Moving the California primary up to Super Tuesday

[Mr.Bill]

has accomplished something I see as a positive. It has narrowed the field at an earlier date, thereby reducing the overall expenditure of donor money for primary campaigning. This is a finite resource and this leaves more money available for the presidential race after the nominee is chosen.

If you think it has had any negative effects, I would welcome those comments in this thread also.

[hlthe2b]

1. I agree... I'm just hoping we cut back on the combative debates that, frankly, I think have only

provided countless attack ad clips for the Trumpists.

[Mr.Bill]

2. At least now they can look like an actual debate.

Two people with differing opinions on the issues.

[virgogal]

3. I wish they were all on the same day.

[Mr.Bill]

4. So do I.

Maybe in April or May.

[Happy Hoosier]

9. I don't... this year is why....

In a year with LOTS of candidates, there needs to be time for the field to winnow and for consolidation to occur.... just like happened this year.

I would like 4-5 primary dates with states group to form a representative demographic groups, and rotate the position of those groups in the order every cycle.

That maintains the ability of candidates to visit individual states, and for consolidation to occur, but eliminate the silliness of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Also, NO freaking caucuses. they're ridiculous.

[NNadir]

5. Frankly, the entire primary system sucks.

Those of us in late voting states are entirely disenfranchised.

A national primary coupled with a series of runoffs until one candidate gets a 50% majority would be more just.

I have no problem with Joe Biden. He's a good choice, but on the other side, look at the damage done to this country by the primary system in 2016.

It will take decades for this country to recover.

[Mr.Bill]

6. Can't say I disagree.

It was frustrating in California to have to wait until June for our primary. It's like we were the largest state, but just an afterthought. I like your idea of a series of primary runoffs. There would be additional cost to have more than one primary in every state, though.

[NNadir]

8. While I appreciate what you say...

...the cost of allowing insurgent candidates like Donal Trump to actually get into office is enormous.

The fact that an openly racist pig is in the White House may be due to giving two overly White States inordinate influence in this process back in 2016.

While none of the Republicans were truly worthy men or women, at least their racism was less obvious. I doubt any of them would have selected a worthless woman hating frat boy on the supreme court.

Some of them might have even loved their country more than power and themselves.

I think a wise country profits by having a sane opposition.

We are now lacking a sane opposition and the cost to our future is enormous.

On our side we at least have a powerful African American community to save us from too much insurgent stupidity, but frankly it was a scary near thing.

The loss to our country, if only in purely economic terms, for the last 4 years is surely in the trillions of dollars, but the moral cost is much larger.

We will need the input of citizens of all states to bring our country back from the brink. New Hampshire and Iowa's citizens deserve a voice, but frankly those states are the provinces and don't reflect our nation's diversity.

[DAMANgoldberg]

7. Three Words

Ranked Choice Voting

[judeling]

10. I think it was a big mistake.

First the early vote was counter productive and so the field was narrowed to soon.

With Texas and California coming so soon in the process it forced a do or die situation for all of the campaigns and precluded a smoother coming together of the wings.

Heck if it was this coming Tuesday as it worked out Bernie may have joined Warren this week.
But over and above that it forced both Harris and Booker out to soon.

Now I don't think Iowa and New Hampshire should have the weight they do. But at the same time ending this all before April is not Ideal.

The solution is not all that difficult. We need to have the First four seen as a set and the easiest way to do that is pair them up. We have seen that RCV works for a caucus and so the solution is right in front of the DNC.

The first week of February is the Tuesday Iowa caucus and Saturday the Nevada caucus. But the Debate must be before the early vote starts.

The Third week is the New Hampshire Tuesday and the South Carolina Saturday Primary. With a debate in the Second week.

April would then be the more National super Tuesdays.

That would allow the first four to be considered as a group and lessen any one being totally critical and allowing less funded and known candidates a chance to emerge.