Old Joe screws up again. This time his wanting SC to be first primary

[rogue06]

Source: Even Politico Notes Biden's New Hampshire 'Catastrophe'

"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to smiley bleep.gif things up." -Barack Obama.

The former President now sounds like a prophet in regard to Joe Biden, especially in the matter of the New Hampshire primary.

For all of the modern political era, it was understood by both major political parties that New Hampshire would be the first state to hold a presidential primary election. Or at least that was the understanding until Biden for strictly personal political reasons decided to make South Carolina the first state to conduct a Democrat presidential primary in 2024. And the result has been utter, entirely avoidable, chaos that even the liberal Politico has branded as a "catastrophe."

Politico's cataloging of poor Biden's comedy of errors appeared on Thursday in "Democrats race to avoid a Biden embarrassment in New Hampshire." And as you read their report, "comedy" is most definitely the operative word as you can almost hear the echo of Obama's observation about Biden throughout the report: "Top Democrats are scrambling for ways to avoid a catastrophe in New Hampshire in which Joe Biden may not appear on the primary ballot, ceding the first unofficial contest of 2024 to a fringe candidate."

Reporters Holly Otterman and Lisa Kashinsky placed the blame squarely on the President. "The bizarre predicament is one of the president’s own making, after he pushed for changes to the party’s presidential nominating calendar that stripped the Granite State of its first-in-the-nation primary. The move was designed to reward South Carolina, which catapulted Biden to the nomination in 2020," they said.

Yup. This "catastrophe" was most definitely of Joe Biden's own making.

And according to the report, Republicans in the state were ding Biden no favors in changing the law and it left Democrats scrambling for a solution:

But there’s a state law requiring New Hampshire’s contest be held a week before any others, and Republicans in charge of the governor’s office and state legislature are refusing to touch it. If they don’t, a primary may well be held without the sitting president putting his name on the ballot.

Now, national Democrats are searching for an off-ramp. With a June deadline looming for New Hampshire to make progress on changing its law or get kicked out of the official early voting lineup, Democratic National Committee members are privately considering giving the state more time.

One might call it: Biden's self-own off-ramp to oblivion.

Oh, and Biden was getting no help from the New Hampshire Democrats that he angered.

New Hampshire Democrats, furious that national party leaders upended their prized primary, don’t seem to care what the DNC has to offer. They insist they’re going first — whether Biden’s on the ballot or not.

...The relationship between New Hampshire Democrats and national party officials began to deteriorate after Biden moved last year to slide South Carolina to the front of the line and bump New Hampshire back to second on a shared date with Nevada.

But it has hit rock bottom as the DNC’s June 3 deadline approaches and as Biden’s reelection launch renews questions about whether he’ll campaign in a rogue state or risk losing the first unofficial contest to the other declared Democratic candidates, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson. Neither pose an actual threat to Biden’s renomination, but they could present an embarrassing distraction at the start of the nominating process.

That intraparty iciness was on stark display at New Hampshire Democrats’ iconic McIntyre-Shaheen dinner this past Friday. In the past, the major fundraiser has drawn dignitaries including former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. This year, state party officials pointedly picked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), one of the only Democrats outside of New Hampshire who has staunchly defended the state’s primary, as the headliner.

...Meanwhile, Democrats in the state are shutting down the idea of a party-run primary before they’ve even formally been approached about it. Buckley said a party-run primary would be a logistical nightmare and extremely expensive, costing upwards of $7 million.

“Absolutely impossible,” he said. “Where would I rent 2,000 voting machines? Hire 1,500 people to run the polls? Rent 300 accessible voting locations? Hire security? Print 500,000 ballots. Process 30,000 absentee ballots.”

And yet more of the damned if he does, damned if he doesn't predicament that Biden has put himself in

New Hampshire Democrats also argue they’ve made a good-faith effort to meet the second part of the party’s requirements to stay in the official early-state window — expanding voting access by pushing Soucy’s legislation to create no-excuse absentee voting in the state, albeit to no avail.

But outside of New Hampshire, Democrats have literally laughed off the prospect of Biden flouting his own calendar and campaigning in a rogue state.

“That would be awfully weird,” rules committee member Elaine Kamarck said, chuckling. “While we followed Biden’s lead on this, the committee itself was torn about whether [we should let] New Hampshire go first. It was really his decision that tipped the hat on this.”

It looks as if nothing good will happen to Biden as a result of trying to defy years of political tradition by attempting to remove New Hampshire from the first in the nation presidential primary: Ignore New Hampshire, and he is sure to hand the primary victory in that state to Robert Kennedy Jr. or another Democrat. Place his name on the New Hampshire primary ballot and he will look weak. Cave in completely and officially return New Hampshire to the first primary state and he will not only look weak but also enrage the South Carolina Democrats.

Heads he loses; tails he also loses. All this could have been completely avoided with only the slightest bit of political wisdom. And if Biden loses the New Hampshire primary due to his own avoidable bungling, will Politico and the other liberal media outlets give that political "catastrophe" the proper coverage?

And what was that Obama said about Joe Biden again?



Source

© Copyright Original Source

As old Joe hisself has said, he's a human gaffe machine -- it's just not all of his constant gaffes come from his mouth.

[*bolding in original*]

[Sparko]

I thought it was up to each state to decide when to hold their primary?

[rogue06]

I thought it was up to each state to decide when to hold their primary?

OIP.jpg

[Sparko]

OIP.jpg

Well since New Hampshire is still holding theirs first, no matter what Biden says, I was NOT wrong!

[rogue06]

Well since New Hampshire is still holding theirs first, no matter what Biden says, I was NOT wrong!

Not for the DNC

An update on the 2024 presidential primary calendar

The 2024 presidential candidate field continues to grow, with more candidates announcing their campaigns for the White House. Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is in the process of putting its presidential primary calendar together. The Republican National Committee (RNC) approved its presidential primary calendar in April 2022, re-establishing the early line-up of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, in that order.

The DNC approved a new set of early presidential primary states on Feb. 4. Uncertainties about the final schedule remain, however, since state political parties, state law, and state election regulators ultimately govern presidential primary dates. Neither the DNC nor the RNC directly control the exact date of nominating primaries.

The DNC plan makes South Carolina the first primary state on Feb. 3, 2024, with New Hampshire and Nevada following on Feb. 6. Georgia comes next, on Feb. 13, and Michigan on Feb. 27.

As they make clear, there are still some hurdles to clear but as the article in the OP also makes clear, old Joe is tripping over ones that are of his own ineptitude.

[Ronson]

I thought it was up to each state to decide when to hold their primary?

That is my understanding. I mean, who else would decide?

[rogue06]

That is my understanding. I mean, who else would decide?

The party. If it were up to the states they all would insist on going first.

[Sparko]

The party. If it were up to the states they all would insist on going first.

The what was that in the OP about NH going first is a state law?

[rogue06]

The what was that in the OP about NH going first is a state law?

Pretty sure that's one of those unenforceable gesture laws.

[Sparko]

Pretty sure that's one of those unenforceable gesture laws.

According to this, the State determines and runs the primary election, but the parties hold and control the caucuses (where they decide who is going on the ballot).

In primary contests, state parties run caucuses, but state governments conduct primaries.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...o-gets-to-vote

[rogue06]

According to this, the State determines and runs the primary election, but the parties hold and control the caucuses (where they decide who is going on the ballot).

In primary contests, state parties run caucuses, but state governments conduct primaries.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...o-gets-to-vote

They conduct them when the parties (on the national level) tell them to.

[Ronson]

They conduct them when the parties (on the national level) tell them to.

Something doesn't make sense. States with primaries decide on candidates from several parties, as well as other ballot measures, judges, school boards, etc. How can the DNC or the RNC dictate to each other and to every other party in a state on when an election is to be held?

[rogue06]

Source: Democrats vote to upend presidential primary calendar for 2024 but challenges persist

Members of the Democratic National Committee overwhelmingly voted to reshuffle the party's presidential primary calendar, booting the Iowa caucuses from the early slate of states and boosting primaries in South Carolina, Nevada, Georgia and Michigan.

The vote Saturday, which punctuated a three-day gathering in Philadelphia, ratifies a proposal the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) made in December and officially cements what many Democrats have long called for: the elevation of states that are more reflective of the Democratic party's diversity.

"Folks, the Democratic party looks like America and so does this proposal," DNC Chair Jaime Harrison said ahead of the vote.

The RBC made its recommendation after conducting a lengthy process in which states interested in one of the coveted early window spots pitched the committee on areas of diversity, voter access, and competitiveness in a general election.

Under the adopted proposal, which President Biden himself advocated for in a letter to the RBC in December, the 2024 presidential calendar will have South Carolina in the plum first position on Feb. 3, followed by New Hampshire and Nevada jointly sharing the no. 2 slot on Feb. 6, then Georgia on Feb. 13 and Michigan on Feb. 27.


SOURCE

© Copyright Original Source

The actual reason for the shift?

Old Joe did not do well in either Iowa or New Hampshire, to the point some were expecting him to drop out. His fortunes changed in South Carolina, and in a party with a recent sordid history of running roughshod over the rank and file and deciding in advance who the nominee is regardless who the party faithful vote for, this change is hardly a surprise. I mean, this is the same party which has declared there would be no debate among the contestants during the primaries this go around since old Joe is increasingly having problems completing a coherent sentence (did you hear his confused, rambling almost incoherent remarks he recently made in Japan? ).

Further, as the party rushes as far left as fast as they can move, Iowa has become slightly more conservative over the past few decades and the left does not want anyone but reliable liberals having first crack. Besides, after the absolute fiasco that was the last Iowa caucus, where the Democrats were unable to figure out who voted for what even several days later and basically just called it for Buttigieg (in spite of all indications showing Sanders was ahead), they really don't want another such embarrassment.

[Ronson]

Isn't the article above simply talking about the DNC focus (i.e. attention) and not talking about rescheduling?

The actual reason for the shift?

Old Joe did not do well in either Iowa or New Hampshire, to the point some were expecting him to drop out. His fortunes changed in South Carolina, and in a party with a recent sordid history of running roughshod over the rank and file and deciding in advance who the nominee is regardless who the party faithful vote for, this change is hardly a surprise. I mean, this is the same party which has declared there would be no debate among the contestants during the primaries this go around since old Joe is increasingly having problems completing a coherent sentence (did you hear his confused, rambling almost incoherent remarks he recently made in Japan? ).

Further, as the party rushes as far left as fast as they can move, Iowa has become slightly more conservative over the past few decades and the left does not want anyone but reliable liberals having first crack. Besides, after the absolute fiasco that was the last Iowa caucus, where the Democrats were unable to figure out who voted for what even several days later and basically just called it for Buttigieg (in spite of all indications showing Sanders was ahead), they really don't want another such embarrassment.

What if the RNC tells Iowa and New Hampshire that it won't be party to what the DNC decides? Again, something doesn't make sense to me.

[rogue06]

Isn't the article above simply talking about the DNC focus (i.e. attention) and not talking about rescheduling?



What if the RNC tells Iowa and New Hampshire that it won't be party to what the DNC decides? Again, something doesn't make sense to me.

FWIU, there have been times when some states had primaries on different dates for Republicans and Democrats, but obviously this is something the state would wish to avoid.