Why does California allow other states to decide the candidates?

[Freelancer]

Is there some logic or strategy behind why California allows primaries to be decided (or all but decided) before they get to have any say in the matter? Why don't they fight the primary date sequence?

I'm NOT trying to make a statement here. I'm just wondering why this is.

[TeamPooka]

1. We don't let them. The country locks us out. On purpose, because we would wag the dog.

It's a very big state.

[brooklynite]

5. "The Country" has no roll at all...

CA could hold it's Primary on any date after March 1...just like every other State besides the big 4...

[democrattotheend]

7. Didn't they have it in February in 2008?

Why did they move it back to June this year?

[Bluestar]

8. It was moved back to June to save the cost of a special election n/t

[TDale313]

2. I have heard it's considered too costly

To actually deal with a competitive California primary. Frankly it pisses me off. I wonder if there's a mechanism to pressure/force Sacramento to push it forward in the future. Ballot initiative maybe?

[SFnomad]

3. California was part of Super Tuesday in 2000, 2004 and 2008

You might want to ask them why they decided, themselves, to move their primary from Feb/Mar back to June. It's not like the DNC forced them or the other 49 states did. They did it, themselves. They have no one else to blame.

[hill2016]

4. if it goes first

the politician with the most name recognition is going to win and suck all the oxygen out from a crowded field. That means Clinton. Sanders would have been one of many also-rans.

[YouDig]

6. The flip side is, if this primary wasn't a blowout, then it all would have come down to California,

and California would end up being the most important primary and the only one that mattered.