If the California Primary is moved to FEB....

[thatsrightimirish]

Who will benefit the most? I'm thinking the candidates with the most money first being Clinton. But if there is a high African American turnout it could be Obama. If all the labor unions go behind Edwards it could be him. Or if the Hispanics all go behind Richardson, who was born in Pasadena, it could be him. Very exciting.

The California Primary should be moved up because I'm tired of politicians coming in here whenever they need money and leave for some small state. If it wasn't for the California electorate the Democrats wouldn't even be in the thing electorally or financially.

[Bluestar]

1. Who will benefit most? The people of California

We are tired of our candidates being chosen by small population states--Iowa, NH and SC. By the time it gets to South Carolina, the race is over and the most populous state is left out of the decision-making process.

[Journeyman]

2. Got that right. . .

Didn't matter who in the hell I voted for in the '04 Primary -- the decision had been rendered weeks before.

I believe we should have rotating regional primaries. Divide the nation into six geographical areas, hold primaries in all the states within a particular region on the same day, then rotate which region votes first. This way, each State would vote first at least once every 24 years, and be within the first three votes half the time. It'd reduce the cost of campaigning (not so much travel if candidates focus on smaller sections of the nation), and the debate within each region could more closely follow the issues for that region, instead of the relatively useless platitudes we're fed so often in the shotgun, hit-and-run campaigning we get under the present system. And too, if the 6 primaries were spread out over the same period, there could be two to four weeks between primaries, time enough for people to assess the results from each election and for candidates to recover from any slight stumble that, under the present situation, can ruin a campaign in short order.

That's my 2 cents.

[napi21]

3. I felt the same way when I lived in Pgh. Pa. Our votes didn't matter!

I'd like to see a very long primary season, and all the primaries held on the same damn day! A long season so the candidates would have time to visit every State they felt they wanted to, or should, and then bite the damn bullet! dem & Pub primaries on the same damn day! That way you would eliminate any crossover voters trying to swing the opposite party vote, and everyone's vote would count!

[Hippo_Tron]

7. This could easily be fixed by waiting a few weeks before opening the window

New Hampshire and South Carolina were a huge part of choosing Clinton but had Jerry Brown won California and New York it's hard to say whether Clinton would've become the nominee.

The window needs to be closed for several weeks instead of having a "Mini Tuesday" the week after New Hampshire so that the candidates without the momentum from Iowa and NH victories can have a chance to actually campaign in the other states.

[Ignacio Upton]

4. Who ever has the most $$$

Who as of now would be Hillary.

[pinto]

5. I have a pet primary preference: three rounds, based on electoral vote.

First round, the smallest electoral states.
Second, the middle third.
Last, the big guns.

This would leave the possibility of an open result until the final round is completed, allow smaller states to have a say, give the middle states some backing in the process and would be somewhat blind to regional groupings.

Alaska............3
Delaware..........3
D.C...............3
Montana...........3
North Dakota......3
South Dakota......3
Vermont...........3
Wyoming...........3
Hawaii............4
Idaho.............4
Maine.............4
New Hampshire.....4
Rhode Island......4
Nebraska..........5
Nevada............5
New Mexico........5
Utah..............5
West Virginia.....5
Arkansas..........6
Kansas............6
Mississippi.......6
Connecticut.......7
Iowa..............7
Oklahoma..........7
Oregon............7
Kentucky..........8
South Carolina....8
Alabama...........9
Colorado..........9
Louisiana.........9
..........................(158 Electoral Votes)

Arizona...........10
Maryland..........10
Minnesota.........10
Wisconsin.........10
Indiana...........11
Missouri..........11
Tennessee.........11
Washington........11
Massachusetts.....12
Virginia..........13
Georgia...........15
New Jersey........15
North Carolina....15
Michigan..........17
.........................(171 Electoral Votes)

Ohio..............20
Illinois..........21
Pennsylvania......21
Florida...........27
New York..........31
Texas.............34
California........55
.........................(209 Electoral Votes)

538 Total Electoral Votes

[Hippo_Tron]

8. How much time between each grouping would you say is necessary?

[pinto]

9. I don't know. I'd like to see it fairly compact, maybe two months or so for politicking per group?

and a month or so for each state in a grouping to hold a primary. Realistically, whatever works out to 9 months. A month for respective conventions, then the national vote in November.

[calimary]

6. And, with all due respect, I'm tired of having the candidate decided for me

by voters in some smaller state. We're the biggest, population-wise, and growing every day. We have the biggest congressional delegation AND electoral vote haul. We've got a lot of money here, too, but they should be swarming for our votes and not just to pick our pockets. I think California deserves the privilege of narrowing down the list. Whatever happens in Washington, whoever's in charge there, the decisions stand to impact California more than any other state by virtue of sheer numbers - the VAST and fastest-growing population figures out HERE. Therefore, I think we deserve more of a say in who's running. So far, the system sucks. We get stuck having to vote for somebody that was not of our choosing, and wound up losing (example - WE went for Howard Dean out here in California, even after someone else was all but crowned).

I'm with you, thatsrightimirish. In fact, I think California should be FIRST.

[election_2004]

10. Why does everyone assume Hillary will win California?

I'm not saying she would do badly here in our primary, but if we get an early slot in the primary rotation schedule then we could see a three-way or four-way split amongst the top contenders who are still in the race at that point.

[Le Taz Hot]

11. I have to disagree with your assertion that the

candidate with the most money benefits from an early CA primary. I was heavily involved with the Dean campaign in the 2003/2004 primary season. We set up shop (campaign booth) at many many events. Each time there was a Kucinich booth, sometimes an Edwards booth and later, a Clark booth. You know who NEVER had a booth? John Kerry. Kerry didn't even have local Meet-Ups set up until way after everyone else had them. Kerry had no real presence in CA at all except to fly in and attend $1,000-a-plate fundraisers, then fly back out. John Kerry was the monied candidate, not Howard Dean. Despite that, Howard Dean led Kerry in the polls by double digits in California. Had our primary been in February, I am convinced that along with New York and the rest of the Eastern/Western seaboard, Dean would have been our nominee. Leaving California out of the process in all but name benefits the monied candidate, not the popular candidate.

One cautionary word to the wise: Please don't assume just because Obama is Black that "all" Blacks will vote for him or that "all" Hispanics will vote for Richardson.

[JNelson6563]

12. Many good points

Here in northern MI it was the same, no presence for the Kerry campaign AT ALL. Yet by the time it was MI's turn to vote Kerry had already been crowned.

I feel sorry for the poor fools who believe anyone but the corporate media shapes the race as things stand now.

Julie