And so all eyes in the American political world turn to West Virginia -- a state none of the pundits and pontificators know (or care) much about. They certainly never expected to be in a hotel room in Wheeling or Charleston in the middle of May this year. Because the conventional wisdom set in stone -- before anybody actually cast a primary vote -- was that "Super Duper Tsunami Tuesday" (as it was called back then, mercifully shortened now to just "Super Tuesday") was going to be the whole Magilla. On the not-as-super-Wednesday that followed, we would have a Democratic nominee, and could then focus on beating Rudy Giuliani in November.

That this never came to pass is an indictment of following the chattering classes inside the Beltway, and their so-called conventional "wisdom." Because here we sit, months after Super Tuesday, and we're still paying attention to primaries in states that never get mentioned on the national news otherwise (barring spectacular video footage of some natural disaster there). Which begs the question for the next election cycle -- what will the primary calendar look like in 2012?

Put yourself in the position of Democratic leaders and legislators in one of these low-profile states. Or even a big state, it doesn't really matter, because the calculation will be the same. You want your state to have maximum influence on the Democratic race for a presidential nominee, but you are unsure, after the neverending story that happened this year, as to where to stick the pin in the calendar.

Assuming Michigan and Florida are penalized in some way for ignoring the party rules and moving their primaries up earlier than February 5th, we're going to assume that this option isn't seen as viable. Meaning you have from February 5th until early June to schedule your primary.

So where do you put it?

There are basically three choices -- front of the line, somewhere in the middle, and end of the line. Front of the line means either Super Tuesday or some time in early February. End of the line means shooting for where we are right now in the calendar -- say, May and June. Leaving a middle stretching from February to the end of April.

Complicating your task is the fact that you have no idea where the other states are going to move on the calendar. So you can't count on (for instance) there being a six-week gap before Pennsylvania votes (April 22nd), both because Pennsylvania might move and also because other states might get the same idea.

One by one, let's look at the options.

Front of the line

Jump all the way to the front of the line, and go for Super Tuesday. Remember, 2008 is probably a fluke, and conventional wisdom may be right next time around. If there is only one strong candidate coming out of the early-voting states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina), they may wrap things up early. So being at the front of the line is the only way to virtually guarantee that the candidates pay attention to the issues in your state, and campaign there.

But there's a dilution effect as well. If 20 or 25 states all vote on the same day, then the candidate may never get to your state because there are just too many of them to cover in the short time period they'll have. So if you're a big state, Super Tuesday is probably the safest of bets (if the candidate has a limited choice of states to pay attention to, they'll likely head to the biggest ones first). If you are a medium-sized or smaller state, then you might want to think about shooting for a few days after Super Tuesday. That way, if Super Tuesday does turn out to be somewhat of a mixed result, you will be the first "tie-breaker" state to vote afterwards.

The real problem for almost all the front-of-the-line choices is that there may not be enough time for any single candidate to gain "momentum," and therefore your state could wind up voting for someone who fizzles out later in the contest. So while the front of the pack is a safe choice in some ways, it also carries its own risks.

The long middle of the campaign

This might be the way to go. Both early-middle and late-middle states have gotten an enormous amount of attention from both the candidates and the media during this election. Of course, that's not always the way it's going to happen. The biggest risk of the middle is pegging your state too late on the calendar to be relevant.

The size of your state will also enter into your calculations. Big states can probably get away with either early-middle or late-middle, since they've got such a pile of delegates that they may be important no matter when the vote happens (as Pennsylvania was this year). States like Ohio and Texas got a lot of attention in early March as well, showing that bigger states will draw interest (assuming the contest is an extended one, like this year) no matter which month they pick.

Medium-to-small states may head to the beginning of this period, crowding into late February and early March. No Democratic candidate ever again is going to ignore the caucuses in small states after Barack Obama racked up eleven victories this February. The lesson Hillary Clinton learned will be "conventional wisdom" next time around for every campaign -- don't write states off early in the contest.

But then again, for any state to pick a later date might help them out, too. If everyone's crowding to the front, then you may have a large gap (like the six weeks preceding the Pennsylvania primary) right before your primary. And if the contest is still open, this means more attention for your state. The candidates (and the media) will be limited to a day or two in the earlier states, if the calendar is so full of them in February. And more than one state may pick the same days in February, further diluting the interest. But if your state votes a few weeks later, the candidates will be forced to spend all that time (and all those ad dollars) in your state.

Of course, the later you go, the more chance there is that your state will be completely irrelevant, since the chances of there being a clear nominee before your state votes will be higher.

End of the line

Which brings us to the riskiest choice of all -- the end of the line. But maybe not all that risky. Here's a scenario that almost happened this year: California was going to vote in June. At the last minute, they moved up the primary to Super Tuesday. But if they had stayed at the end of the line, imagine how different the race would be right now. California is the 800-pound gorilla of electoral politics, because it has the most people and hence the most delegates and the most electoral votes. If Hillary and Barack were just about even (without California's vote total), can you imagine how fierce the battle for the Golden State would be? Instead of waiting for relative delegate-count lightweights as South Dakota and Montana, there would now be a media and campaign frenzy currently happening on the West Coast.

But this may only truly be viable for a big state to pull off. If this were an ordinary year, would anyone care who wins West Virginia's vote in May? Even this year, with such a tight race, a likely Clinton landslide in the Mountain State is not going to stop Obama from winning the nomination. So moving to the back of the line is really a better option for bigger states, not small ones.

And, of course, the huge risk with the end of the line is that no matter how big you are, the whole thing may be wrapped up by the time your citizens vote.

Conclusion

The 2012 primary calendar for Democrats will doubtlessly be different than it was this time around. But the question is: how will it be different? If you were governor of your state, and it was up to you to pick a day, where would you put your state's primary?

There was one interesting example from this year that could even cause states to think collectively and organize "regional" primaries. "Crab Cake Tuesday" (also known as "Potomac Tuesday" or "Chesapeake Tuesday") was when Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia all voted on the same day. Now, Washington, D.C. is pretty small in size. But it has almost as many delegates (37) as West Virginia (39). And Maryland and Virginia are about equal (99 to 101). By banding together, they got more attention combined than they would have separately.

And -- a crucial point -- this not only helped their states, it also helped the candidates. Because candidates don't look at "states" as much as they look at "television markets." When you have to pay to run an ad, you want it to do the most good. With Crab Cake Tuesday, an ad buy in the Washington, D.C. television market covered big parts of Virginia and Maryland as well. This is the value of regional primaries -- it allows the campaigns themselves to save money, while still campaigning effectively.

So if (for instance) Vermont were to band together with Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, a single ad buy in the Boston television market would reach a lot of voters at the same time, instead of having to advertise on three or four separate occasions in the same big-city market. There are plenty of other examples of how this could work out nicely for the states themselves, the candidates, and the party as a whole. If you make the primary campaign cheaper to run, then you save money for the general election.

So consider banding together with other states if you share a metropolitan area of a big city as well. But the question remains -- where would you move your state in the 2012 primary calendar?

-- Chris Weigant