1. I don’t understand – what is the incentive to have a *later* primary? The prestige of choosing earlier is lost and they are unlikely to be a deciding force even in a close primary (e.g. Democrats in 2008.)

   Does anyone have any perspective on this?

   -JAK

2. The move saves money. In 2008 Arkansas taxpayers paid for a presidential primary in February and a primary for other office in May. But in the future, the taxpayers will only pay for a May primary that has both president and all other partisan office as well.

3. Genius. Thanks.

4. Just to put to put a number to what Richard has said, in 2008, Arkansas could have saved $1.7 million by holding its presidential primary concurrent with its primaries for state and local offices.

   If you think of Arkansas’s 2008 primary in terms of a cost/benefit analysis, their benefits certainly took a hit with both Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee making the contests even more of a non-factor. But even if Clinton and Huckabee weren’t on the ballot in 2008, it is hard to imagine the Natural state getting enough of a return to overtake the nearly $2 million investment.

   If we look at two similarly sized states (also on February 5, 2008) like Oklahoma and Utah, neither got much of a financial return for being as early as they were. However, each fell on or before the point at which the nominations were settled. Having a say in that matters and matters more in some states than others.

5. Actually, I believe the DNC has a policy of rewarding states that move primaries back from a certain window of dates into another window of dates later with extra convention delegates. So perhaps this was Arkansas’ motivation; that and saving money.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.