Although I cringe at the price tag, which I would do for anything probably, I think moving the primary is a neccessity. If Oregon is ever going to insure that the issues important to us are realistically addressed, than we have to move to the forefront and send the message to candidates that they better see Oregon as important to their success, and not just an afterthought.

I love Oregon but I'm not sure why Oregon's issues deserve more attention than Oklahoma's issues or Ohio's issues.

It seems like the best solution is the rotating calendar system. It's fair to all states and will preserve the idea of the retail-politics primary. (When 20+ states move their primaries to Feb. 5th, expect media buys to once-and-for-all trump town halls.)

Until then, we should stay above the fray. Let's show some class and keep our May primary date.

One more thing -

Why is it such a big deal that Oregon's "big issues" are addressed in the presidential primaries? How much can we expect beyond some stump speech shout-outs?

Sure, Iowa has the whole ethanol thing but who, beyond some farmers, has that really helped? Not the political process. Not the country.

Just calling it like it is.

At the risk of being an iconoclast, I have begun to wonder whether this leapfrogging strategy to move up primaries is really going to ensure that states (and particularly small states) see "their issues" addressed in the campaign.

Currrently, according to Project Vote Smart, AR, AZ, CA, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, KS, MI, MO, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OK, RI, TN, TX and UT will all conduct their primary on February 5.

That means that if Oregon joins the herd, we will be 48 of the 1976 pledged delegates at play that day. (You can find a handy chart of the delegate breakdown in this PDF.) Given the complexities of the process I may have that count wrong, but the ratio should be the same.

Regardless, not exactly an overwhelming reason for candidates to make Oregon a must visit on the campaign trail.

Of course some will likely point out that if we hold back, it just provides more reason to skip us. But the larger problem remains that in this beggar-your-neighbor strategy, everyone loses. Given that two thirds of pledged delegates will determined that day regardless of whether we switch, it seems that major primary reform is a must for 2012. I personally am interested in looking at a rotating regional schedule - but that is for another post.

But in the here and now, I'd suggest a more effective strategy for ensuring the campaigns take us into account is being proactive to build operations on the ground here. Kudos to Kari and the rest of the OR Edwards team for their recent announcement. Similar efforts for the other candidates can induce them to visit. Granted largely for money, but those trips will also include public events and exposure to local press who can get answers on Oregon issues.

I think it's a bad idea.

With so much front-loading this year, there is a strong possibility that we are going to have a campaign season that runs long, and a convention that actually matters in the candidate selection process.
Moving Oregon up in the primary season will only get us lost in a cacophony of other states with more electoral votes such as Texas, New York, Florida, Illionis, and California.

Candidates will have to make choices about what media markets to play in, and they won't play in all of them. If we're lucky, moving the primary forward will get us (maybe) one visit by candidates who decide to compete in California.

Our electoral votes are likely to have a whole lot more meaning down the stretch than they will by trying to go head to head with the states on the aforementioned list.

I suspect Lavey's calculus about money flowing in to the pockets of political consultants is the big reason why many of them want the primary moved forward, but as consultants often do, they are fighting the last campaign.

Thanks to the front-loading, 2008 is going to look nothing like any campaign we've seen in recent memory.

Of course, those who are pointing out that Oregon would just be one of many states on February 5 are missing that critical detail:

We will start voting BEFORE New Hampshire. Oregonians will vote first.

Our local media is loathe to do "exit" polls of people who have already turned in ballots - which is easily done, since the lists are public - but does anyone think that at least one national media outfit or pollster won't do it; at least for the novelty factor?

If we move our election day February 5, we will DEFINITELY play a huge role in setting the national stage for all the people who won't get to vote until that day - twenty days after Oregonians start getting ballots.

The front-loading our primary system will continue to be a problem so long as every state picks its date.

In '52, we had 18 primaries in 15 weeks, now we have close to if not over 40 in just about the same amount of time. We've created a very chaotic system, that vomits out candidates on our front door step either the day before or the day we vote, if you don't have a primary before Super Tuesday. If the mission of the primary was to remove "the party machine" or "party bosses" and the smoke filled rooms, I think we've done that, "Mission Accomplished".

Now we can let our 10 candidates run for several months, hold a national primary day. Every democrat in every state can vote between them all. If candidate C was my candidate, but didn't last until the Oregon primary, I don't have to choose between candidate A or B just because, they're the only ones left.

The media has already made these primaries and caucus national campaigns. 24 hour news, the internet allows me to attend the Iowa caucus. From my experience in Iowa, the only difference between making a phone call for John Kerry there and here in Oregon was, I didn't talk about Hoglots.

If there will be primaries taking place after February 5th, isn't there actually a stronger chance that, come May, a couple of candidates might be in a dead heat,

No. Maybe still in mid-March, but not by late May.

Oh, and on the money question: That's mostly postage and printing for ballots.

They discussed the money thing at their work meeting last week.

Basically, what they are looking at is moving the March local election to Feb 5 and combining it with the presidential primary. Only about 10 counties have a March local election.

In the counties where there would be a March election, the state and the county will split the costs of the election. In the counties without a March election, the state would pick up the tab.

They looked at the cost of recent special elections and then figured in expected turnout, cost increases since then, etc., and then came up with a figure of what it would cost to hold this extra election.

So, if this passes as it was discussed last week, about 2/3 of the county would have one extra election in the first half of the year, the other 1/3 would have their March election moved up.

And even with the front loading, I agree with Kari that I have a hard time believing there will be that much of a contest come May. By then there will be so few delegates left, that it's impossible to see a situation where there could be people who are still that close.

Chances are that by mid-February, most candidates will be out. We may be down to 3 or 4 by that point. By mid-March, I have the feeling we'll have our candidate. There may still be a race for vice president for a little while after that.

If we move our election day February 5, we will DEFINITELY play a huge role in setting the national stage for all the people who won't get to vote until that day - twenty days after Oregonians start getting ballots.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Yes, Oregonians will receive their ballots before other states. Yes, they will turn in their ballots before other states. But the actual results won't be published until after the polls close everywhere else.

No. Maybe still in mid-March, but not by late May.

Of course, that's sheer conjecture. It's not really even an educated guess since we've never had a primary season front-loaded as we're going to have in 2008.

My guess, and this is also conjecture, is that given who we have in the Democratic field, we could wind up with 2 or possibly 3 candidates splitting a majority of votes, and there will be no real incentive anyone to (publicly) concede their delegates prior to the convention.

If that happens, the race is as likely to be competitive through August as it is to be decided by March, regardless of what the big funders want.

I predict if it passes, candidates will ALL be in Oregon during the voting in January. Number one, they will be speaking to the only voters who ARE ACTUALLY VOTING in the country.

And I think the opposite is true about California: it will bring people here. Obviously Cali's delegates will be a huge draw for candidates, and they will spend plenty of time there. But for 2 weeks before Cali's primary, Oregon will already be voting--and it appears Washington will move theirs to 2/5 as well.

Democrats especially will wander up and down the coast more than once during that period, I'd wager.

Far from being lost, we'll be at the forefront if this happens.

Garlynn -- Here's the deal on the money thing. We have a regularly scheduled primary election in May 2008. Under the law now, in addition to all the regular stuff, we'll vote for president.

If we move it to February, we won't move everything else. Instead of one election in May, we'll have one in February and one in May.

We also have a minor election in March. (Hard to believe, but Oregon has four scheduled elections a year.) To deal with some minor amount of the cost, as Jenni pointed out, the March election will move up to February. Many counties won't actually have anything on that ballot - but those that do, won't have any additional cost.

March, May, September, and November

This year we'll have a May election and potentially a September one.

Next year we'll have at least a March, May, and November one. Potentially we'd have a February, May, and November one.

For Multnomah County-

2006: May, September, and November 2005: March, May, September, November 2004: February, May, June, September, November 2003: January, March, May, September, November 2002: March, May, September, November