Uncertainty leading in race for president

The scramble for which primaries will be held when could influence the election in ways no one can predict.

September 24, 2007|By Larry Eichel, Inquirer Senior Writer
(Page 3 of 3)

"There's a lesson here for Republicans," said Bill Nowling, spokesman for the Michigan GOP. "If you're a state that's key in the general election and you break the rules to move up, you're going to get the attention you want."

So with Michigan locked into Jan. 15, New Hampshire seemingly has to go no later than Jan. 8. The final decision rests with the secretary of state there, William M. Gardner, who has given no indication of what he has in mind.

Story continues below.

His mission is to protect the New Hampshire primary at all costs. He has so much flexibility and so few polling places to worry about (315 statewide compared to Philadelphia's 1,681) that he probably can wait until Thanksgiving to make up his mind.

Once Gardner sets his date, Iowa's political leaders will set theirs. Gov. Chet Culver had pledged to keep the 2008 Iowa caucuses in 2008, which will put them extremely early in 2008.

In the end, Iowa and New Hampshire could end up almost on top of each other. That might magnify the so-called bounce that a successful Iowa candidate gets going into New Hampshire. Or reduce it. A case can be made either way.

Some strategists say the uncertainty helps the national front-runners, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Others say it simply reinforces the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire for the entire field.

A lot of people see the whole thing as a sign that the process is in desperate need of repair.

"Clearly, something needs to be done," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.). "The presidential nominating process is too important to our democracy to allow the pell-mell scramble to continue."


Contact senior writer Larry Eichel at 215-854-2415 or leichel@phillynews.com.

« Prev | 1 | 2 | 3
|
|
|
|
|