HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » California Could Shake Up...

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 06:18 PM

California Could Shake Up the 2020 Race

https://politicalwire.com/2017/09/10/california-upend-2020-presidential-race/

"SNIP.............

“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,” Politico reports.

“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.”


.............SNIP"

38 replies, 3586 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 38 replies Author Time Post
Reply California Could Shake Up the 2020 Race (Original post)
applegrove Sep 10 OP
greeny2323 Sep 10 #1
mythology Sep 10 #2
JI7 Sep 10 #4
Drahthaardogs Sep 11 #31
calimary Sep 10 #3
Hortensis Sep 11 #29
Drahthaardogs Sep 11 #32
calimary Sep 12 #38
SaschaHM Sep 10 #5
MichMan Sep 10 #6
Jim Lane Sep 10 #21
Ken Burch Sep 11 #26
Jim Lane Sep 11 #27
BannonsLiver Sep 11 #33
Ken Burch Sep 11 #35
calimary Sep 10 #7
BannonsLiver Sep 11 #36
left-of-center2012 Sep 10 #8
Expecting Rain Sep 10 #15
left-of-center2012 Sep 10 #16
Expecting Rain Sep 10 #17
left-of-center2012 Sep 10 #19
Expecting Rain Sep 10 #20
white_wolf Sep 11 #24
NewJeffCT Sep 11 #30
JI7 Sep 10 #22
Blue_true Sep 10 #9
Yupster Sep 10 #10
BigmanPigman Sep 10 #11
Yavin4 Sep 10 #12
yuiyoshida Sep 10 #13
Hassin Bin Sober Sep 10 #14
Expecting Rain Sep 10 #18
Sen. Walter Sobchak Sep 11 #23
Warren DeMontague Sep 11 #25
Pachamama Sep 11 #28
NurseJackie Sep 11 #34
BannonsLiver Sep 11 #37

Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 06:24 PM

1. Good

We need more diversity earlier on in the Democratic primary process. Enough if the lily white states going first. And always going first. Every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greeny2323 (Reply #1)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 06:31 PM

2. South Carolina and Nevada were picked because they are diverse states

Well at least on our side. The Republican primary is still pretty much 100% white.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 06:39 PM

4. That's because the party is mostly white

Even in diverse areas their voters will mostly be white.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greeny2323 (Reply #1)

Mon Sep 11, 2017, 08:20 AM

31. Bad. The nation is NOT California

Having California pick our nominee is NOT a recipe to win the general election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 06:38 PM

3. Damn tootin'!

It's about time California had more say, and a better place in line! We're the biggest, and more of us BY FAR are affected by Washington's decisions than any other state! Damn straight California should have more say. And as early as possible!

Besides, as it is now, nobody even bothers coming out here to campaign for our vote! Only time they ever do turn up out here is to fund-raise. What are we, anyway? Chopped liver? Chopped liver in a money bag, that is.

Frankly, I happen to think California should be FIRST.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #3)

Mon Sep 11, 2017, 07:42 AM

29. No state or voters should swing any more weight than one vote per person.

We need a national voting 1-day holiday following 3-month primaries and 3-month general. Publicly funded.

Itm, I was born and lived in California for decades, and voting late but huge never struck me as wrong. Thank goodness this push is fairly modest. Until we fix this, some states have to come later, and citizens of dozens of states shouldn't know months ahead of their chance to vote who their president is doing to be.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #3)

Mon Sep 11, 2017, 08:22 AM

32. If you want to.lose...

Do you know how people in Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa view California? Here's a hint...not favorably.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drahthaardogs (Reply #32)

Tue Sep 12, 2017, 09:09 PM

38. Well, with all due respect...

That's just too damn bad.

This is simply my opinion talking, so take it for whatever it's worth(less). I love California and I will defend it to the death.

California is the most populous state in the country. That thereby earns this state:
1) the biggest Congressional delegation.
2) the biggest haul of Electoral College votes.
3) the biggest population of the fastest-growing demographic (Latinos)

California ranks among other COUNTRIES in terms of economics. Our economy ranks 6th in the WORLD.

California is a donor state. That means, as of the most recent tally, that of every dollar we pay in taxes, we only get about 78 cents back. The rest of it goes to prop up other states that probably badmouth us all to hell while at the same time MORE than happy to take our money. I find myself wondering if they'd be okay with NOT taking our money? How 'bout we keep it here in California, where WE can use it because we believe in affordable health care (or some such thing)? And maybe we should keep all our world-class wines and all that food you eat that we grew in OUR San Joaquin Valley, and all those movies that come outta Hollywood, and all the revolutionary new ideas that come outta Silicon Valley? Many of those in other states didn't mind it a bit when we sent Ronald Reagan out there, and still don't, although I do apologize for that, and for Nixon, AND for Prop 13 that started the property tax cutting movement during the late 70s. All that proves is how muscular we are about starting trends that everybody else picks up on as they filter eastward from us out west. And the entire Disneyland theme park concept that mushroomed all over the world originated OUT HERE, TOO.

Sorry to snarl. I genuinely am. But DAMMIT, I'm sick to death of hearing this shit about California! And I'm sick to death of hearing people dump on California! It REALLY makes me mad! How's your weather in the winter, when we're still going to the beach and Christmas shopping in our shorts and t-shirts? I actually pulled that on some smart-ass on the radio in Boston when the Lakers were playing the Celtics in the NBA finals - back during the mid-80s. Our station's morning show and the Boston's morning show went back and forth all week, snarking each other on the air, while the finals were going on. And they thought it'd be ridiculously funny to put this sports hard-ass guy up against the "oh, she's just a GIRL news-chick" in L.A. When the Celts finally won, he went all obnoxious on me. And I reminded him - "laugh all you want. This coming winter when you're freezing your patootie off under piles of snow, we'll be relaxing in our hot tubs all evening, under starry skies, with something nice to drink. And we'll be thinking of YOU! You'll be WISHING you were out here." He had no comeback. They had to cut to commercial all of a sudden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 06:40 PM

5. Good!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 06:48 PM

6. Michigan tried moving theirs up before

Michigan tried moving theirs up in 2008. Obama, Biden, Richardson and Edwards all withdrew as to not anger the other states that were leapfrogged. Clinton & Dodd remained while Kucinich tried to withdraw, but waited too late

The DNC first decreed that none of the 156 delegates would be counted, then changed it that they would each get half a vote, before finally relenting and allowing them to count

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 11:26 PM

21. Michigan and Florida violated the rules by moving up TOO early

Democratic Party rules don't bar all changes in primary dates. The rule attempts to protect a system in which the first four contests are held in comparatively small states, one in each of the country's four main regions. After that it's open season.

I think the rules would allow every state to move to March, which is what might happen if California starts a stampede.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #21)

Mon Sep 11, 2017, 03:01 AM

26. In that way, we could create a de facto "national primary".

Which is what we should have.

It's time we finally had a nominating process in which large states and large cities had just as much say in who we nominate, at a point when the race is nomination is still in play, as New Hampshire and Iowa-especially since Iowa is pretty much lost to us now presidentially and will likely just keep moving further and further right for the rest of eternity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #26)

Mon Sep 11, 2017, 06:46 AM

27. I personally think that would be terrible.

Qualifications for winning a de facto national primary:
1. Have high nationwide name recognition before anyone casts a vote.
2. Have access to a staggering amount of money before anyone casts a vote.

I don't like the way that skews the candidate pool. I think it's better that a lesser-known and underfunded candidate have a chance to make his or her case to a comparatively small number of voters at first, so as to be able to attract the support and the donations to compete on a broader scale.

One good solution would be a rotating regional primary. Instead of having, as has often been the case, California and New Jersey on the same day, states should be grouped geographically. The "rotating" part means that the order would change from cycle to cycle. Everyone would have an equal chance to vote while the nomination was still in play.

If I were designing a system from scratch and had the authority to impose it on all 50 states (plus DC and the other jurisdictions that elect delegates, like Puerto Rico), I'd prefer that system to a single national primary. Back here in the real world, not only does no one on DU have that authority, no one anywhere has that authority. Neither your preferred system nor mine has much chance of ever happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #26)

Mon Sep 11, 2017, 08:30 AM

33. Your Bernie would have been crushed under that scenario

Clinton had a huge cash advantage in the beginning. She would have swamped him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BannonsLiver (Reply #33)

Mon Sep 11, 2017, 01:58 PM

35. I don't look at everything in terms of Bernie.

And while he did badly in the early going-mainly because he didn't say enough early on about race, although he did say plenty about it later-a candidate who did address social oppression while also supporting the economic justice ideas Bernie's campaign backed-but did not originate-could have done well.

African-American, Latinx-American and female voters wanted more said about social oppression. They aren't anti-Left on economic issues and it's arrogant to claim that they are just because of how the votes in the primaries went.

At this late date, with the election long over, can we please move past the idea that the party can be for social justice, or economic justice, but not BOTH?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 06:51 PM

7. And it's not just Kamala Harris and Eric Garcetti, either.

I'm watching Gavin Newsom, who's a major rising star, too. By then I suspect he'd launch a presidential bid from the governor's office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 11, 2017, 05:46 PM

36. I sure hope so. Big fan here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 07:04 PM

8. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti?

Running for President?

I don't see a mayor or former mayor running successfully for President,
except Michael Bloomberg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #8)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 09:34 PM

15. Cory Booker was a mayor...

 

And I think he's our best next-gen nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Expecting Rain (Reply #15)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 09:52 PM

16. Yeah

He didn't go from being mayor to running for President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #16)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 10:03 PM

17. You said mayor or former mayor.

 

I don't believe Eric Garcetti (who is my mayor, and a very fine one) will be our party's nominee in 2020.

Cory Booker on the other hand...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Expecting Rain (Reply #17)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 10:34 PM

19. My apologies

I meant directly from mayor or former mayor without a higher office.

sigh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #19)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 10:42 PM

20. No worries...

 

I just read an analysis a couple days ago suggesting no mayors or former mayors (regardless of sunsiqunnt higher office) were problematic nominees due to the messiness of rumming cities.

I don't agree. But the issue is in the air.

Not trying to be pedantic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Expecting Rain (Reply #20)

Mon Sep 11, 2017, 12:30 AM

24. Just curious, but why are cities so a mess compared to states?

One would assume that running an entire state would be messier than running a city. As large as NYC is, for example, Cuomo is responsible for that plus the rest of the state. There's probably something I'm missing so if you happen to know of any resources on this topic, I'd love to go through them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #24)

Mon Sep 11, 2017, 07:56 AM

30. A mayor is more directly linked to the good and bad of a big city

compared to the governor - if there is a police incident, it will more likely fall on the mayor's hands than the governor. Giuliani was the one that was blamed for police overreaction with "stop & frisk" policy, not the governor at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #8)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 11:32 PM

22. he is mayor of Los ANgeles

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 07:16 PM

9. This is how it should be on the Democratic side.

Blue states should decide our nominee. So, they should go early.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 09:03 PM

10. My plan is they should make out the calendar of how many states on each date

and then hold a lottery and pull the states out of a hat to fill the calendar.

It would be an event every four years like NFL draft day, and it would randomize the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 09:05 PM

11. It's about time! I have been bitching about this forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 09:06 PM

12. They should just have 4 regional primaries

North, South, East, West. Draw straws to see who goes first, and then rotate them every 4 years thereafter. Would it be difficult for unknown, low funded candidates? Yes, it would. Which would encourage them to get their name in the public by doing big things for themselves and the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 09:07 PM

13. I LOVE THIS STATE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 09:09 PM

14. What about the rule that penalizes states for line jumping?

Does that dumb rule still exist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Sep 10, 2017, 10:04 PM

18. Try not sitting California's Democratic delegation

 

Last edited Sun Sep 10, 2017, 11:36 PM - Edit history (2)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Mon Sep 11, 2017, 12:13 AM

23. Eric Garcetti is a presidential contender?

We couldn't drill a drier well on Mars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Mon Sep 11, 2017, 02:41 AM

25. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Mon Sep 11, 2017, 06:52 AM

28. About friggin time....

I have been wanting California to do this for decades! I have never understood why one of the most populated states and largest economies in our states is basically irrelevant in the primaries.

This is a game changer....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Mon Sep 11, 2017, 08:34 AM

34. Yes please! ANYTHING to make caucuses impotent and obsolete.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #34)

Mon Sep 11, 2017, 05:48 PM

37. Except for one thing

When the primary rolls around I'm sure there will be some (the JPR crowd for example) who will predictably accuse the DNC of orchestrating all of this in an effort to boost Harris even though she had nothing to do with it, and wasn't even an active candidate for president when it was changed. I can see it coming from a mile away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread