Idle primary speculations: What if Bill Gardner and New Gingrich do the unthinkable?

Plenty of analysis of the presidential primaries is being done on this website and by every other political observer. What Romney's Iowa lead mean for his chances in Florida? How much can Edwards hope to gain from a potential win in the Iowa caucuses? But all of this speculation is based on the premise that the states will vote in the order that right now appears most likely: Iowa in early January (probably the 3rd), New Hampshire on the 8th, Nevada on the 14th, Michigan on the 15th, South Carolina on the 19th, and Florida on the 29th. Then, of course, comes the mega-huge tsunami-esque February 5th.

It is on the basis of this order that the campaigns have been refining their strategies: Romney's hope is to capitalize on a probable Iowa victory to jump to victory in New Hampshire and then sweep the early states, and Obama and Edwards are putting all their hopes in Iowa as the only place they can destabilize Clinton.

But this calendar is far, very far from being set in stone. And it is all up to Bill Gardner, who has been NH's Secretary of State the past 31 years! It is entirely up to him to announce when the New Hampshire primary will take place... and he could wait as late as November or early December to schedule it. Iowa officials are waiting for Gardner to make his move, so that they can schedule their own caucuses and start the lengthy organizing process (since Iowa wants to go first, they are forced to wait for NH's date in case Gardner leapfrogs ahead of them). Most people are betting on Gardner to schedule the NH primary on January 8th, but some question whether he might do the unthinkable -- and move it to December:

But some in New Hampshire speculate that Gardner could move the primary into December—perhaps Dec. 18—to ensure plenty of time before the contests to follow. Iowa is committed to being first, but officials clearly shudder at the thought of a December caucus. As Iowa Gov. Chet Culver put it, "In this state, we're still going to have Christmas."

If this were to happen, Iowa would either change its state law and stay in January, or move ahead of NH in December. Let's look at the former case first:

1. This would clearly benefit Clinton on the Democratic side and hurt Romney on the Republican side. Clinton is much stronger in NH than she is in Iowa, and she could get some momentum that would then help her win in Iowa. Also, Obama and Edwards will need every moment of the fall to trip up Clinton, and advancing the start of the primary season by a month would not be welcome news to them.
2. On the Republican side, this would dramatically hurt Romney. While he is in a position to win in New Hampshire, he is counting on the Iowa boost to propel him to further victories. Also, if there was a big gap between the caucuses and Nevada, he would be less likely to benefit from his momentum.

If Iowa follows New Hampshire in December, the same candidates would benefit and hurt:

1. First, Iowa and New Hampshire's influence would be greatly diminished. With a month to go between the NH primary and the Nevada caucuses, losing campaigns would have plenty of time to recover.
2. This means that a Clinton stumble in Iowa would not matter as much as it would in early January. And Obama's highest hope - a sweep of the two early states - would certainly give him a boost, but one that would have time to fade before the heavily Clinton states of Michigan and Florida came into the game.
3. Same thing in the Republican side: Romney's best-case (actually his only good case)scenario of a similar sweep would be totally undermined. Giuliani would have all the time in the world to consolidate his lead in FL or California, as Romney's only hope is an extremely rapid succession of states. Imagine what would have happened in 2004 if New Hampshire voted a month after Kerry's Iowa comeback, rather than a week later

Gardner is unlikely to move his primary to December simply because that would dramatically reduce NH's influence on the primary process. But the Edwards, Obama and Romney campaigns better prepare for that possibility.

And another huge development could shake up the race next week: Newt Gingrich might be preparing to jump in the race for the Republican nomination. He had always indicated interest in the election, but Thompson's entrance appeared to have satisfied his desire to see a conservative in the race. Apparently, he is now disappointed in Thompson and is considering jumping in... if he gets $30 million dollar of contribution pledges first from supporters! It is way to early to determine what this could mean, and the first lesson we should draw from this is that the Thompson campaign has completly failed in its goal to fail the conservative void and appear as the "savior" of the GOP. It appears that a Gingrich candidacy would hurt Thompson the most, and then probably Romney as well, in that it would further divide the vote of the party's right. This would obviously give a huge opening to Rudy Giuliani, who might very well benefit from a Gingrich candidacy. Does Newt really want to take that risk?