Kamala Harris in 2020: CA on track to hold primary in March instead of June

[stopbush]

Both houses of CA legislature have passed bills allowing the governor to move the 2020 primary from June to March. Each bill specified a different day in March, so the bills need to be conferenced, a date agreed to and then that bill must pass both houses before heading to Gov Brown for signature.

CA would be the third primary held, right after Iowa and NH.

I have to think this would be extremely advantageous to Kamala Harris if she decides to run. CA is a huge prize in delegates for anyone who does well here.

If the legislature approves this and the governor signs it, it could well push Harris or any number of Californians into running to take advantage of the favorite son/daughter status that comes with the territory. It might also give a real shot to a more-moderate R candidate, who would benefit from taking positions that are more in line with CA's liberal identity than the conservative identity found in states like Iowa.

More important, CA is such a huge prize in delegates that anyone who wins here - D or R - would have a huge early lead that could dramatically change the entire primary dynamic, as donors and voters move to the winner. We could know both candidates very early on in the process.

And, no, tRump will not be the R candidate in 2020.

BTW - the CA D primary awards delegates proportionally to a great extent, while the Rs have a winner-take-all by district system. Both throw in super delegates and state delegates as well.

[PdxSean]

1. Thanks!

Didn't know California was moving its primary. Wouldn't surprise me if Iowa responded by moving its primary up. Maybe more blue states could schedule their primaries "for the same date of the Iowa primary" or similar language.

[stopbush]

2. One problem in the past has been the national party being against states moving their

primary dates.

They buy into the "let the little states go first" philosophy for a number of expected reasons.

In the past, states that move their primaries up without the consent of the national party have been penalized at the national convention by having their delegates counts cut.

I don't think they will be able to stop CA, as CA is the source of the bulk of $ that Ds at all levels depend on for their campaigns.

[KitSileya]

3. I think a shake-up in the order of the states in the primary is in order...

To be honest, it is unfair that small, homogeneous states such as IA and NH get to go first every time. If it were up to me, the primary process would be alphabetical, with the 5 first states (or 10 first) one cycle being put last the next cycle, so that there's a rotation of who goes first, and a geographical and size-related mix at all times. Closed primaries in all states, too, of course - we don't need non-members deciding who our candidate should be. If they want to decide who the party uses its electoral energy on, they can damn well join the party and pay their dues (metaphorically speaking!) And caucuses are inherently discriminatory against segments of our membership (the disabled, working people, parents, caretakers, the poor etc), so they should go.

[stopbush]

18. Agree that we need closed primaries. Unfortunately, the states get to decide that.

Any political party that elects to participate in a state-sponsored primary (where the state picks up the expense of said primary) has to play by their rules. Of course, if the D Party decided to go entirely to closed primaries, they would have the clout to force any number of states to play along.

There's also the option of a political party running its own primary, but them they have to pick up all of the expenses.

[Omaha Steve]

35. State laws would have to be changed

The Nebraska D & R primaries by state law are in May. After receiving permission from the DNC the caucus has been held in March since 2008. The primary was still held in May by law, but didn't count. The caucus results were final.

The Nebraska caucus accepted mail in ballots starting with 2016. You had to send in the form to the state party. Your ballot came by mail. It had to be returned about a week before the caucus to count. I attended in person. Marta sent hers in by mail.

OS

[KitSileya]

37. Well, I am against caucuses because they are inherently undemocratic.

There are a lot of undemocratic things going on in the American electoral system, so working on it is huge job. The closest to a democratic system any state has is the Oregon one, and even then having to register for the vote is undemocratic - all citizens over 18 should be automatically registered to vote. When it comes to primaries, only members of the party should be allowed to vote, and the vote should be secret ballot, of course.

[KitSileya]

41. Yeah, as I said, the five first states in one cycle, goes last in the next

All 50 states should have a chance to set the course of the primary, and not be dismissed as too blue, too red, too homogeneous or too diverse. IA and NH should always get to have first say - bigger states, more diverse states etc should get to go first too.

[yuiyoshida]

4. Go Kamala go!

[ucrdem]

5. Oh good.

I liked the June primary but it either drains $$ and drags the nominating process out way too long, if it's a real contest like June 2016 more or less was, or if it's not a contest, it's kind of pointless. So this is great.

[Not Ruth]

6. I like the idea of an early primary for all states

Why not just do primaries in 2019 and the general a year later?

[GaryCnf]

7. I wonder if it is smart

To have a state which is or at least appears unrepresentative of the rest of the country in terms of political issues in a position to determine who should receive an "extreme advantage" in the primaries. Is it a good thing to give one candidate

a huge early lead that could dramatically change the entire primary dynamic, as donors and voters move to the winner?

[Blue_Adept]

17. yeah, Iowa's political issues are very different from the rest of the country

They really shouldn't be going first at all.

[stopbush]

19. CA is THE most-representative state in the union, and in the world, for that matter.

I for one am tired of rural/racist states having the early say in who gets the nomination. I'm tired of the pandering, the heading out for the county fairand slogging thru the manure to gain a few votes. The lying about positions just to appeal to the rural, red voters.

[GaryCnf]

22. Tell me this

Did the popular vote percentages in states representing the overwhelming majority of electoral votes look more like California or Iowa? (not that I think Iowa is that representative either, but a win in Iowa doesn't ordain the Democratic Party nominee as the OP suggested a win in California would)

[stopbush]

24. California.

[lostnfound]

29. I wonder if it's smart to let Red states vote at all, as uneducated and drug addicted as they are

Not to mention unhealthy. Who exercises, gets educated?
Is it a coincidence that West Virginia has an opioid epidemic and also voted for trump? I think there's a connection.

[GaryCnf]

30. Well now that we agree on!!

[Warren DeMontague]

39. California has 1/10th of the US Population. 34 Million people. And bullshit it's "unrepresentative".

There are, actually, something like 50 million people on the West Coast of the United States, in total, that for whatever reason get ignored, blown off, or taken for granted by the beltway.

If anything, the West Coast is the bellwether for where the rest of the nation is headed. All your cool technology, the trends you'll 'discover' next year, etc... you're welcome.

[GaryCnf]

44. On that score, you're clearly right

But do you really think the OP has anything to do with California being a cultural bellwether?

[GaryCnf]

48. Good stuff! n/t

[Goprox]

8. Gop'ers will probably vote against the move

Since they want Sanders to beat whoever the Democrat is.

[NurseJackie]

10. I hear ya!

[stopbush]

25. Doesn't matter in CA. Both houses of the legislature are controlled entirely

by Ds.

[Tavarious Jackson]

40. I don't think Sanders will ever run as a dem again.

Sanders will be the Ross Perot and he knows it. He sure doesn't seem to want Putin to be against him. Lol Kamala Harris is a great idea. Black women will organize in droves and we will have our base back. Black women move mountains, I promise you that.

[NurseJackie]

9. GOOD! The sooner the better. And... we must get rid of caucuses.

The caucus process is inherently unfair, it's not a secret ballot, no privacy, subject to pressure and intimidation ... the whole thing disenfranchises so many who'd otherwise participate, and it is a cancer on the nominating process that needs to just go away. It's not legitimate. That AND the Electoral College are outdated relics.

[Not Ruth]

11. Just to be contrary

I do not think that the Russians can hack a caucus over the Internet

[NurseJackie]

12. So, you prefer caucuses?

[Not Ruth]

13. I do not have an opinion as I have never even been in a state that has them; no actual experience

Everything that I know about them is from the Internet. But considering that the number one issue is Russian hacking, it seems relevant.

[NurseJackie]

14. LOL!

[stopbush]

20. CA has a paper trail ballot process. When you vote here, you get to see the paper ballot thru

a window on the voting machine. You then approve your choices and that paper ballot becomes a traceable record of your vote. The votes are tabulated electronically, of course, but there is a paper trail.

I don't see how that can be hacked.

[Not Ruth]

21. The 2016 California primary was hacked

https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2017/07/21/hackers-penetrated-voter-registrations-in-2016-through-states-election-site/

[stopbush]

23. Yes, voter REGISTRATION was hacked pre-election.

That is not the same as the actual ballots being cast on election day.

[Not Ruth]

26. Hacking voter registration enables microtargeting via Facebook and Twitter

[stopbush]

27. What does that have to do with the actual voting process being pretty much hack proof?

Nothing.

I said the voting process was hack proof, you make a comment that has nothing to do with that, and you're now digging the hole deeper. Why? Just accept the fact that your concern about voter registration has nothing to do with the integrity of the voting process and move on.

[JustAnotherGen]

28. From the link

You posted:

Hackers successfully penetrated state-run online voter registration systems in 2016, triggering confusion and heated exchanges between voters, poll workers and poll watchers during California’s June 7 primary, Riverside County District Attorney Michael Hestrin said Friday.

“I think that pretty quickly, as is sort of the case around our politics, partisanship got into it,” Hestrin told The California Report. “And frankly the victims of these changes were both Republicans and Democrats.”

Hestrin’s investigation would ultimately show that hackers accessed voter registration information, indiscriminate of party, through the California Secretary of State’s election website, and changed some voters’ party affiliations. But because the state did not collect the IP addresses of the visits, there’s no way to know where the hacker — or hackers — were based.

Voter Registration is on the table and vulnerable to unAmerican activity.

[CK_John]

15. Again we jump before a position becomes a fact...I doubt it will be easy to move to March.

[Not Ruth]

16. Why?

Rescheduling cannot be that hard given how much lead time there is.

[CK_John]

31. How strong is the CA GOP and will the media/sports industry be affected by a move to March.

There are millions of contracts and interested people in a changed date.

I doubt it will go through.

[stopbush]

33. The CA GOP is probably the weakest GOP entity in any state outside of Hawaii.

They have no power here these days, at least in the state legislature. The Rs can vote 100% against it and it will still pass easily.

As far as the media/sports industry, they will adapt to whatever CA decides. They would be fools to fight anything the most-populous state in the country decides to do. It's the rest of the country that is going to have to adapt. You don't know the level of anti-tRump feeling out here. It is genuine and deep. The legislature has already voted on anti-tRump policies dealing with sanctuary cities, etc. They are prepared to fight tRump at every turn. Moving up our primary is one big way to say that CA will control who gets nominated in 2020.

One other thing: if CA does become the third primary, you will see candidates abandoning campaigning in Iowa and - to a lesser extent - NH. Who in their right mind is going to waste time chasing a couple of delegate votes in Iowa when the massive prize of CA is sitting there, waiting to confer its heavy delegate count on the winner at the beginning of the primary season?

[CK_John]

34. It also gives 49 other states a reason to block it. I just don't see it happening.

[stopbush]

36. And how do they that, exactly?

[jalan48]

32. Great to hear. It will help balance out the early voting southern states

[VermontKevin]

43. No. It will weaken the NE and Midwest voting states, strengthen the southern vote.

That's why I suspect the fringe left and the alt-right will decry it, and the candidates it will benefit.