Moving the California Primary up to February: Good idea?

[Roxy66]

How do you feel about the California primary being moved up to February 08'?

[babylonsister]

1. What do you think? How will it change anything? Isn't Feb too early?

CA is a big state. It's a done deal once they vote; what if they're wrong?

[JI7]

2. California elections are run entirely through the media

it's all about money.

i'm in California and i think it's a very bad idea. money will be an even bigger issue than it already has been with California in play.

[JDPriestly]

5. Our campaigns are rune through the media

because it is the cheapest way to campaign in a state that doesn't have much political clout. Californians are a huge constituency but have virtually no voice with regard to the presidential candidates. We need a February primary. We are already disadvantaged in the electoral college because we only have two senators to huge numbers of people. A February primary will mean that Californians count for a change. I'm so sick of the fact that the presidential candidates come to California, stay just long enough to collect from the big donors and pay a cursory visit to us paupers and then fly home. You'd think we didn't matter.

[JI7]

6. it's too big a state

even if they wanted to candidates could never do what they do in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina etc which is retail politics. a chance to get to most of the people without the big whore media.

an early California Primary will only mean more tv ads and not one on one with constituents as is possible in the smaller states.

i would rather favor maybe adding smaller states like Oregon and others in the West and other parts of the country to the early schedule.

[IA_Seth]

12. And you think that will change somehow?

Moving California to a day when there will be some 25(ish) states holding a primary, only a week after the "early" contests will only exacerbate what irritates you so much. Campaigns without the mighty warchest of Hillobamards will be lost in the shuffle, unable to reach each state through media, and unable to cover so much ground at once. With so many states on one day candidates won't do much more than fly-in-fly-out of money-rich cities. There will be no coffee and pie at the diner with the "regular" folks.

So we get to pick from whomever is rich enough to buy us. Fun.

[Colobo]

3. All states should have it the same day

Why can't all states vote on the same day? That would make things easier, I think.

Maybe I ignore the mechanics of American politics (been here for 6 years, but...)

[AlGore-08.com]

8. Because then every candidate would need a billion dollars just to run in the primary

The one positive about having two relatively small states go first - - even if it's not Iowa and New Hampshire - - is that it allows the possibility that a real grassroots candidate could compete against a well financed machine candidate.

Right now, in Iowa and New Hampshire, the primary voters expect to get quality face time with the candidates. They expect the candidates to answer their questions. A candidate can travel around New Hampshire talking to people on (relatively) small amounts of money.

But it's not possible for a candidate to travel around all 50 states (plus DC, Puerto Rico and the other U.S. territories!), talking to small groups of voters, unless they have a couple years to do it and millions and millions of dollars to spend - - and the potential for even more millions for the general election. (The 2008 Presidential election is expected to cost at least a billion dollars!) Pretty much the only way for candidates to generate enough name recognition to win a national primary is to either be a celebrity (a sports figure, an actor, a musician, a relative of a politician with national name recognition), or be a mega-millionaire who can self-finance an entire Presidential campaign, and/or be the candidate chosen by the party machine. And the cheapest, easiest way to convince people to vote for an unknown or relative unknown (especially one with little or no experience in office) is to do softball interviews (like "The View") and flood the TV with 30 second commercials about image and vague ideas ("America needs a new direction" "I understand what it's like to be a single parent" "I'm the law and order candidate" etc., etc., etc.) while ducking debates and policy discussions. And, of course, spending every waking second raising funds from mega-wealthy donors and lobbyists.

IMNSHO, we're already 85% there.

[Journeyman]

4. 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.

[ellisonz]

7. I love it!

[Roxy66]

9. kick

[slackmaster]

10. People in much of the country really don't care much about Cali politics

They eat our food, drink our wine, take in our insipid movies and TV shows but generally consider us to be a giant freak show with nice beaches and bad traffic.

[camero]

11. Not much of a difference

The results will more than likely emulate the results in Iowa like the last two nominees and the winner will be declared afterwards.
What we really need is a National Primary Day for all 50 states.

[Debi]

13. As long as all we care about is $$$$$ this is just great for the political process

All a candidate needs now is money, money, money. Just run a whole bunch of slick ads in California and those folks in the smaller states who take the time to ask questions and force a candidate to answer them (since smaller states cost campaigns less money to run in the candidates actually have to set foot in peoples kitchens and living rooms and talk with them rather than having staged pep rallies and stump speeches)will just have to suck it up.

I predict Thurston Howell III will be the next republican candidate....wonder who the next Democrat will be?