California push for early primary gains traction

[DeepModem Mom]

LAT: State push for early primary gains traction
The move from June 3 to Feb. 5 would give California more clout in presidential race.
By Jordan Rau, Times Staff Writer
January 19, 2007

SACRAMENTO — With Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's backing, state lawmakers from both parties are moving rapidly to make California a player in choosing the nation's next president by holding the state's primary four months earlier.

A bipartisan group of state senators introduced legislation Friday to change the 2008 presidential primary from June 3 to Feb. 5. Another bill was introduced by an Assembly Republican on Thursday, the day after Schwarzenegger declared that moving up the primary date would make California "relevant" nationally and was "something to shoot for."

The February date — the earliest the state can choose under national party rules — would place California at the beginning of the election season, right after four states that have secured the most privileged spots in January for their Democratic caucuses or primaries: Iowa (Jan. 14), Nevada (Jan. 19), New Hampshire (Jan. 22) and South Carolina (Jan. 29). The Republican calendar has Iowa and New Hampshire first, with the rest of the schedule in flux.

Contenders, who now bypass California except to raise money, would be forced to establish real presences here.

The huge cost of competing in California — estimated by one veteran strategist to be $6 million to $8 million per candidate — would probably require all contenders to accelerate their fundraising and possibly give an edge to those candidates who have already amassed sizable war chests, such as Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-New York) and John McCain (R-Arizona), according to operatives in both parties....

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-primary20jan20,0,2764148.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[election_2004]

1. I have mixed feelings about this

On the one hand, as a Californian I want my vote in the primary to actually count.

On the other hand, I don't want Hillary to have more of an advantage. However, if Obama and Richardson are still in the race by the time the California primary rolls around, both of them should make it fairly competitive for Senator Clinton.

[calimary]

2. I think we SHOULD count, and count for A LOT. After all, aren't we

the biggest? The biggest electoral prize, the biggest population, the biggest congressional delegation - AND the Speaker of the House is one of OURS. Why shouldn't we be allowed a bigger say, and a better place in line? More people's lives and fortunes are at stake here, after all.

Actually, sometimes I think we should be FIRST. It's been such a drag having the candidates all but decided for us before we even have a chance to weigh in. I'd LOVE to see us move up closer to the front. Besides, if we'd been earlier in the primary season in '04, Howard Dean might be in the White House and we wouldn't be in nearly as dreadful a predicament as we're in now. California would have given him huge momentum WAY early.

[Outrider]

4. That's why you aren't first

California already has tremendous sway in the presidential elections given the fact that it is worth so many electoral votes. Having California, or Illinois for that matter, later in the cycle gives the smaller states a chance to voice their opinions in the primaries because as soon as the primaries are over they will become much less important.

[Le Taz Hot]

3. Had this been implemented in 2004

our current president would be Howard Dean.