At least 19 states - a group with more than half the nation’s population - are zeroing in on February 5, 2008 to stage their presidential primaries, creating a single day that could determine the major party nominees at a historically early point in the process, the Boston Globe reports today.

The first Tuesday in February - which would still follow January contests to be held in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina - could be when the two candidates in the general election are determined.

If only the 10 largest of the 19 states moved their primaries to February 5, more than half the American people will have a chance to go to the polls on the same day, creating a massive, one-day election that would become the focal point of the campaign.

This 2008 presidential election trend would mark the most significant alternation to the process in decades.

It would mean presidential candidates would need to raise massive amounts of money - at least $100 million before the first vote is cast - and may see their chances evaporate at a stage when, in past campaigns, the contenders were still introducing themselves to voters.

“It’s insane. It’s going to be the de facto national primary,” said Rich Bond, a GOP consultant and former chairman of the Republican National Committee.

“It’s going to mean that the candidates with the highest name recognition and the most cash on hand are going to have a huge advantage over the rest of the field.”

Both political parties are trying to keep the states from front loading the primary schedule. Republicans in 2004 approved rules to penalize states that hold primaries before February 5 or after July 28, 2008. Democrats have both incentives and punishments to keep states in line.

But state legislatures don’t want to be what California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger deemed an “afterthought” in presidential campaigns, with primaries held long after the nominees are determined.

“For the larger states, particularly California and Texas, the primary process has been pretty much over by the time they held their primaries - it really has made them much less of a player,” said Bruce Merrill, a pollster at Arizona State University.

“Now, all of a sudden, other states are saying, ‘Why shouldn’t we get a piece of the action?’”

Political scientists say the shift of the California primary and the many other states contemplating the same would be a major change in politics. National conventions, once key to selection of the nominees, have been rendered irrelevant, now strictly ceremonial for three decades.

Campaigns have become decreasingly competitive as states began clustering their primaries earlier in the process. Since 1988, a single nominee has emerged quickly after “Super Tuesday” in March, noted Dennis W. Johnson, professor of political management at George Washington University.

Speeding up the process will make it much harder for the second-tier candidates to make a successful run against the likes of, say, Hillary Clinton.

“When you front load everything, it wipes away every chance for a dark horse or somebody who emerges after three or four months,” Johnson said. “You have to have an extraordinary amount of money and an extraordinary amount of popularity to attract so many supporters so quickly.”

How ironic that none other than Bill Clinton was virtually unknown outside his native Arkansas at this stage in 1991, but slowly built momentum after a strong finish in the New Hampshire primary - momentum he carried all the way to the White House.

Such a candidate would have a hard time trying to compete early in large states where television advertising is essential and expected, said John Zogby of Zogby International, a pollster in upstate New York.

But Hillary Clinton, an adept fund-raiser and enjoys near-universal name recognition, is well-positioned to compete in the current campaign.

“It means ultimately the primaries are in 2007,” Zogby said. “It’s about fundraising and scaring the bejesus out of as many candidates as you can.”

Even if a long-shot contender were to win an early contest in New Hampshire or Iowa, you can’t possibly raise enough money in a week or 10 days to take you through the final countdown that could occur February 5, he said.

The best chance for such a candidate is be to focus on a few prime targets, hoping better-funded contenders divide the votes elsewhere. Such an outcome at least would allow the race to extend beyond February 5, according to Bill Carrick, a Democratic political consultant based in California.

Others believe that since the candidates might be running in their home states on February 5, that might diminish the chances of one contender running away with the nomination.

New York, which used to have its primary in April, is mulling a jump to February 5, a move Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer said could boost the chances of two New Yorkers, Senator Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani.

Illinois is eyeing the date as well, a switch that could help Barack Obama, currently Clinton’s top opponent for the Democratic nomination.

North Carolina is considering legislation to move its primary to February 5, a proposal that could help John Edwards, a former U.S. senator from the Tar Heel State. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee could benefit from his state’s move from a May primary to February 5. Kansas may also change its primary date, giving some hope to Senator Sam Brownback.

Lastly, a possible February 5 primary in New Mexico could do the same for the Democratic governor and presidential candidate, Bill Richardson.

Other states that have moved, or are considering moving, to February 5 are (literally) all over the map:

Arizona, Alabama, California, New Jersey, Utah, West Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, and Delaware.

New Hampshire officials have bemoaned what they see as efforts to crowd their state’s primary, diminishing its traditional role as a bellwether; Secretary of State William M. Gardner has said he will decide in the fall when to schedule the state’s first-in-the-nation primary.

What’s for certain is that the Iowa caucuses will precede the New Hampshire primary, and the South Carolina primary will follow it. Democratic caucuses in Nevada are currently scheduled between Iowa and New Hampshire. After those four contests will come February 5, a possible juggernaut.

While some analysts believe that well-funded candidates can now afford to suffer setbacks in the early states while saving their superior resources for February 5, Carrick said the glut of primaries could actually heighten the importance of the early contests.

“The only way you’re going to generate any momentum is in those first states,” he said. “Iowa and New Hampshire have become even bigger deals.”