Moving onnnnn upppp....

[MAS117]

Senate President Richard Codey has scheduled a vote for Monday on legislation to move the 2008 New Jersey Presidential primary to the first Tuesday in February.  The primary is currently scheduled for the last Tuesday in February.  "Moving our primary up to early February will bring New Jersey back to the center of the national debate on our future and send a clear message to Presidential candidates that we are not just an ATM machine to be drawn from after the primary candidates have been chosen.," said Codey.  (11/30/06)

It's about time....
It seems like every state is moving up their primary though...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It seems like every state is moving up their primary though...

"once everyone is super, no one will be"

[Middle-aged Europe]

Senate President Richard Codey has scheduled a vote for Monday on legislation to move the 2008 New Jersey Presidential primary to the first Tuesday in February.  The primary is currently scheduled for the last Tuesday in February.  "Moving our primary up to early February will bring New Jersey back to the center of the national debate on our future and send a clear message to Presidential candidates that we are not just an ATM machine to be drawn from after the primary candidates have been chosen.," said Codey.  (11/30/06)

It's about time....
It seems like every state is moving up their primary though...

Um, if this trend continues, the whole primary season will last from mid-January to early February one day... with Super Tuesdays (or should we say Mega Tuesdays?) held three or four weeks in a row or something like that.

Not that I don't understand the reason... who wants to be the state which holds its primary when nobody cares about the results anymore?

But maybe it would be a better idea to push all the primaries to a later date instead of holding them earlier and earlier.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

This means an extra-long campaign once the nominees are decided then (unless a nomination goes all the way to the convention, which would probably put the opposing party in with a huge advantage.)

[Middle-aged Europe]

This means an extra-long campaign once the nominees are decided then (unless a nomination goes all the way to the convention, which would probably put the opposing party in with a huge advantage.)

Therefore I would suggest to pack all of the primaries into a three or four week period right before the nominating conventions, instead of holding them so early on.

I understand that everyone wants to be one of the first states to hold a presidential primary and there's probably no way to reverse this trend, but it doesn't make sense to settle for a presidential candidate almost a year before the election.

[Gabu]

I still think that they should just hold every primary on the same day.  Then you can't just ignore most of the country when running a primary campaign.

[TheresNoMoney]

I still think that they should just hold every primary on the same day.

That totally contradicts what the primary season is supposed to be about: retail politics.

[bullmoose88]

I still think that they should just hold every primary on the same day.

That totally contradicts what the primary season is supposed to be about: retail politics.

I agree with Gabu...and Scoonie, aren't you a little biased here...being from New Hampshire and all? C'mon...

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I still think that they should just hold every primary on the same day.  Then you can't just ignore most of the country when running a primary campaign.

That would make money more of an issue than it already is. Effectively for non-incumbent parties that would be running two nationwide campaigns.

[Gabu]

I still think that they should just hold every primary on the same day.

That totally contradicts what the primary season is supposed to be about: retail politics.

The primary season is supposed to be about a term that is apparently undefined?

No wonder I don't understand its setup.

That would make money more of an issue than it already is. Effectively for non-incumbent parties that would be running two nationwide campaigns.

I would consider money being an issue preferable to giving the power of nomination to approximately 10 out of 50 states or so.

[TheresNoMoney]

The primary season is supposed to be about a term that is apparently undefined?

No wonder I don't understand its setup.

Retail politics=grassroots campaigning, meeting with voters in small settings as opposed to TV advertising, it's what the NH primary is all about

[TheresNoMoney]

I agree with Gabu...and Scoonie, aren't you a little biased here...being from New Hampshire and all? C'mon...

Who cares where I'm from? I would have the same opinion no matter which states went first.

Having all the primaries on one day is totally senseless. It would make the primary all about TV advertising, and very little to do with actual retail politics and campaigning. Why would you want that??

[Keystone Phil]

Thank God. I hope PA starts acting on moving up soon but I am pleased thgat NJ is going to vote sooner. Sorry to Delaware but their primary just wasn't doing anything for our region. I look forward to NJ getting attention.

[NHPolitico]

I would consider money being an issue preferable to giving the power of nomination to approximately 10 out of 50 states or so.

You want states like Iowa and, to a greater extent, NH, to go first because it increases the chances that the candidates will do something revealing and unrehearsed.  Otherwise, you'll just have the nomination decided by who has the best ads.

[merseysider]

I think every state should hold its primary on the same day, the same as the General election takes place simultaneously everywhere.

Granted it would never happen, but I think it's wrong that one or two small, and often unrepresentative states, are able to have a decisive impact on who the presidential nominees will be simply by virtue of the fact that they're the first to vote.

[Akno21]

If you want to have some primaries come first, that's fine, but have it on a rotating system so each state gets a chance to be meaningful. Why must it always be Iowa and New Hampshire. (Also, If you're picking 2 states to basically determine everything for the rest of the country, those are two of the worst states to pick. Both are over 96% white, not exactly a good representation of the whole country)

[Mr. Morden]

If you want to have some primaries come first, that's fine, but have it on a rotating system so each state gets a chance to be meaningful. Why must it always be Iowa and New Hampshire. (Also, If you're picking 2 states to basically determine everything for the rest of the country, those are two of the worst states to pick. Both are over 96% white, not exactly a good representation of the whole country)

Well, in '08 the Dems at least will have Nevada come between Iowa and New Hampshire.  Though New Hampshire is still trying to fight that decision....