13 states set to move 2008 primary date to Feb. 5th, including FL, MI, CA, NJ, IL, NC, MO

[Herman Munster]

Nobody seems to be talking about this, but it is the one thing that is set to be the most important factor in determining who will be the 2008 nominee.

Any contender will need to raise $100 million or they need to fucking go home. That means Obama, Hillary, and Edwards are it. I don't see anyone else raising the money necessary to compete in Florida, California, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina two weeks after New Hampshire.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/206625,CST-NWS-ob...

Jan. 14: Iowa

Jan. 19: Nevada
Jan. 22: New Hampshire+
Jan. 29: South Carolina
Feb. 5: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California*, Delaware, Florida*, Illinois*, Michigan*, Missouri, New Jersey*, New Mexico, North Carolina, Utah

[R_M]

1. Every primary should occur on the same day.

That is only fair.

[Bombtrack]

2. The more undeniable argument is that it shouldn't be decided in the winter

Longer time in between the primary and the general election means more wasted money and time in political bullshit.

[Redneck Socialist]

5. Fair to who?

Fair to candidates that are filthy rich and can fund their own campaign. It sure as hell isn't fair to the voters.

[Bombtrack]

3. your link doesn't work

[Clarkie1]

4. California, yay! We'll finally have a say! nt

[Redneck Socialist]

6. This is the worst plan I've seen in a while

The front loading of the primaries only rewards those candidates with boat loads of money and high name recognition. Under this plan there is no way a Bill Clinton or a Jimmy Carter could have ever become president.

[bigdarryl]

7. I agree and i tell you who this favors in my opinion Hillary this front loading...

the system is designed for candidates like you said who have money and name recognition which she has.

[Delphinus]

8. And Indiana

remains as backward as ever ... May. By that time, all we're doing is voting our consciences and our hearts.