DNC members said that a lack of input from the White House might be

holding up information disseminated to them by the committee about a

meeting on Thursday to start settling on the primary calendar, with
December's deadline looming.

"The DNC has gone completely silent, and it's understood that it is because
the White House hasn't made a decision on what it wants," said one member
of the committee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal
discussions.

Another DNC member familiar with decision-making, who likewise requested

anonymity, told ABC News that they do not expect Biden to "weigh in heavily"
on the calendar but they do expect his staff to make "winks and nods"
privately before the group convenes Thursday -- which this member would
view as a generally encouraging sign that the White House approves of the
party's decision to pursue a different nominating calendar.

This member conceded that many of their colleagues have been "frustrated"
by the silence, however.

"We all want guidance. We want to know what the thinking is," the member
said. "We kind of know in this business that if the White House is not weighing
super strongly about something, it's because it's kind of a wink and a nod that
they're agreeing with the direction that this is going in, at least, the broad
strokes. And Democrats, we all agree that this needs to change."

The White House declined to comment for this story.

Carol Fowler, a member of the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC)
from South Carolina, said she thinks Biden's decision in this process
"absolutely" will impact the way the nominating calendar will be finalized.

"I have always assumed that at some point in this process, we will hear from
the White House and know what President Biden's preference is. There is
nobody on that committee -- I don't think -- who would want to oppose the
president in this," she said.

It may all seem bureaucratic and confusing to the casual observer, but the
stakes of the decision are high, with many Democrats saying the traditional
order of their primaries is in desperate need of a change to encourage the
kinds of candidates who can ultimately appeal to voters nationwide -- the true
purpose of the process.

"I would 100% call it an imperative for the national party to figure this out
ahead of a competitive primary going forward," said Rebecca Pearsey, a
Democratic strategist who worked on Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's
2020 campaign.

Party experts said two key questions hang over the deliberations, which are
expected to begin at the meeting on Thursday and stretch into the weekend:

If the DNC swaps Iowa out as the first state, how can Democrats continue to
ensure an early focus on the larger Midwest, which is home to multiple
battleground states? And what order will that final grouping of early states be
in?
Below is a breakdown of the current early states and two potential additions.

A pedestrian walks past a sign for the Iowa Caucuses on a downtown

skywalk, in Des Moines, Iowa, Feb. 4, 2020.

Charlie Neibergall/AP, FILE

Will another Midwest state replace Iowa?

Michigan and Minnesota have been cited by committee members as the

Midwestern front-runners jockeying for Iowa's top spot. Both states applied
earlier this year to be the first state on the nominating calendar and both are
run by Democratic governments, making it easier to shift primary dates.

Minnesota Democrats, in a June pitch, argued that their high turnout --

especially among diverse racial communities -- along with strong union
membership and robust LGBTQ communities should be a draw. While
Michigan is racially more diverse than Minnesota, Minnesota's
Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party's chairman, Ken Martin, told ABC News that
his state wins out as far as voter turnout among those same groups.

Rep. Debbie Dingell, who has long championed Michigan's inclusion in the
early primary window, believes her home state is "very much in the mix" and
balked at the insinuation from some other Democrats that the state is simply
too large and too expensive for candidates that early in the cycle.

"Our state reflects the diversity of this country. And that's what you need,"
Dingell said. "You need to test these candidates so they are being screened
for the question: Can they win in November? And Michigan meets that criteria
to a T."

But some in the party said that one of the biggest limitations for Michigan
holding an earlier primary is its size. For example, committee members noted
that the state's large media markets could cost initially lesser-known
candidates -- like, in 2008, Barack Obama -- a real shot at emerging from a
crowded field.
Rep. Debbie Dingell walks through the U.S. Capitol prior to an event on Dec.
19, 2019 in Washington, D.C.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Democratic presidential candidate US Senator Barack Obama attends a
Democratic party Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Indianapolis, Ind., May 4, 2008.

Emmanuel Dunand/AFP via Getty Images

Another factor, some members said, would be that Michigan would award so
many more delegates than the other traditional early states (like New
Hampshire and South Carolina) that it would create an imbalance. Candidates
would essentially focus only on one part of the country and that state's voters
would gain outsized influence, repeating the current problem.

The odds are increasingly stacked against Iowa to keep its top spot on
Democrats' nominating calendar Still, Scott Brennan, Iowa's committee
member on the national RBC, told ABC News that he feels confident his state
will be competitive in keeping its spot after they restructured their infamously
complicated caucus process to "satisfy all the concerns that were ever
raised."

Brennan said it would be a "tremendous win" if the state were to stay in the
early window.

In South Carolina -- the first Southern state on the calendar and the first state
with a sizable bloc of Black voters, who are a crucial Democratic constituency
-- state Democrats said the optimistic they'll keep a spot as one of the initial
nominating states.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire did not suffer from the crippling logistical issues that
hamstrung Democrats' 2020 Iowa caucuses. But the state, which is about
90% white, still faces criticism that it lacks sufficient diversity to represent the
party base as it fights to keep its No. 2 slot.

However, the state Democratic Party insists on its record of holding successful
primaries that force candidates to wear out their shoe leather to prove their
skill at face-to-face campaigning.

"New Hampshire voters are extremely active. They're very involved in the
process," said New Hampshire Democratic Party spokesperson Monica
Venzke. "Candidates who come to New Hampshire leave stronger
candidates."

A Voter casts her vote in the Democratic Primary at the Varnville Firehouse,
Jan. 26, 2008, in Varnville, S.C.

Stephen Morton/Getty Images

State law also mandates that New Hampshire must hold its primary seven
days before any other in the country. Neither Democrats or Republicans in
state government seem eager to change that rule, which would pose a hurdle
to other states looking to leapfrog it on the calendar. If the DNC chooses to
have another state primary go first, that could trigger a kind of calendar arms
race in which New Hampshire simply moves its primary up as well to abide by
its law.

Currently, Iowa can go ahead of it because Iowa holds caucuses, not

primaries. The caucus system, which is different than a standard election, is
used by fewer and fewer states and territories each cycle. Nevada abandoned
it after 2020.

Nevada

Nevada is one of the states making the biggest push to go first in the primary
calendar, which ticks many of the DNC's self-described boxes.

Nevada boasts significant racial diversity and is not expensive or vast enough
-- in terms of the necessary campaign team -- to price out some candidates. It
also remains a perennial swing state, so a candidate who wins enough
Democratic voters there could make the argument that they are more
electable in a tight race.

"Nevada is a state where you can find out who can go the distance," said
Lambe, the strategist.

As for how Nevada could be squeezed ahead of New Hampshire's state law,
though, some in the party said it would be a thorny matter best solved by the
national committee.
"It's really going to be an issue for the DNC to work through on how to enforce
the new calendar," a strategist said, "but it can be dealt with with tough rules
and sanctions."