OUT On The Porch

What if they gave a primary and nobody came?

Suppose the next president ignored the “musical chairs” primaries and went on to win the office?

Here’s the latest from the sandbox.

The presidential primary season is beginning to look a lot like Christmas for political candidates and their aides, who got official word on Thursday that yet another state is moving its primary date even earlier in the 2008 calendar.

The change in the South Carolina Republican primary from Feb. 2 to Jan. 19 is bound to set off another game of leapfrog by state and party officials around the country, many determined to make sure their voters are among the earliest to weigh in on the presidential candidates.

The references to childhood games abounded, as some predicted that primary dates would change in response, like dominoes falling one after the other.

And then there was this frustrated response from one state representative in New Hampshire, which cherishes its first-in-the-nation primary:

“We don’t need that game of checkers,” said Jim Splaine, sponsor of a decades-old law that requires his state’s primary be held at least a week ahead of others of its kind.

Even if that means the Granite State vote interrupts holiday dinners. The secretary of state can do it, Splaine warned, on short notice.

The South Carolina GOP announcement was only the latest development in the race to be first, a contest now reaching bizarre dimensions.

Florida set things in motion recently by putting its GOP primary on Jan. 29, ahead of the vote in South Carolina. Republicans in South Carolina started griping about losing their first-in-the-South distinction, inspiring the decision to move it up, even though the Democratic presidential primary in the Palmetto State is set for Jan. 29.

That triggers an automatic change in New Hampshire to comply with the week-ahead law, which in turn could inspire Iowa officials to reschedule their caucuses so they’re still first.

And that’s to say nothing of what’s going on in Michigan, where some party leaders are talking about voting on whatever date is ultimately set in New Hampshire — which probably kicks the whole carousel into yet another wacky turn.

Dizzy yet? Imagine the feeling of early-state voters, who could be digesting political ads right along with the holiday turkey.

“Do people really want to turn on ‘A Christmas Story’ and have it interrupted 20 times by negative ads?” asked Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political science professor who examines the primary system in a new book, “A More Perfect Constitution.”

“What about ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’?” he asked. “After they see 10 of these ads, people will be encouraging Jimmy Stewart to jump off that bridge.”

The practical implications have campaign strategists befuddled. How do they reserve television ad time when they’re not certain where the first primaries will take place? Which state’s campaign operations should they be building now, and which will need help later?

Thursday’s announcement came in an unusual venue, after South Carolina Republican Chairman Katon Dawson traveled up the coast to the New Hampshire Statehouse.

In a joint news conference with New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner, Dawson said: “We are here to stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends in New Hampshire to reaffirm the importance of preserving the prominent role both of our states play in presidential politics.”

Gardner thanked the South Carolina Republicans for their “goodwill” in announcing their firm date this week. And he urged other states to make their intentions known.

But he wasn’t just asking politely. State law empowers Gardner to change the New Hampshire primary on his own, and officials say the state’s small size means they could mobilize a primary quickly.

“Logistically,” said Splaine, “we can put on an election with short notice.”

Sure you can. But should you?