A number of states, including New York and New Jersey are considering moving up their Presidential Primary dates to early February.
Those supporting the move in all these states are doing so for a reason that makes sense – giving their state’s voters more of a say in picking the next president.
But in a few states – New York, Illinois and Kansas, pols have said they have another motive. That is helping the presidential candidate(s) from their state.
This view was expressed in the Chicago Sun-Times.
Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) said Wednesday he wants to help Obama by moving Illinois' 2008 presidential primary to Feb. 5 from March 18. A landslide win by Obama could help him raise campaign cash and give him political momentum heading into later contests.
State Senate President Emil Jones (D-Chicago), Obama's political mentor, said he'd support the proposal if it means it will help Obama, a former state senator. "It would be nice if the rest of the nation could see him come out strong, if he decides to run," Jones said.
But does this reason make sense?
Would a landslide win in Illinois help Obama, or one in Kansas really help Sam Brownback or wins here help Hillary and/or Rudy aince most observers would assume a landslide win?
Can’t an early primary in their home states really hurt home state candidates by setting the bar too high? And what will constitute a landslide – 60%, 75%, 90%?
Now don’t get me wrong, I have more reasons than most to support having competitive presidential primaries where campaigns spend lots of money in New York. But I don’t think people should support moving the date for flawed reasons.