The caucus shuffle

Nevada Democrats had carved out a caucus date — Jan. 19 — to lure presidential candidates, entice voters and woo the national media. Republicans looked at the calendar and decided to play a game of “Me, too.”

But now all bets are off as Nevada once again finds itself unable to control its own destiny. The fate of Nevada’s caucus date lies somewhere in the American southeast — a place the party swears it doesn’t need to win a national election if only energy were focused in the West.

Seems like every time the party tries to emphasize the Rocky Mountain West, the political force from the coasts continues to dominate. Other, bigger states are angling to jump ahead of Nevada in the primary/caucus schedule.

The latest shuffle has Nevada planning a contingency around Jan. 12 — a full seven days ahead of the current red-letter day. The Democrats say they’re “nimble,” and the spin machine is already churning out the story line that holding the caucus a week early would actually free more service workers to participate. The scheduled date of Jan. 19 is the Saturday of a three-day holiday weekend that typically has hotels packed on the Strip.

Nevada may be flexible, but it is once again bending over to kiss its own rear because it so fears being irrelevant.

Florida is really causing all the latest commotion. Still reeling from the 2000 election, the state’s Democrats use disenfranchisement better than any race card. Florida is hijacking South Carolina’s date, and no one outside the Palmetto State is really crying foul. That has all but forced South Carolina to jump up a week — to Jan. 19 — to protect its early position.

“Should South Carolina move up to our date, they would really force us to change,” Democratic State Chairwoman Jill Derby said.

It’s bad enough the purple Mountain West still can’t prove itself worthy of a look. Last I checked, the South is almost as bright red as Kansas, while Democrats have made sizable gains in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and even Montana and Nevada. Of course, there’s little Derby and her party can do but allow New Hampshire to move ahead of Nevada and to circle a new day on the calendar.

“We’re just ready to protect our position,” Derby said.

Holding early votes in Nevada and South Carolina wasn’t supposed to be about defense. It was supposed to highlight the Democratic Party’s diversity with Hispanic, black and labor voters. It was supposed to take steps into traditional Republican states in the hopes of providing a template for the 2008 presidential nominee to run on.

So much for diversifying the nomination process. If Nevada moves to Jan. 12, Iowa and New Hampshire will still get to be first and second. That’s all it took in 2004 for Sen. John Kerry to all but lock up the Democratic nomination.

If the changes are made, Nevada will slip from second to third. Even in third position, Nevada will have to work hard to lure the attention away from South Carolina, the state that Republicans really view as the new test. Among GOP candidates, only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney seems to have noticed Nevada, in part because it offers him the best chance for an early calendar victory.

So despite what the Democrats do in the game of musical chairs, the state Republicans will come along for the ride.

“I think there’s a lot of power in keeping the dates together,” Republican consultant Pete Ernaut said.

Think of how irrelevant the state GOP would be if it had to vie for attention with a Republican primary in the South.

The latest shuffle comes as national media continue to downplay the relevance of Nevada to the larger “early” calendar. South Carolina is much closer to Washington. And the South is still believed by many Democrats to be the ticket to the White House. The party certainly hasn’t won without it.

South Carolina’s population of both blacks and evangelicals make it a draw for both parties, while Nevada’s diverse voter base — the Hispanics — is still an unproven factor.

When a few delegate-rich states threatened to move up their primaries, the traditional states went into a tizzy that largely left Nevada and South Carolina unprotected by national party officials. So Nevada Democrats cut a so-called deal with the other early states, urging the presidential candidates not to campaign in states trying to usurp the holy primacy of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

All of the candidates dutifully signed the pledge, which some immediately violated with no real consequence.

In about two weeks, South Carolina will cement its new position, putting Nevada on defense again.

Erin Neff’s column runs Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. She can be reached at (702) 387-2906, or by e-mail at eneff@reviewjournal.com.