Big States’ Plan for Earlier Primaries Scrambles '08 Race

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT: Big States’ Plan for Earlier Primaries Scrambles Race
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: January 25, 2007

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 — As many as four big states — California, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey — are likely to move up their 2008 presidential primaries to early next February, further upending an already unsettled nominating process and forcing candidates of both parties to rethink their campaign strategies, party officials said Wednesday.

The changes, which seem all but certain to be enacted by state legislatures, mean that the presidential candidates face the prospect of going immediately from an ordered series of early contests in relatively small states in January to a single-day, coast-to-coast battlefield in February, encompassing some of the most expensive advertising markets in the nation.

The changes would appear to benefit well-financed and already familiar candidates and diminish the prospects of those with less money and name recognition going into such a highly compressed series of contests early next year.

Associates of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York Democrat, and Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, said that should either of them stumble early on, the respective party primaries in California and New Jersey — two states that would seem particularly hospitable to them — could offer an expensive but welcome firewall....

***

...several party analysts suggested that having such delegate-rich states at stake on Feb. 5 could persuade candidates who might otherwise step out after a defeat in Iowa or New Hampshire to press on in hopes of a dramatic recovery on the new Super Tuesday....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/us/politics/25vote.html?hp&ex=1169787600&en=d7c7f5f0aa7675dd&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[BluegrassDem]

1. That's great!

I'm sick of N.H. and Iowa getting to pick our nominees.

This is definitely something Team Edwards doesn't want. They are staking their whole campaign on Iowa.

[sandnsea]

2. Only benefits Hillary n/t

[madfloridian]

3. Question: why didn't they scramble to move up their primaries in 04?

Why now? Florida would not even consider listening to us about it, now they are eager.

[Jane Austin]

4. February is way too soon to have such huge delegate numbers.

This plan only benefits the big -money candidates.

I don't think we should have primaries until March or April.

[BluegrassDem]

5. Well at least the big states are diverse

I don't think we need all big states going so early, but one or two would be nice. I'd love to see California or Florida being in February.

[DURHAM D]

6. Do you know where I can find a list of those states that

have a primary and those that caucus ?

[FrenchieCat]

7. Yep.....Money is running our elections....can't get states to do

anything about voting machines....but yeah...let's move all of the elections up! :crazy:

This country is rigged big time. Banana Republic is not even the 1/2 of it.

[bklyncowgirl]

8. I missed that line in the Constitution which said Iowa & New Hampshire choose who runs for President

This is all a matter of tradition--nothing more--nothing less.

Given the track records of those states--especially as far as the Democrats are concerned--I'd like to see some others in the mix.

For example--New Jersey--my state of residence.

Small
Diverse
Great Diners
Crazy voters
The most sought after celebrity endorsement in progressive politics (Bruce Springsteen)
Beaches--candidates in bathing suits?
Lots of photo ops of either devestation (Camden, toxic waste dumps) or natural beauty (the mountains, the shore)

Alright, it costs big bucks to break into the NY and Philly media markets but try us, you'll like us!

We deserve a chance! Can we do any worse than Iowa?

[Bucky]

9. Another possibility: without the "weeding" process of sequential primaries...

this actually increases the (still very slim) chance of a brokered convention. A frontrunner could do so so on February 5, then tank big in the second and third rounds, and limp along to the convention. It's then possible that the successor front runner would not have enough subsequent primaries to cull up a majority count of delegates.

If this backfires this way, we could finally see a serious reform of the nomination process.