Corzine Plans to Sign Bill to Move (NJ) Primary Date

[brooklynite]

NEW YORK (WCBS) -- Governor Jon Corzine talks with WCBS 880 reporter Rich Lamb on the possibility of moving the presidential primary up to February 5th. The New Jersey Assembly has passed a bill and sent it to the governor to sign.

There is much debate on whether moving the primary up will improve New Jersey's political standing around the country. Twenty-five other states have also made moves to bump up their primary's. California has just signed a bill to move their primary to February 5th.

http://wcbs880.com/pages/305245.php?contentType=4&contentId=375904

[DemKR]

1. Great n/t

ALL states should have equal say in the nomination. It's only fair. As far as I knew, NJ used to be in friggin' June! That's crazy

[Greeby]

2. Just cut to the chase

Have all primaries on one day. One thing I didn't like about 04 was the whole pre-arranged "get behind the frontrunner" business, elminating all serious discussion of the pros and cons of the remaining candidates

[youngdem]

3. This is the de facto goal at this point

A Super-Primary in Feb.

The sad part of this is that we will end up with DLC establishment type candidates for the rest of our days, because only established, rich candidates will be able to mount a national campaign large enough to carry the delegates needed. The newer candidates will not have the opportunity anymore to win an early primary to build momentum and capital needed to become credible.

I fear the real reason this is being pushed so quickly isn't so egalitarian and well-intended. I think the Clintons and Bushes on the world like a superprimary system.

I know that the early primaries hold unfair sway, but this cure is MUCH worse than the disease.

[mitchtv]

4. As a Californian, I was sick of the June primary,and happier now

But I feel the best solution is alternating regional primaries. It was rather insulting to the largest collection of liberal Democrats in the country, with only ratifiying the choice of so many red state Dems, and having little say in the choice, and little time spent in CA by the candidates.

[Bukowski Fan]

5. Outside of IA, NH and NV

I think CA would be next in line for "time spent in" by candidates...to raise money. And that is the reason this rushed primary schedule is not good, despite the fact that it might seem to balance things out. The way things are right now, fundraising trumps everything by a vast amount. It used to be if you could put together a good message, and get that message out to voters through those "community dinners" we all know and love, you could start to gain traction, and money, and you could remain viable, even if not a big money cadidate.

By moving the primary season up like this, you're just promoting a new form of the old "smoke-filled back rooms" idea of choosing candidates. It means those with the most money, who can buy the most ads, and hire the most staff, will inevitably win.

I'm a Washingtonian, so it really doesn't matter to me as far as whether my vote will count, it never really will. It's also naive to suggest some sort of rotating primary schedule, because having anything other than IA as the first caucus, and NH as the first primary, will lose those states forever. I mean, look at the fuss adding the NV caucus has caused in NH, and they're still the first primary, but this has really opened the floodgates.

It sucks not having any say in the nominating process, but so do a lot of other things, and I'd rather have a quality candidate who was nominated on the campaign they ran, and the ideas they spread, rather than how fat their bankroll was and how many endorsements they could buy up.

edited for grammar

[calimary]

6. Hey, I'm just glad California got moved up. It got a LITTLE old

being stuck at the end of the line.

[w4rma]

7. Personally, I'd rather the big states be at the back of the line. (nt)

[mitchtv]

8. those days are over