Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 | 7:25 a.m.
Even as new presidential contenders Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are furiously working behind the scenes to raise money and scoop up talent, the states are having a more public battle in the fight to be influential in the Democratic nomination process.
Nevada is now getting squeezed from both ends. With New Hampshire still threatening to move up its primary to come before not only Nevada but also Iowa, a hungry pack of delegate-rich states is scrambling to move up their primaries on the heels of the Silver State's caucus.
The Democrats' presidential nominating game is likely becoming a two-step process, political analysts say. The first step will be four, small, early states, including Nevada, followed about two weeks later by a group of large states, including California, Illinois, New Jersey and Florida.
Those big states are all making noise about moving up their primaries in an effort to play a more influential role in selecting the nominee.
Analysts disagree about how the sudden entry of the big states will have an impact on Nevada .
A report from Congressional Quarterly, a respected, nonpartisan political journal in Washington, D.C., said a proposed Feb. 5 California primary could dilute the primacy of the small, early states: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.
"It's probably going to make you less significant," said William Galvin, the Massachusetts secretary of state. Less significant translates into fewer visits by the candidates, which means less voice given to issues important in the state.
But Charlie Cook, presidential prognosticator and editor of the Cook Political Report in Washington, said the big-state front-loading could help Nevada and the other small states because the candidates will be desperate to show they have momentum going into California.
"I had better have a lot of momentum going into that week," he said.
The Cook logic goes like this: The big-state contests will largely be fought through television commercials, with the candidates making stops at airports for press conferences but largely fighting it out over the airwaves. They will also need loads of cash to set up organizations in multiple large states simultaneously.
To raise the money necessary for such operations, they'll need to show big donors they're competitive by winning in the small, early states. That would mean shaking hands outside the Whole Foods in Summerlin or Green Valley or a stop at the UNLV campus.
Jean Hessburg, the former executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party hired by Nevada Democrats to run the Silver State caucus, said political history over the past 20 years bears that out. Candidates who finish poorly in the early-contest states have never recovered in states that held later primaries, she said.
"It rolls you forward," she said of early-state victories. "Once you get momentum, it builds on itself."
The new calendar also could affect the campaigns and their strategies, with the well-funded and well-organized favorites gaining an advantage from the front-loaded calendar.
"The more compact the calendar, the more difficult it becomes for second- and third-tier candidates," said Nathan Gonzales, political editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report in Washington. "It only benefits those that can afford to put together a field operation in every state."
Representatives for the campaigns of New York's Clinton and Illinois' Obama - the two presumptive front-runners - said a front-loaded calendar wouldn't affect the amount of attention each candidate gives to Nevada and the other early states.
Given that both campaigns are well-funded, the statements aren't surprising. The two can afford to wage expensive media campaigns in major markets like California and New Jersey while they hit the ground in the early-contest states.
Other dark-horse presidential bids aren't as fortunate.
Take, for instance, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. "I will respectably do well in fundraising but I'm not going to compete with the top-tier candidates," Richardson told the Sun in an interview Friday. "My campaign will be a grass-roots campaign."
Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack agreed. The compact calendar "puts a premium on smaller states and retail politics," spokesman Jeff Link said.
Donna Brazile, a Democratic consultant who managed former Vice President Al Gore's campaign in 2000, said the shifting calendar creates logistical headaches for campaigns, especially those of second-tier candidates.
"The candidates need an opportunity to get set up in these states and get their message out," she said. "I think that becomes a lot more difficult when big states try to muscle their way into the process."
Still, while the Democratic National Committee plans to offer states incentives to keep their current positions on the calendar, it lacks the power of enforcement. States have the final say, and one state in particular leads the pack: New Hampshire.
While the Granite State's position on the calendar hasn't changed, a flurry of media reports over the last week have described a renewed vigor on the part of state officials to protect their first-in-the-nation primary status at all costs, even if it means moving the election before Jan. 1.
"If we're seeing any resurgence in New Hampshire talking about moving up, it's because they see all the interest in Nevada," said Kirsten Searer, spokeswoman for the Nevada Democratic Party. "It's becoming more and more clear that candidates are taking Nevada seriously."
One day after declaring his intentions to run last week, Richardson announced that he had already hired a Silver State campaign team. He swung through Northern Nevada this weekend to meet with activists, elected officials and labor leaders.
Former Sen. John Edwards, who visited Nevada a half-dozen times last year, is expected to make his own staff announcements for Nevada this week.
Vilsack will be in town Friday.
archive
