Dem
51
GOP
49
The Democrats have decided to try to change their primary calendar to put South Carolina first, New Hampshire and Nevada together 3 days later, and then Georgia and Michigan in subsequent weeks. They may or may not get their wish because Republican-controlled state legislatures in South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Georgia could refuse to play ball and the incoming governor of Nevada, Joe Lombardo (R), could veto any change in the primary date.
That said, even many Democrats don't like the plan because it puts three states spread all over the country—South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Nevada—in play within 3 days. This could prove fatal to an insurgent with no money and no name recognition. Consequently, it is noteworthy that Howard Dean, who was Bernie before Bernie was Bernie, and ran an insurgent campaign in 2004, has now written an op-ed for Politico stating that he supports the new calendar. He knows everything there is to know about running a shoestring campaign in opposition to the DNC's preferred candidate. In the end, he lost, but he still understands the process very well. He says the advantages of a more diverse primary electorate up front outweigh any disadvantages. He also says that the ability of candidates who can attract a more diverse group of voters ultimately strengthens the Party. In addition, he notes that as a former chair of the DNC, he understands the inside baseball like no other, and says this is the best possible result the DNC could get. Note the use of "possible." He understands the tradeoffs and compromises that have to be made within the DNC and also understands that the "perfect" is the enemy of the "good."
Dean doesn't get into the details, but we can imagine that some candidates (especially Black ones) would focus entirely on South Carolina, where more than half the Democratic primary electorate is Black. A win there would make the winner a serious contender, no matter what happened the week after. Other candidates might focus entirely on Nevada and not campaign at all in South Carolina. When they finished ninth in South Carolina, they would tell reporters: "I didn't appear once in the state and didn't spend one dollar on ads. What did you expect? But I am going to clean up big time in Nevada on Tuesday." Any candidate who flunked South Carolina but aced Nevada would be a serious contender later in Georgia and Michigan. If candidate X won South Carolina and Y won Nevada, the media might settle on the story: "It's X vs. Y" and stop following the other candidates. That would winnow the field as effectively as Iowa and New Hampshire do now. Of course, if the other candidates kept going and Georgia had a third winner and Michigan a fourth one, all bets are off. However, note that Augusta, the second largest city in Georgia, is right across the Savannah River from South Carolina and its northern suburbs are actually in South Carolina. Consequently many Georgians will be hearing about the South Carolina primary and seeing the ads for it constantly. A rally held in Spiderweb, SC, is a twofer, since it is only 10 miles from downtown Augusta. Candidates who campaign vigorously in western South Carolina will have a leg up in Georgia just due to proximity. Candidates who focus entirely on Nevada won't.
It is doubtful that any candidate will bother with New Hampshire, doubly so if it holds an unsanctioned primary before South Carolina and the DNC has ruled that New Hampshire will get no delegates at the convention for violating its rules and candidates who campaign there will not be allowed on stage for the official debates. (V)