’t think we can say with confidence that voters didn’t tag them for it.

NH has open primaries so it will stop independent voters who want to weigh in on Dem candidates from doing so.

Main point in all of this is that the DNC picked an unwinnable fight and are posturing to significantly reduce the presence of the party in a purple state with an all-blue delegation. And they are doing this in service of something that you say voters don’t care about: primary order. It’s so stupid and is just them shooting themselves in the foot. And it was done in bad faith. This does not strike me as something the DNC really thought through.