Seeking 2020 clout, California looks to jump the primary queue

[SaschaHM]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/california-wants-earlier-primary-2020-237117

OAKLAND, Calif. — In the age of Trump, California Democrats are tired of their state’s votes being an afterthought.

That’s why the state's top election official is pushing to reschedule the California primary to directly follow the early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire — a bid to pump up solidly blue California's clout, and voter turnout, in the 2020 presidential race.

Arguing that the nation’s most populous state should no longer be an “afterthought” in the presidential race, Secretary of State Alex Padilla on Tuesday announced his support for a bill from state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) that would move up the California presidential primary from its current spot near the end of the primary calendar to third — a position currently held by Nevada.

Good.

[PoliticAverse]

1. It's unfair that any state's voters get to vote before any others' really. Note though...

that the DNC can punish states that "jump the queue".

Michigan and Florida lost half their delegates in 2008 and candidates were not supposed to campaign there because their primaries were too early

( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/29/1521459/-The-DNC-Closed-Primaries-Caucuses-The-Schedule-Delegate-Allocation-and-Reforming-the-Process )

[Pluvious]

24. It's also unfair that my Calif. vote equals 1/3rd of Wyoming voter's...

But that's a battle for another day sadly.

Moving us up from the cellar is a good start

[Demsrule86]

2. It is a good idea...and would make sure we don't have a useless prolonged

primary which hurts us in the General...we must defeat Trump.

[Norbert9]

10. I'm not convinced he won't resign or be impeached by then. But we must defeat Pence/Ryan/whoever

[TeamPooka]

14. I'm not convinced Trump wouldn't be primary-ed on the right by Republicans too.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Sequential voting over several months tests the candidates on issues

If every state voted at one time it would be a mere snapshot of public opinion

[Hortensis]

6. "A mere snapshot of public opinion..."

Do we not want that in elections? I know. Opinion at that moment.

There are positives and negatives to everything, but a 2-year campaign also gave people time to "forget" and rationalize away what initially seemed inexcusable. They also encourage people to require campaigns to be entertaining. This gives a tremendous advantage to the most outrageously sensationalist and attention grabbing candidate and makes discussion of issues, policies and procedures losing moves.

As for giant California moving up front, I can understand it. I was a California voter for 40 years who accepted voting after the results were already known, realizing that voting before the rest of the country would be just inexcusably...rude. But let's face it, what happened in November was far more inexcusably rude and inimical to democracy. Fuck 'em.

[denbot]

4. It's about f'ing time..

I don't think the DNC would be dumb enough to move against the Democratic Party's biggest powerhouse at this point in time. If our primary is moved up, even if it translates to only 1-2% more dems to the polls, and the R's will lose house seats, like Issa's

[LuckyLib]

11. Yes! New Hampshire and Iowa have had an outsized place in American politics,

while California voters have to hear elections called before the polls even close. Time for a change!

[stuffmatters]

15. Completely agree. One of the biggest loser's in 2016 , California Democrats

Our vote in the primary meant nothing. Dem turnout was even discouraged by Hillary being announced as the nominee the day before.
Dems in Ca (and collaterally nationally) were shortchanged a presidential debate despite the enormous free publicity offered our Party. It gave away our mayor's race prematurely to Faulkoneer in San Diego.

There is no justification for essentially excluding the largest single state population of Democrats from the political process. We already get stiffed, our votes in a supposed 1 person 1 vote democracy are diluted. with only 2 senators and disproportionate Electoral College and Congressional Rep ratios.

I am really excited that they're moving up the date of the Ca primary, that our voices/votes will be heard next time.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. I wish others of us could have earlier primaries

Over the years, so many candidates that I wanted to vote for were out before PA had its primary.

[yardwork]

7. Good.

[NCTraveler]

8. Good. Wish they were looking to set it the same day as Iowa and NH. nt.

[teamster633]

9. As a New Hampshire Democrat I have to say...

...that there is no way that our lily-white, libertarian-leaning state should have such an out sized role in choosing our candidate.

[TeamPooka]

12. Hell yes!

[BadgerMom]

13. Hooray!

Do it!

[stevenleser]

16. Unintended consequence: Even bigger advantage to better funded candidates.

It is VERY expensive to run a statewide campaign in California.

One of the advantages of the existing primary setup is that relatively poorer candidates could compete in Iowa and New Hampshire and then fund-raise on their successes and perhaps move forward.

If you have California following close on the heels of those two states, you better have a big wad of cash from the early get go or you are going to be blown out in California and have a huge delegate deficit right off the bat from which to try to recover. That is going to also negatively impact any future fundraising you try to do.

[Hekate]

17. Good

This Californian says it's about time.

[taught_me_patience]

18. We finally get to really participate. Sounds great n/t

[eleny]

19. I hope they do this - It'll certainly be exciting

[Mike Niendorff]

20. K&R.

It has baffled me for some time that the *least*-reliably Democratic states seem to have the loudest voice in selecting the national Democratic ticket.

I agree with California: it's time to fix that.


MDN

[Jim Lane]

21. Moving up is one thing. Violating party rules, as in this bill, is very different.

I personally favor rotating regional primaries, but that won't happen anytime soon. The present system is the next best thing. There are early contests in small states, so that candidates can build their campaigns. The states are geographically distributed (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina). After that other states can go.

An early primary in California would be very bad because of the expense involved.

Nevertheless, no one's forcing California to wait until June. The state could move its primary to March (e.g., Super Tuesday) or April. Trying to muscle into one of the first four spots, however, will do nothing but set up a needless and potentially destructive confrontation with the Democratic National Committee.

[Foamfollower]

22. I fully support this.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Good. Then maybe we can avoid having to pick between 3 East Coasters all opposed to legal marijuana

Because frankly, the beltway has ignored the concerns of the West Coast for too long.