This article speculates that the two parties might actually come to some kind of mutual agreement on the primary calendar this time, as part of their efforts at reforming the nominating process:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rnc-poised-to-begin-altering-its-primary-calendar-for-2012-2009-06-15.htmlBoth parties want to move the process to about a month later, with the earliest states voting in February, and most states being forced to wait until March or later.
IMHO, nothing much is going to come of this, because the RNC so far hasn't shown any interest in imposing harsher penalties on offending states than a loss of 50% of their delegates. That is hardly an effective deterrent. NH, SC, and FL (among other early states) each paid a 50% delegate penalty in 2008 for violating RNC rules, but those were the key primaries that clinched the nomination for McCain. So why should any state worry about that kind of penalty, if it means they can still wield enormous influence on the process by going early?
What could very easily happen is that states that will have both a Democratic governor and Democratic legislature in 2011 (which could include some big ones, like CA and NY) will move their primaries later again to comply with new DNC rules. With no contest on the Democratic side in 2012, there's nothing to be gained by going early, so they might as well comply with the rules, and avoid any delegate penalties.
But for any state where the GOP controls either the governorship or either house of the legislature, they'll just leave the early primaries in place, and to heck with the 50% delegate penalties. Seriously, why should the Republicans in the MI state legislature go along with any efforts to move their primary back to a sane time of the year, when going early will give them more influence?
