fbpx

In Search Of The New Jersey Presidential Primary

By Bob English

With the Presidential primary season well under way, we are now being treated to candidates going from state to state almost every week in an effort or convince voters that they are the right person to lead the country. If you are wondering when the candidate train stops in New Jersey, well I have some bad news. Last September, the Lieutenant Governor signed a bill approved by the Legislature, which moved the New Jersey 2012 Presidential Primary from February (when it had been held in 2008 on the 5th of February aka “Super Tuesday” ) to June 5, 2012. In 2005, the Legislature had voted to move the 2008 primary which had normally been held in June, to February in an effort to try to give New Jersey voters more influence in picking their party’s Presidential candidates. In 2008, despite the fact that New Jersey’s primary was held on the same day as those in over 20 other states, several candidates did campaign in New Jersey despite it not getting as much of a national focus as had been hoped for. Over 1.1 million residents voted in the 2008 New Jersey Democratic Primary which was won by Hilary Clinton over Barack Obama. In the Republican contest, over 500,000 people went to the polls in an election that saw the party’s eventual nominee John McCain almost doubling the amount of votes received by the 2nd place finisher Mitt Romney. It was estimated that the cost of moving the primary from June to February was $12 million.

What makes the participation numbers interesting is when you weigh them against the number of voters taking part in the first two caucuses or primaries this year. Roughly 122,000 people voted in the Iowa Republican caucuses with approximately 250,000 people voting in the New Hampshire GOP Primary. Although there was a Democratic caucus in Iowa and a primary in New Hampshire, they were not competitive races with President Obama virtually unopposed for his party’s nomination. With several Republicans dropping out of their party’s contest just before, during or right after these races, the amount of influence these states have in choosing a party’s nominee is hugely out of proportion to the numbers of voters who take part. Contrast these participation numbers with those of the 2008 general election where close to 130 million voters went to the polls.

So the questions that beg for answers are 1) How can New Jersey residents become more influential in the process of picking their party’s candidate (besides moving to Iowa or New Hampshire for a few months every four years)? 2) What can be done to make the choice of each party’s nominee less dependent on voters in one or two states where they clearly have to much power and contain voters whose views are not always representative of the majority of voters in other states. Note that major issues in Iowa where farm subsidies, ethanol, religion/faith and social issues. One thing is for sure, none of those three would be the top issues for the majority of New Jersey voters. There are no easy answers to question #1. The major party’s threatened loss of convention delegates to States which were going to hold their primaries too early in the 2012 process. One idea for 2016 would be for the state to revert to the 2008 model and possibly schedule its primary in mid/late February or early March of 2016 (This also depends on party scheduling rules that can change.) As mentioned above, this change does come with additional cost ($12 million) and there is no guarantee that the nomination for one or both parties would not have been secured by that date.

The other idea which has been debated for several years, is holding a series (4-6) of regional primaries in the early March to early June time-frame. The order of these would rotate every four years. This would give more states greater influence in picking the eventual nominees. Even if Iowa and New Hampshire kept their traditional places at the starting gate, they would not have the same importance or as great a focus on by candidates.

Since 1976, only 3 of the 18 nominating contests were so close that almost every delegate mattered to the eventual nominee. A couple of interesting historical facts about New Jersey Presidential Primaries are:

In 1972, Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm won the states Democratic Primary. Rep. Chisholm was the first woman to run for the Democratic Presidential nomination and the first major party African American Presidential candidate.

In 1976, in an unsuccessful effort to stop Jimmy Carter from obtaining the Democratic nomination, a slate of uncommitted delegates backing Senator Hubert Humphrey and then (and current) California Governor Jerry Brown, defeated Carter by a wide margin. Carter’s primary win in Ohio the same day however, cinched the nomination for him. I attended a campaign rally for Governor Brown the day before the election at Airport Plaza in Hazlet on June 7, 1976. The story was the lead in the next days Red Bank Register and can be viewed here:

http://209.212.22.88/DATA/RBR/1970-1979/1976/1976.06.08.pdf

 

More from my site

Posted: January 30th, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 Presidential Politics, New Jersey | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

8 Comments on “In Search Of The New Jersey Presidential Primary”

  1. Tom Stokes said at 10:15 am on January 30th, 2012:

    Too bad Hillary didn’t beat Obama and run as the democrat candidate. If she had won, I’ll bet she would have done a better job than the current incumbent.

  2. Gene Baldassari said at 12:53 pm on January 30th, 2012:

    Iowa has proven that they do not deserve to be the location of the initial vote. Entrance and exit polls showed that Santorum, Paul, and Romney were tied in Iowa. The Iowa Republican Party messed up the count and “lost” the data needed for an audit. So, no one can prove which one of the three really won.

    Although it is only a straw poll (delegates are chosen later), Iowa gets a big chunk of early primary money with major attention for several months or years before the public vote. And the perception that the results create cause the candidates to live or die on the results of those first elections.

    New Jersey should apply for the job. We are a small state – geographically. We have much better weather, much better transportation, we are near NYC and Philly for news reporting , and we have more people to show up at town halls.

    And we would be better off going to a caucus system for all primaries. It would be the only way to put the selection of candidates in the hands of every citizen who wants to participate, rather than our current special class of people who usually choose largely unelectable candidates who do not represent the desire of the voters.

  3. Jon Pletsa said at 6:22 pm on January 30th, 2012:

    Now NJ Romney chairman can explain the foreclosures, unemployment, and illegal aliens in NJ. Say “NO” to the Rhino. Go Anna!

  4. Bob English said at 7:42 am on January 31st, 2012:

    Tom: Note sure. A lot of the major Obama initiatives that he is criticized for by the right (stimulous, health care reform etc.) Clinton would have done also. I don’t think they had very many policy differences, but we will never know (unless Hillary runs and wins in 2016, lol!!!

    Gene: I think many states want to move up and have their primaries earlier. Like I said maybe some kind of rotating regional primary(s) would be the answer. Don’t forget there are issues with the individual states in regards to having the Presidential primary when they have their other election (which was an issue for NJ).

    Jon: I just looked at Ms. Littles website. Has she formally announced that she is running for Congress in 2012? Don’t recall reading anything in the paper but I might have missed it.

  5. ArtGallagher said at 8:48 am on January 31st, 2012:

    I just looked at Ms. Littles website. Has she formally announced that she is running for Congress in 2012? Don’t recall reading anything in the paper but I might have missed it.

    Bob,

    Little has both a congressional campaign site, annalittleforcongress.com, and a senatoral campaign site, annalittleforsenate.com.

    She has a congressional campaign account registered with the FEC, but not a senatorial account. She has conducted fund raising activities for both offices.

  6. Freespeaker1976 said at 10:18 am on January 31st, 2012:

    Let’s face it folks, Anna or Joe Rullo are NOT going to be our Senate nominees. Not only are they ill prepared, but they do not have the capability to raise the huge sum of money needed.

    That’s NOT to say I am thrilled with Joe Kyrillos as a candidate, I guess I have that same feeling about Mitt Romney as our Presidential candidate. I do not believe either can win against their potential opponents, Obama & Menendez; not in Blue Jersey.

    So, if I doubt Joe’s K’s ability to win; I sure as hell doubt Anna’s and Joe Rullo’s ability.

  7. Speaking Of Joe Rullo's Campaign said at 12:13 pm on January 31st, 2012:

    I looked at the website above, found a link to his Face Book page. But the link took me back to a Campaign Website Page ???????

    How phoney is that? And, on top of that; Rullo is still pushing his solar company on the campaign website…

    Sorry Joe, No Go

  8. Gene Baldasssari said at 3:02 pm on January 31st, 2012:

    Bob – I like your idea of initial rotating regional primaries in the future. But it is important that the final count is trustworthy and auditable. There must also be penalties for Republican groups that mess up the count .

    As stated earlier, Iowa cannot be allowed to be the first, most prominent State for the primary. They messed up the count and candidates spent millions there, an amount that they would not have spent at all if Iowa were just another small caucus state.

    I know a few people who took their vacations to volunteer there. AS it turns out, their time was wasted.

    Iowa’s GOP Chairman, Matt Strawn, has resigned:

    http://www.wqad.com/news/wqad-iowa-gop-chairman-to-resigns-20120131,0,7714889.story