August 8th, 2007
02:45 PM ET
7 years ago

South Carolina GOP to move primary to January 19

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The South Carolina Republican Party will announce Thursday that it is moving its primary to Jan. 19, in an effort to preserve its status as the first Southern state to cast a vote in the 2008 GOP presidential nominating contest, well placed South Carolina Republicans tell CNN.

GOP Chairman Katon Dawson will reveal the new primary date at a late morning news conference in Concord, New Hampshire, which is nearly 1,000 miles north of his own state capital.

The location was purposely chosen to show that these two states are united in their unique roles in helping to choose the next president of the United States. Several New Hampshire political types are expected to attend the news briefing.

Full story

– CNN Political Editor Mark Preston


Filed under: South Carolina
soundoff (6 Responses)
  1. nv

    before we know it we'll be voting for primaries 3 years before the GE. so stupid.

    August 8, 2007 03:19 pm at 3:19 pm |
  2. bret, atl, ga

    Agreed – this is a bad move for the little guy. It is intended to crowd out those without a billion dollars. Very bad decision. We should eliminate state primaries altogether and have national primaries for national elections anyway.

    There's no reason in this day and age for this stuff.

    August 8, 2007 03:29 pm at 3:29 pm |
  3. Myron, Honolulu, HI

    Many States are ready to pick a canidate for President before they even started to campaign. Wouldn't it be better to be able to get rid of bad presidents just as easily and quickly. This government is like dog doodoo easy to step in but hard to get the smell off your shoe. :(

    Why be the first to get pick the best showboat, why not pick a proven person?

    August 8, 2007 04:08 pm at 4:08 pm |
  4. Zak Washington DC

    bret wrote:

    "Agreed – this is a bad move for the little guy. It is intended to crowd out those without a billion dollars."

    Actually, the early primaries allow candidates with less money to focus on individual states with smaller markets. This benefits the poorer candidates. It seems the closest thing to hope for them - that by winning or doing well in smaller states, they can set the tone for the massive state nominations where they can't afford to market themselves.

    August 8, 2007 07:12 pm at 7:12 pm |
  5. James, New York, NY

    Oh boy, we can all rush to choose a candidate and then spend the next 10 months or so realizing we all chose the wrong candidate. Now that is the way the election system is really supposed to work. With any luck this might help to lower the percentage of eligible voters who actually vote since they won't have any reason to hope the candidates won't suck.

    Not to mention the fact that this will give the political parties more of a chance to polarize the whole process and make real bi-partisan politics even less likely they they already are.

    August 9, 2007 01:46 am at 1:46 am |
  6. Anonymous

    This is getting ridiculous. Are rules not rules anymore?!

    August 9, 2007 08:45 am at 8:45 am |

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.