New Hampshire primary could be early December

In order to maintain our rightful position in line, I think we should just jump ahead a cycle and cast votes for the 2016 election instead.

Can full employment be far away? Already one of the nation's biggest industries, won't multi-billion dollar campaigns give us that financial boost the economy needs?

I can already see an uptick in employment at campaign button factories! This winter, we will warm ourselves with rhetoric!

Florida and Michigan have figured out -- quite correctly -- that the threats made by the party national committees to cut their delegations in half if they move up their primaries are completely empty. It doesn't matter how many delegates a state takes to the nominating convention -- after all, there hasn't been a contested nomination since at least 1976. If the nomination is going to be unanimous, what difference does it make that you have 100 delegates all voting the same way or only 50? Furthermore, when the party committees made similar threats to Florida and Michigan in 2008, they ended up backing down and letting them into the conventions with their full slates of delegates.

The important thing, then, is not the number of delegates a state has at stake in the primary, but the timing of the primary. Early states like Iowa and New Hampshire get all the attention, while late states like California get little, so clearly there is a huge advantage to holding the primaries early. Why nobody figured that out before is the real puzzle here, not why Florida and Michigan (and other states, like Arizona) want to move up their primaries.