New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation presidential primary will be Jan. 8 - the earliest ever - setting the stage for a critical five-day political blitz early next year that could determine the course of the race for the White House in both parties.
Ending months of uncertainty, New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner yesterday picked a date that is essentially just a long weekend after the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses. The narrow window will give candidates little time to recover from, or capitalize on, their Iowa showing.
"The tempo here is going to be remarkably fast-paced," said David Winston, a Republican political consultant not affiliated with any campaign. "No matter where you are in terms of ideology or politics, this is going to be a fascinating month."
Although many had expected Gardner would settle on Jan. 8, he acknowledged yesterday that by announcing his decision so late, he had tested the patience of the political world. But he said he was waiting for Michigan to set its date so that he could preserve New Hampshire's "uniquely American tradition," one he said had "served our nation well" for decades.
The announcement locks in place one of the final puzzle pieces in next year's front-loaded presidential primary schedule. Nearly half the states will vote on or before Feb. 5, forcing Democratic and Republican candidates to campaign and raise money in unprecedented ways, including making stops and running ads in more states.
The trigger for Gardner's move was a Michigan Supreme Court ruling yesterday affirming that state's Jan. 15 primary. Voters in Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida vote next, followed by more than 20 states on Feb. 5, including Massachusetts, after the Legislature voted Tuesday to move the primary up from March 4. Wyoming Republicans - but not Democrats - are scheduled to vote on Jan. 5.
The stampede by other states to shift their primary dates earlier raises questions about whether Iowa and New Hampshire, traditionally the first states to vote, will have as much influence over the 2008 nominating process as they have in past elections. With both parties' Iowa races looking markedly different from the ones in New Hampshire, the five days between the contests will be fraught with peril and possibility - even more so with back-to-back Democratic and Republican prime-time debates in New Hampshire on Jan. 5 that were announced yesterday by WMUR and ABC.
On the Republican side, Mitt Romney remains the front-runner in Iowa, though recent surveys show him only a hair ahead of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who has skyrocketed in the polls.
In New Hampshire, Romney enjoys a larger lead, while Huckabee is a distant fifth behind former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain of Arizona, and Representative Ron Paul of Texas.
If Romney were to lose in Iowa, where he has invested more money and time than his rivals, he would have little time to shore up his New Hampshire support. But Huckabee would also have little time to build on a strong showing in Iowa.
Paul Manuel, executive director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, said he believes the short window will be enough for a candidate such as Huckabee. Huckabee, he said, would only have to beat expectations in New Hampshire, not necessarily overtake Romney.
"It's not a matter of winning, [but] a matter of momentum," Manuel said.
Among Democrats, the contests in Iowa and New Hampshire also differ markedly. Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina are bunched atop the polls in Iowa, with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's support also in the double digits. But Clinton holds a sizable lead in New Hampshire, with Obama second, and Edwards and Richardson further back.
If Obama or Edwards were to eke out a victory in Iowa, they would have little time to transfer that momentum into New Hampshire. But if Clinton were to win in Iowa, her candidacy could look more inevitable.
"Having it close, back-to-back, will be great for the front-runners or it could be a nightmare," Manuel said. "If they both hold their ground in Iowa, it could be a slam dunk. But if they have trouble in Iowa, it's absolutely a different story."
The fluidity in the Democratic and Republican primary races underscores the potential importance of the period between Iowa's and New Hampshire's votes, which for the last six presidential elections was eight days. In a Globe poll this month of New Hampshire voters, just 16 percent of likely Republican voters and 24 percent of likely Democratic voters said they had definitely decided whom to support.
New Hampshire has held the first presidential primary since 1920, though it was not until 1952 that candidates first appeared on the ballot.
Before then, delegates were unpledged. (In Iowa, by contrast, voters do not cast secret ballots, but gather in caucuses to publicly declare their support for a candidate.)
For several decades, New Hampshire's primary took place in early March. It moved to late February in 1976, and crept steadily earlier, to Jan. 27 in 2004. The 19-day leap forward this time is by far the largest in the history of the primary, a symptom of the immense pressure from other states seeking to blunt New Hampshire's influence.
This time, the national Republican Party is threatening to take away half the state's 24 delegates to the 2008 national convention because of the early date. But candidates are already vowing to help the state get all its delegates seated. Moreover, New Hampshire law calls for an interval of at least seven days before and after the state's primary and any similar election.
This is the eighth presidential primary Gardner has overseen, and it is the latest he has ever made his decision - just 48 days ahead of the vote. The uncertainty has been vexing to presidential candidates, though most campaigns have assumed that Gardner would pick a date in early January.
New Hampshire Republican Party chairman Fergus Cullen likened the situation to expecting a baby.
"You know essentially the month and the year the baby is due, but not the specific date it will really happen," he said. "But not knowing doesn't change the fact you need to get a baby's room ready, notify your work you need time off. It doesn't change one thing in your day-to-day life."
Scott Helman can be reached at shelman@globe.com.
