How California could jolt the 2020 presidential race

[DonViejo]

The nation's largest state is poised to upend the primary election schedule.

By DAVID SIDERS and GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI 09/10/2017 07:13 AM EDT

LOS ANGELES — California is pushing forward with a plan to change the state’s primary date from June to March, a move that could scramble the 2020 presidential nominating contest and swing the early weight of the campaign to the west.

If adopted by the legislature this week — as is widely expected — and signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, the early primary would allocate California’s massive haul of delegates just after the nation’s first contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

The earlier primary could benefit at least two potential presidential contenders from California — U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti — while jeopardizing the prospects of other candidates who will struggle to raise enough early money to compete in expensive media markets in the nation’s most populous state.

“In all probability, the winner of the California primary would be the nominee,” said Don Fowler, a former Democratic National Committee chairman from South Carolina. While acknowledging that “a lot of this rationale this far in advance just is completely wrong,” Fowler said, “The implications for the flow of the winnowing process (of candidates) is very significant in moving California.”

more
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/10/california-could-jolt-2020-presidential-elections-242530

[Not Ruth]

1. Can't every other state just move their primary ahead of California's in that case? To 2019.

[Jim Lane]

10. Leapfrogging would run afoul of national party rules.

Both major parties want to prevent a system in which every state tries to be first, or at least early, and so some end up in 2019.

In the Democratic Party, the current order is Iowa-New Hampshire-Nevada-South Carolina. No other state is allowed to hold its primary or caucus early (I think meaning "before March 1" but I'm not sure of the details). The DNC doesn't control what the states do, so its only enforcement mechanism is to refuse to seat delegates chosen in contests that violate the rule. This proved problematic in 2008.

The bigger danger is front-loading that's allowed by the current rules. In 2016, New Jersey and several other states voted on the same day in June as California. Some of them might decide that the only way to have any influence would be to move to March along with California. That would leave the states voting in May or late April at the end of the line. Similar reasoning might induce them to move up. We could have a situation where there are the four preliminary contests in January and February, followed by a March in which virtual all the others are held.

[MineralMan]

2. An interesting move by California.

for a very long time, it has reveled in its position as one of the last primaries, which often decided who the nominee would be. Now, they're looking at throwing their considerable weight in convention delegates around at the very beginning of the primary season.

That's definitely going to skew the primary season toward those primary candidates who have enough money to run a massive primary campaign in that state. Lesser candidates will probably be forced to drop out early.

I'm not sure how I feel about this, really. With a late primary, CA often swings a close primary to one candidate. With an early primary, it may well knock out most of the primary candidate field before campaigning can really get started.

Either way, it has enormous influence on presidential primaries. I think it's probably a wash, either way.

[mulsh]

7. Most of my fellow Californians I talk to are sick of being in one of the last primary states.

By the time the primary arrives most of the votes across the nation are in. We out here are constantly reminded of this by the media.

I can assure you that none of the people I know in any part of the state think being one of the last primary states is a great thing.

It gets worse for us on national election nights when most of the vote is in for the rest of the country but we still have a couple of hours at the polls. Every election of my life I've known at least a couple of people who didn't vote because they heard on the new that the election has been more or less called.

[MineralMan]

8. I'm 72 years old. For over 50 of those 72 years, I lived in California.

Now I don't.

[TeamPooka]

9. We do not revel in going last. We hate it. We feel ignored and taken for granted.

We want our voices heard with impact.
I want to vote on Super Tuesday.

[LWolf]

3. I was happy with a late CA primary.

My state has a late primary, and we have a much smaller population. Usually, by the time our primary rolls around, the nomination has been decided, making our votes irrelevant, and excluding us in the process. I've been known to vote for the announced "loser" on purpose, simply as a protest vote, since my vote never actually counts in a presidential primary.

I don't think anyone's vote should be irrelevant. I'm open to solutions. Instead of moving CA's primaries around, I'd rather see a single national day for voting. I understand that a single day puts financial strain on the candidates; but then, I am also an advocate for 100% public financing with no donations, and IRV. Both of those would also improve all elections, including primaries.

Another possibility, although it seems more problematic and more open to manipulation, would be to vote whenever, but not announce ANY results until the last vote had been counted.

Edited to add: I grew up in California. I voted there for 27 years before moving north. I still have family and friends in CA. I'm more than familiar with California politics.

[FLPanhandle]

4. I still think a one day national primary would work best

Sometime in May/June to allow time to refocus on the General.

[Not Ruth]

5. I would like to see primary dates assigned to states for each election by lottery

One primary per day, 7 days a week. 28-31 days per month, 365-366 days per year. That seems fair to all.

[Pope George Ringo II]

6. At this point, I'd take almost anything to break Iowa and New Hampshire.

Rotate primaries, do it all on one day, I don't care. And I'm in Texas, so meaningful primary voting is not exactly something I do on a regular basis.