A February 5th "Super" Primary

[NewJersey]

It seems that there is going to be a mega primary day on February 5. CA made it official yesterday and NJ's governor will sign the bill today or tomorrow making NJ the latest state to join the February 5th primary.

Potentially, about 2,000 delegates will have been decided by Feburary 5th.

Do you think frontloading the primaries is a good idea?

While I'm happy that NJ now has a say (we used to have the latest primary in the country) in the primary process, I think that it will have the effect of widdling out the candidates who cannot raise $$ like Hillary, Obama, McCain, Guiliani, etc. Also, like what happened in 2004 with the democrats, many primary voters saw Kerry won the two early states, and as the party wanted to unify and get behind one candidate, he breezed to victory and took the nomination.

I really think the primary process needs to be changed because I don't think the moderate voices get a say because it's the extremes on both sides of the party, who seem to dictate the primary. And then in the general election, those candidates are rushing back to the middle to appeal to a broader range of the electorate.

 

[bicker]

It is patently unfair to have the system set up so that certain states have more influence than others. All California (and perhaps New York, Texas, Florida, etc.) is doing is taking themselves out of a position of disadvantage. The only fair systems I can think of would be to have all the caucuses and primaries the same day, or to have a rolling primary system, where everyone (who cares) goes to the polls each week or two to elect more delegates.

I agree with you that the system needs to be changed. I don't see any way to change it, though, that is both fair and adequately represents the moderate perspective.

 

[Charade]

Bad idea!!

PA is thinking about it but a state official said the process would now be pushed back into the prior year to get all the paperwork out in time for Feb 5th. The other problem with Feb in winters states is the weather. Bad weather will keep people from the polls.

 

[Fitswimmer]

It seems that there is going to be a mega primary day on February 5. CA made it official yesterday and NJ's governor will sign the bill today or tomorrow making NJ the latest state to join the February 5th primary.

Potentially, about 2,000 delegates will have been decided by Feburary 5th.

Do you think frontloading the primaries is a good idea?

While I'm happy that NJ now has a say (we used to have the latest primary in the country) in the primary process, I think that it will have the effect of widdling out the candidates who cannot raise $$ like Hillary, Obama, McCain, Guiliani, etc. Also, like what happened in 2004 with the democrats, many primary voters saw Kerry won the two early states, and as the party wanted to unify and get behind one candidate, he breezed to victory and took the nomination.

I really think the primary process needs to be changed because I don't think the moderate voices get a say because it's the extremes on both sides of the party, who seem to dictate the primary. And then in the general election, those candidates are rushing back to the middle to appeal to a broader range of the electorate.

You and I are on the same page. I'm happy that NJ is going to have a say, but the Tsunami Primary day (that's what the Today show is calling it) really does put candidates that don't have a HUGE money machine or big name recognition out of the running. To me, all that does is guarantee that we will get more of the same-career politicians who are more interested in staying in power than actually doing something good for the country.

I also think that the primary system puts the extremes on both sides of the aisle in the driver seat-which doesn't make me too happy. Extremists are scary-no matter what they are extreme about.

 

[NewJersey]

Bad idea!!

PA is thinking about it but a state official said the process would now be pushed back into the prior year to get all the paperwork out in time for Feb 5th. The other problem with Feb in winters states is the weather. Bad weather will keep people from the polls.

You bring up a valid point...I never thought about the "winter state" factor. I know someone like my grandmother, who votes in EVERY election, would not come to the polls in a storm, unless I or someone in my family took her.

I know McCain has come out and said this frontloading is a bad idea, and I have to say I admire his position for a few reasons: a) he seems to be able to raise enough cash to compete in these huge media markets for Feb 5th (CA, NJ, NY, possibly PA) and b) he's not one of the lesser known candidates who will benefit from a more drawn-out primary where each candidate is put under the microscope by voters.

 

[bicker]

Bad weather will keep people from the polls.

No more so than the primary being pointless, given that the candidates have already locked-in their nominations.

Really, this is part of a process. By taking this action, California, Texas, New York, etc. should be simply applying pressure on the system, so that the parties finally agree to prohibit any caucuses or primaries prior to April 1 (for example).

 

[NewJersey]

You and I are on the same page. I'm happy that NJ is going to have a say, but the Tsunami Primary day (that's what the Today show is calling it) really does put candidates that don't have a HUGE money machine or big name recognition out of the running. To me, all that does is guarantee that we will get more of the same-career politicians who are more interested in staying in power than actually doing something good for the country.

I also think that the primary system puts the extremes on both sides of the aisle in the driver seat-which doesn't make me too happy. Extremists are scary-no matter what they are extreme about.

Exactly what I was thinking about the same-old, same-old sort of stuff from the parties. Since NJ does not have an open primary, I'll be voting in the Democratic primary, and I really don't want to have to choose between what we usually get from the Democratic party (the Hillary's, Edwards, etc etc). They are so scripted and to a point "fake" with voters that you can't trust a word they say. I want some candidates who are candid with the American public and who don't need to huddle with advisors with each question posed by them. I think that's part of what drew me to McCain in 2000 (I see he rolled out his straight talk express yesterday).

I think it's important that the American public gets to interact and scrutinize each candidate, not just the power players from both parties. It's unfortunate that politics and races are won with $$; candidates need $100 million just to compete in the primary which ultimately guarantees we'll be hearing "Right wing conspiracy" in tv ads A LOT in the next year.

 

[NewJersey]

It is patently unfair to have the system set up so that certain states have more influence than others. All California (and perhaps New York, Texas, Florida, etc.) is doing is taking themselves out of a position of disadvantage. The only fair systems I can think of would be to have all the caucuses and primaries the same day, or to have a rolling primary system, where everyone (who cares) goes to the polls each week or two to elect more delegates.

I agree with you that the system needs to be changed. I don't see any way to change it, though, that is both fair and adequately represents the moderate perspective.

Yeah, I was trying to come up with a fair system for the primaries, but like you...I don't see a way to change it.

The rolling primary is interesting, but I think costly...I can imagine wasteful states, like New Jersey, blowing millions of dollars on it. And then oops, our taxes go up.

 

[Mr. Malaprop]

The front-loading of the process is only going to short-change the voters in the fall. An extended primary process is essential for putting all the potential candidates under the microsope for examination. It should be a drawn-out gauntlet that tests the mettle of whoever can survive it to reach the end as the nominee. Instead of a triathalon this will be a 5K "fun run."

 

[bicker]

The only fair arrangement that isn't expensive is the single national primary. Let people campaign for seven or eight months, nationwide, addressing everyone's concerns, and then let each party choose its candidates all on one day.

 

[robinb]

I think the current primary system stinks for the majority of Americans. We have no say in who our nominee is while the people of states like New Hampshire and Iowa have getting-to-know-you tea parties in their homes with the candidates. By the time Wisconsin gets to vote in late February, it's all done but the shouting. There is no reason for a candidate to come here or spend their money here until the general election. It is not fair and I do not blame the other states at all for moving their primaries up. I wish we would too so I would have a voice.

 

[Mr. Malaprop]

Sadly, all this front-loading will do is force candidates to spend the most time and money in the larger states with the most delegates up for grabs. The remaining states may get a fly-over or at best some TV spots. And this will simply codify the idea of a 2-year presidential election cycle where candidates are forced to announce and campaign fully 2 years before the real election. If this keeps up, we'll never have a break from election campaigns.

 

[NewJersey]

Sadly, all this front-loading will do is force candidates to spend the most time and money in the larger states with the most delegates up for grabs. The remaining states may get a fly-over or at best some TV spots. And this will simply codify the idea of a 2-year presidential election cycle where candidates are forced to announce and campaign fully 2 years before the real election. If this keeps up, we'll never have a break from election campaigns.

It's funny that this year, candidates will either announce on the internet, or on a tv show. Then they'll campaign for a while, and then have another larger announcement. It's free publicity.

 

[Mr. Malaprop]

The Internet isn't necessarily free... they have to pay something for a server or an ISP or a hosting site. Nonetheless, it is fairly expensive to campaign that way. (Thank you, Howard Dean.)

My fear is that we are starting to push the start date for campaigns back more and more. It was unsettling to hear people announcing for president in 2006 and watching primary and caucus campaigns ramping up so early. It seems like Newt is one of the only hold-outs left refusing to announce and that will cost him big $$ if he does announce.

The never-ending campaign is becoming reality. When will politicans find time to govern anymore?

 

[Fitswimmer]

There's been more than a few comments from folks in NY about Senator Clinton's promise to continue to work for them when they re-elected her-and then running off to campaign. Now, I don't follow her that closely so I don't know if she's really missing anything critical, but it does seem unfair to the citizens of a state that voted for someone to represent them and then to have them run off and campaign.

 

[NewJersey]

A Republican I'm interested in, Chuck Hagel, has yet to announce. He held a press conference last week to announce he will put his announcement off.

Remember Wesley Clark? He entered so "late" (I use that term loosely) that he couldn't make up the difference.