Why did CA move their primary ahead to Super Tuesday?

[DSV]

I don't see the purpose, other than to detract from the voices of those of us in the South. CA already has the biggest share of delegates, after all.

[BannonsLiver]

1. Relevance

They moved it up because CA despite its size has been largely irrelevant to the Dem primary process. It’s not aimed to help or hurt any specific candidate. It’s about making CA more relevant.

[bullimiami]

2. Thats exactly it. They felt like it was all but over by the time they had their primary.

[brush]

60. Exactly. The primary was often already decided by the time...

California's used-to-be June primary came about.

Now with the large delegate count in California being tallied earlier in the primary process, the candidate who get's the lion's share of votes will most likely come out the delegate leader if he/she isn't already.

[Garrett78]

64. 2016 was actually the only time this century when CA wasn't on Super Tuesday.

[brush]

68. It was June 5 in 2012.

[Garrett78]

69. I should have said the only consequential time when it wasn't on Super Tuesday. :)

Obviously 2012 didn't matter much given that Obama was the incumbent.

[brush]

70. I'm not understanding. Hasn't it been in June for the last several...

presidential cycles? It was June 3 in 2008.

[Garrett78]

71. No, it took place on Super Tuesday in 2008. Here's a link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Democratic_primary

It took place on Super Tuesday in 2000 and 2004, as well.

As I said, 2016 was the only exception of consequence this century.

[Garrett78]

3. To be relevant again. The CA primary was on Super Tuesday back in 2004, so this isn't a first.

Of course, by being so early, it's possible that we'll see a wide distribution of votes if there are still a handful of candidates in the race. Or we may essentially know who the nominee is going to be by the end of Super Tuesday just as we did in 2016.

[wasupaloopa]

76. Being a CA resident, I doubt you will see a

wide distribution of votes.

Polls will show who benefits and who won’t. Those who won’t will drop out by the end of March.

My guess Harris will win the CA primary and everyone else will be playing catch-up.

[Garrett78]

80. I also expect our Senator to win here.

But there may still be half a dozen candidates in the race on Super Tuesday, and it's possible nobody will walk away with a ton of delegates.

Or Harris will win big and claim 300+ delegates. Time will tell.

[marylandblue]

4. CA used to be so late in the process, the contest was always decided elsewhere

It's annoying to all the late states. A few cycles ago, some states tried to get ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire. They both got angry at.losing their privilege. New Hampshire said they would pass a law saying their primary had to be at least a week ahead of any other primary, threatening the entire process. So a compromise was made where Nevada and South Carolina got pushed up earlier and other states got to join Super Tuesday.

Which still left California out in the cold, but in theory at least, they could swing an election just by sheer numbers. But in reality, the contest was already decided by the time it got to California.

The whole process is ridiculous. It shouldn't take six months to pick a candidate and leave half the country disenfranchised anyway. If we can't do it all on the same day, why can't we at least do it in the same month?

[Garrett78]

5. A month is way too quick.

It's important that we start off with several individual contests (preferably all primaries and in states that actually reflect our electorate) over the course of a few weeks. That way, the field is whittled down substantially by Super Tuesday. A national primary would result in massive vote-splitting, and it's likely that nobody would have anywhere close to a majority of pledged delegates.

Following those initial individual contests, candidates need at least a couple full months to campaign. This is a big country. It takes a lot of time, money and energy to run a national campaign.

But we do need to do away with caucuses (fortunately, many states are doing just that) and start with more diverse states (since the states that go first do inevitably have a disproportionate amount of influence).

[marylandblue]

6. We are the only country in the world that spends 2 years out of every 4

electing a President. We have, by far, the longest election season, and the most cumbersome, inconsistent, confusing and expensive process that nonetheless effectively disenfranchises more voters than any other. And on top of all that, we are the only democracy in the world where the person who got fewer votes and is also the most demonstrably unfit can still win the election.

The whole thing is completely irrational from start to finish, and sometime in the future, when we finally demolish this insane structure, they will wonder why we lived with this so long.

Surely we can do better.

[Garrett78]

7. Caucuses, the electoral college, the US Senate...all terribly anti-democratic, no doubt about it.

And we need public financing of campaigns, including primary campaigns.

So, I agree that we can do better.

But, again, this is a big country (and candidates need to travel to all parts) and a national primary wouldn't work. We could potentially have a dozen candidates splitting the vote to the point where the "winner" has a plurality of under 15% but nowhere close to enough delegates.

Even 2 months is a very short amount of time for 50 states (plus DC and various territories) to host candidates and vote.

*Edit: The US is the 3rd largest country in the world by population (behind China and India) and the 3rd largest by area (behind Russia and Canada).

[marylandblue]

8. A candidate would get over 50% if we use ranked choice voting.

And in the age of instant communication, there is no real reason a candidate has to travel everywhere.

But the worst part of such a long primary season is that some states have much more influence than others.no matter what. A handful of states get to do the winnowing and the rest have to hope their favorite candidate still has a chance by the time it's their turn.

[Garrett78]

9. Well, there's a lot of value in face-to-face communication.

And I think ranked-choice voting would be a disaster with potentially a dozen candidates involved. Ranked-choice might be fine for a general election but not a primary when we need to make sure our nominee is a clear winner among the Democratic electorate.

We should also make sure that the handful of states that vote first are reflective of our electorate--I would agree that Iowa and New Hampshire should not be doing the winnowing. After those first 4-5 contests, I would be fine with having a series of 4 Super Tuesdays.

[marylandblue]

10. Okay, I'll take that compromise if I have to.

[Garrett78]

11. By the way, I would suggest that Maryland be one of those first 4 or 5 states.

Although it might not be a bad idea to rotate which 4-5 states start things off each time. Maybe it's MD, FL, IL, AZ and NV one year. And a different 5 states the next time. While I live in CA, I would not suggest that a state as large as ours be any sooner than the first Super Tuesday.

Now, some will argue that both parties need to follow more or less the same schedule as we do currently. If we don't start with IA and NH but Republicans do, would we risk offending both states and lose them in the general? I don't know. But that could be mitigated by both parties having their own rotation of states that changes every time.

[Adrahil]

12. Yeah, except I NEVER get to see them.

I’m sick of the voters in a few “special” states getting to decide things.

I’d rather we had a short primary season... preferably one day... using ranked choice voting.

Frankly, an early CA primary would have helped prevent Sanders prolonging the primary season and sowing disunity.

[Garrett78]

13. CA wasn't enough of a blowout to have that kind of an impact.

As is, we knew after Super Tuesday that Sanders wasn't going to win (in spite of Bernie Math), yet he stayed in the race. Having California vote early wouldn't have changed that.

Ranked-choice vote-tabulation with a large number of candidates is going to be very messy. Maybe it's something we could do after the field has been reduced to 3 or 4 candidates (which is what those first 4 contests accomplish, leading up to Super Tuesday).

[Adrahil]

17. Not convinced.

Our primary system is undemocratic and encourages people like Sanders to drag things out well past the time when it is over. Yes, Sanders lost the nom on Super Yuesday... but he was FAR from being done damaging Clinton.

And as I said, I ABSOLUTELY am sick of 3 or 4 states deciding who the rest of us get to vote for. Why should THEY get to pick?

[Garrett78]

19. You can't have a national primary. Not when there are a dozen candidates.

If we have 4 or 5 diverse states start things off, I don't mind those states winnowing the field, even if my home state (CA) isn't one of them.

Those first several states don't necessarily determine who the nominee will be. But they do help get us down to a manageable number.

Typically, candidates are willing to acknowledge the writing on the wall, so to speak. Sanders didn't, and he may not in 2020 either (though I think he'll have a tougher time justifying that this time, as I wrote here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=485). 2020 will be the last time Sanders runs, I'm presuming.

[Adrahil]

21. You keep saying....

... we can't have a national primary. Why not? If we use ranked choice voting, there is no reason we cannot support a dozen or more candidates.

Doing a national primary would settle our nominee quickly, and more cheaply.

And frankly, I'd rather have a big state like CA in early. I'm tired of the bullshit Iowa caucuses and monitoring the 12 votes from the first village in NH that votes! It's nuts.

[Garrett78]

23. I answered that in post #20 and others. But it's just my opinion, of course.

Ranked-choice voting is fine for a general election campaign (where there's just 1 candidate from each party on the ballot). I think it would be a nightmare in a primary, especially if there are a dozen options for people to choose from. It's messy. It's complex. Complexity isn't good. We need the electorate to feel like we've reached a legitimate consensus.

Again, I totally agree that IA and NH should not start things off. I've made that abundantly clear. Let's start with 4 or 5 primaries (no caucuses) in states that actually reflect our diverse electorate.

And, again, the US is massive. A national campaign is very expensive and very time-consuming.

[Adrahil]

43. Alright... we'll just disagree.

I think our primary system is absolutely ridiculous.

[Cha]

14. It seems like it might have, Adrahil!

Frankly, an early CA primary would have helped prevent Sanders prolonging the primary season and sowing disunity.

[lapucelle]

51. I like the new CA primary date.

I'm tired of states of like Iowa (which runs a problematic caucus) and tiny New Hampshire having an out sized influence.

We don't need desperate candidates hanging on until the end, especially if there is the danger of embittered fans deciding on their own to make trouble for the Democratic nominee.

[Garrett78]

61. IA and NH still have an outsized influence.

Just as they did in 2000, 2004 and 2008 when California voted on Super Tuesday (2016 was the only time this century when CA wasn't on Super Tuesday).

Those first 2 states have a big impact on momentum and the dominant narrative. We should start off with states that actually reflect our electorate, such as MD, IL and AZ. Not IA and NH.

CA is, I think, too big (in population and area) to be one of the first 4 or 5 contests (we want every candidate to have a chance to get around), but Super Tuesday (after the field has been winnowed down) seems like the perfect time for CA to vote. We have 1 out of every 8 Americans in this state, and it's incredibly diverse. CA should have a relatively early say.

[lapucelle]

62. Yes, I know. I was simply saying I don't like it. N/T

[Garrett78]

65. And I agree. But CA going back to Super Tuesday doesn't solve that issue.

Having different states start things off is the answer.

[lapucelle]

66. Obviously. That's why I didn't think I needed to say it. N/T

[Garrett78]

72. Sorry, I had gotten the impression from your post that you thought CA moving up...

...made it so IA and NH won't have an outsized influence. I see now that those were 2 mutually exclusive comments.

[The River]

15. Negate the Pecking Order

Hold all the primaries on the same date. No more states get
early influence and no more states feeling that their votes don't matter as much.
One day, one result. Take it to the convention and let the delegates hash it out.

[Garrett78]

16. With a dozen or more candidates on the ballot, that's asking for trouble.

There's no telling who would come out on top, and the "winner" could be someone with less than 20%.

There's good reason to have 4 or 5 individual contests at the beginning. It winnows the field before Super Tuesday. I just wish those 4-5 states were ones that reflect our electorate. And they could be different states every 4 or 8 years.

[Adrahil]

18. Again... why do the special folks get to decide? NT

[Garrett78]

20. They don't determine the outcome. They just winnow the field.

So, let's say we have a national primary with a dozen or more candidates on the ballot. Let's say the "winner" has a plurality of 18% and is far short of the requisite number of delegates. Then what? As for ranked-choice voting with a dozen+ candidates, the vote tabulation would be a nightmare. There would be little confidence that we collectively reached a consensus on a nominee, which would put us in grave danger heading into the general election.

The answer is to have those first 4-5 states be states that do a fairly good job of reflecting our overall electorate, and to have different states start things off each time. They won't determine the outcome; they'll just winnow the field.

[Adrahil]

22. You aren't really listening.

What if I wanted to support one of the "winnowed" candidates? My vote doesn't count.

In fact, my vote NEVER counts. The nomination is all but wrapped up by the time I get to vote. Other people are deciding for me, and I don't want that. Why is that hard to understand?

[Garrett78]

24. I'm listening and I understand. I just don't have the same concerns.

A national primary opens the door for a fringe candidate to come out on top, as the vote-splitting would be crazy.

If we rotate the states every 4 or 8 years, eventually your state (provided it's not totally lacking in diversity) would, in fact, get to vote early (under my proposal, that is).

Personally, though, I'm fine with not getting to vote until after the field is winnowed...provided the states doing the winnowing reflect our overall electorate. It's fine for you to feel differently, but that's how I feel about it.

[Demsrule86]

25. Why should an enormous state in terms of population go so late that is really doesn't matter who

wins? California has a huge population bad enough they are discriminated against in the electoral college...let's not do it in the primary. Of course it will hurt Sander's chances (and others) as Harris has the advantage.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

26. Why should the enormous states select the nominee before all candidates ...

... have a chance to be heard during the early, small-state, primaries (and caucuses)?

We could have had CA, NY, FL go first in 2008. In that case, I'd guess Clinton would have been prez, and Obama would be some senator from IL.

[Demsrule86]

27. They have more people. What you want is to disenfranchise California in order to give small states

an edge...against that.

[still_one]

32. Why should all those Southern states select the nominee before all the candidates? Not a valid

argument. It is way past due that 40 million people in my state have a say in selecting the nominee.

[Demsrule86]

28. This should winnow the candidates so we don't have a repeat of 16...that is a good thing.

[Garrett78]

31. In 2016, the winnowing was done before we even got to the Iowa caucus.

O'Malley dropped out after Iowa and we were down to just 2 candidates. That certainly won't be the case in 2020.

The problem in 2016 was Sanders didn't care that it was clear after Super Tuesday that he didn't have a chance. California voting on Super Tuesday wouldn't have changed that.

Once again, it will become evident in 2020 that Sanders doesn't have a chance after Super Tuesday, if not before. Time will tell if more pressure is put on him this time (by people within his own camp) to leave gracefully.

[still_one]

34. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Garrett78]

38. Again, it was clear after Super Tuesday in 2016 that he didn't have a path.

That didn't keep him from staying in the race. That's when we started seeing the meme about Bernie Math. He had no path after Super Tuesday and long before CA had voted.

And California wasn't that much of a blowout (254 delegates for Clinton, 221 for Sanders). It may or may not have been more of a blowout had CA voted earlier. Even if it had been, there's no reason to think it would have had any impact on Sanders's decision to stay in the race.

[Garrett78]

41. That's not borne out by the numbers.

It still would have taken much longer for Sanders to have been mathematically eliminated. Again, Clinton's margin of victory in California was just 33 delegates. Even if that number had been, say, 133 delegates, it wouldn't have mathematically eliminated Sanders.

It takes a long ass time for someone to actually be mathematically eliminated (the winner has to accumulate more than 2,000 delegates). But the demographic data made it clear that Sanders was essentially done after Super Tuesday. That'll happen again in 2020.

[Demsrule86]

42. Yes it is. This year, the set up will prevent another fiasco...you have super Tuesday and California

It will prevent what happened last time hopefully. I still say no matter what a big state like California who is screwed by the electoral college should not be denied a meaningful vote in the primaries. And I live in Ohio where it will most likely be over before we vote.

[Garrett78]

44. Clinton had 610 delegates after Super Tuesday.

What you're saying is that she would have had a majority of delegates (2026) if California had voted on Super Tuesday. And that simply isn't true. This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of basic math. Even if CA had voted on Super Tuesday and Clinton had won every single CA delegate (which is completely unrealistic), she wouldn't have mathematically eliminated Sanders.

To be mathematically eliminated, there needs to be a candidate who has won a majority of the total delegates (more than 2000). That's the definition of being mathematically eliminated.

Nonetheless, Sanders had no path after Super Tuesday, and many of us were here at DU making that point to all the Bernie Mathematicians. The writing (in the form of demographic data) was on the wall long before FL, PA, NY, CA and other big states had voted.

[Garrett78]

47. Once again, it was clear after Super Tuesday that Sanders had lost.

Only he and his supporters were in denial about that.

Of course there have been times when a candidate hadn't yet met the requirement yet we knew the race was over. That's precisely what I've been saying. And 2016 was a perfect example of that. We didn't need either New York or California to tell us that. Sanders was done after Super Tuesday and long before FL, NY, CA, PA and other big states had voted.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. Bernie hoped to flip the super delegates.

[Garrett78]

57. And I'd like to have a magical unicorn that shits gold.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. We had to hear that from the end of the primaries to the beginning of the convention.

How deeply cynical it was to criticize super delegates and then look to them to overturn the will of the voters.

[Garrett78]

67. There was a lot of delusion at work in 2016. I was here. I remember.

Teh Bernie Maths!!1!

[Recursion]

29. CA wants some say in the nomintion process, which they haven't had in recent cycles

Unfortunately what it will probably mean is a brokered convention.

[still_one]

30. Is this flamebait or what? California has been marginalized in the primaries for too long

There are 40 million PEOPLE IN OUR STATE, and it is way past due that WE HAVE A SAY IN DETERMINING WHO OUR NOMINEE IS

[Garrett78]

33. California was on Super Tuesday in 2000 and 2004, so it's not been that long.

A potential downside to being as early as Super Tuesday (with a field like we'll have) is that we could see so much vote-splitting that no one candidate picks up all that many California delegates. However, since Harris is in the race, I'm hopeful that she'll win half the state's delegates (if not more) while the rest are distributed among several others.

That said, I'm glad we'll be able to vote on Super Tuesday. But it may not have the impact some predict.

[still_one]

36. It makes a difference. It makes California relevent, in the primaries in selecting the

nominee.

Effectively what has been going on is the Southern States have had more weighting in determining our nominee. It is time to balance the equation.

and while as you correctly point out it hasn't been that long when we had our primary on Super Tuesday, a little over a decade, things have changed on the political landscape so much since then, it is important that California with its population have a voice in the primaries.

I think what may bother some is not that California has moved up their primaries up to Super Tuesday for 2020, and in order to vote for President in the Democratic primary you have to be a registered Democrat, and I think that really bothers those who don't want to identify with Democratic party, but want to determine the determine the Democratic nominee.

I really hate what proposition 14 did, but am grateful at least it left the Presidential primary candidate alone.

The Open Primary was why the Progressive Democrat lost to lipinski in Illinois, and I fully anticipate that one day that open primary will bite us. It actually did with schwarzenegger, but I can see it being a lot worst.

[Garrett78]

39. Let's remember that those Southern states have a whole lot of persons of color.

And the primaries haven't been as frontloaded with Southern states to nearly the extent that some claim. For one thing, the first 3 states that vote are IA, NH and NV.

I think what's important is that we start off with a handful of states that reflect our electorate demographically. So, not Iowa and New Hampshire. But states like Illinois, Arizona, Maryland, Florida and so on.

Again, I'm all for California voting on Super Tuesday. I think it's too big to be one of the initial 4 or 5 contests, but once the field has been winnowed by those initial primaries, CA absolutely should get a relatively early say. As you point out, somewhere around 1 in every 8 people in the US lives here in CA. And CA is one of the most diverse states in the country.

[still_one]

49. I think demographically California reflects as diverse as they come.

[Garrett78]

50. It's certainly one of the most diverse states in the US.

And CA is a fairly good reflection of the Democratic electorate, though our electorate has a higher percentage of African Americans than CA does. In terms of the country's overall demographics, Illinois and other states are representative.

I just think California is too big (in area and population) for it to be one of the initial 4 or 5 contests. And I disagree with those calling for a national primary (for reasons I've given in other posts). California voting on Super Tuesday is great. Let's replace IA and NH at the start, and continue eliminating caucuses until they're all gone.

[still_one]

52. We are on the same page Garrett

[SWBTATTReg]

78. Reading your post and saw the prop 14 blurb in calif., curious about it, and thought to post here...

in case of other curious people...just FYI:

2010 California Proposition 14


Proposition 14 is a California ballot proposition that appeared on the ballot during the June 2010 state elections. It was a constitutional amendment that effectively transformed California's non-Presidential elections from first-past-the-post to a nonpartisan blanket primary. The proposition was legislatively referred to voters by the State Legislature and approved by 54% of the voters.

[RandySF]

56. And 2008

[Garrett78]

59. Ah, sure enough. And 2012 didn't matter because Obama was the incumbent.

[disillusioned73]

35. I think everyone knows that answer..

[RandySF]

58. What is the answer?

[Devil Child]

46. I would prefer holding all the primaries on the same day

Also, ditch the caucuses and close our primaries to only registered Democrats.

[NurseJackie]

48. For mercy's sake.

[MineralMan]

53. They did it to have more influence on the election.

That's simple. California is concerned about California. It doesn't care about other states, when it comes to presidential primaries. Why should it, really, if you think about it.

Primaries are all about political parties and individual states. California had to get national party approval to move its primary. They got that. So, CA is a Super Tuesday state again. It has been one before.

It will make a real difference in how the primaries go, I guarantee. Good! California is a state that is almost solid blue. It will force the primaries to lean progressive, and that's a good thing.

It's not so good for Bernie Sanders, though. I'm sure he's upset. It's very good for Kamala Harris, though, and would be good for Joe Biden, if he decides to run, which I think he will. California will not vote for Bernie to win, though. Of that, I'm certain.

[RandySF]

54. Why should a state of 40 million wait until we are irrelevant?

Welcome to DU, by the way.

[BigmanPigman]

73. Good! I have been bitching about the date

and am pleased that it is moved up. I did read, however, that since CA is an expensive state to campaign in only those with big bucks will be able to stay in the race for long.

[Garrett78]

74. The field will be winnowed substantially before Super Tuesday.

Some will drop out before Iowa. More will be gone after those first few contests. Those who remain should have the funds to campaign in CA, TX and other Super Tuesday states.

[Iggo]

75. So that it's not over before we have our primary.

Do you see the purpose now?

[California_Republic]

77. I am happy. I get to see my first presidential candidate

I am happy. I get to see my first presidential candidate.

Unlike a friend I have in Iowa who sees them many many times

[onecaliberal]

79. Why should small states with less population decide

Who the nominee is? We want a say. We are the 5th largest economy in the world.