How have they refuted it? They have claimed that the law in unenforceable in any state except New Hampshire. That is indisputable. What is also indisputable is that they can keep moving the date back further and further and ensure that it remains the first. It is both de facto nationwide and de jure in New Hampshire.
Any state can be first. I agree. All they have to do is try to beat New Hampshire in a pissing contest. Such tactics have been unsuccessful so far, and barring some sort of external pressure from the parties or some sort of enforceable national statute, the status quo will remain.
Because at a certain point in time (Time travel being one solid impassible wall) you can not be first, just simultaneous. Thus, NH law means nothing to the national situation. As jtgain said, any state can simply pass a similar statute and NH primacy is gone. NH can not pass the time barrier no matter what law they want to pass, Canute’s proof works in NH too. Cnut - Wikipedia
I don’t know if the DNC has the guts to stand up to so big and influential a state as Florida, but I sure hope they do. The rules are the rules, and otherwise everyone’s going to try to leapfrog to the front of the pack, and the first caucus will be on Halloween, for chrissakes. With a 24-hour news cycle, the campaign is already too bloody long without dragging it into the preceding year. I agree with spoke that the current early primary/caucus mix of New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada is a good one, and worth preserving.
And although by nature I’m not terribly cynical, I also wonder if maybe - just maybe - the GOP-controlled Florida legislature is just trying to stir a hornet’s nest among the Dems.
WRT the timing of primary elections, the rules are what the state legislatures have decided, and they are free to change at any time. The parties have no relevant rules, AFAIK, only the policies of the moment.
This problem affects both parties equally (though their national committees might not respond in the same way).
I think the Republicans are trying to boost Hillary’s campaign, because that’s who the Republicans want to face. Not only because they believe she’ll be the easiest Democrat to defeat, but also because she’ll energize the Republican base and thereby indirectly help Republican candidates further down the ticket.
And of course, the Republicans are being abetted in this by Hillary’s Democratic supporters. Between Republicans and Hillary supporters, it wouldn’t be hard to garner a legislative majority in any state that wants to move up its primary.
If the big states go early, it’s a huge advantage for the deep-pocketed Clinton campaign.
I don’t see the “mix” there. Iowa and New Hampshire are as white as snow. South Carolina will vote for the most conservative GOP candidate every time, and because of the large black vote, will vote for the most southern and/or black candidate for the Dems every time. I’m not too familiar with Nevada politics.
You want balance? How about Florida? A large state with almost 14 million voters. A state that was so close that a Presidential race in 2000 was so close that nobody to this day agrees with the result (500 vote difference!!!)
Blacks, whites, hispanics, Jews, southerners, transplanted Yankees, Jamaicans, Haitians, young people, old people, name one ethnic group that isn’t represented in Florida?
The state elects a DEM Bill Nelson with 65%. It elects a Republican Gov. Crist with 60%
“An Irishman, an Italian, a Jew, and a regular American. That’s what I call a balanced ticket” Archie Bunker