Hey, why not January? Two days before the Iowa caucus? I do object to the fact that two states which are 99 percent white set the tone for the whole primary season.
But this guy at San Francisco’s Beyond Chron makes the progressive case against moving the primary.
As Ben Franklin said, the definition of “insanity” is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” Once again, California politicians complain that our state never gets to choose a presidential nominee because the race is over by the time it gets here. Now the state legislature wants to push up our presidential primary even earlier than before – in the vain hope that we will decide from a wide-open field in 2008. But other states have the same idea too and we may end up having a national primary on February 5th – only one week after New Hampshire. While a February primary could be seen as a boon for progressive activists, the subsequent low-turnout June election poses grave risks, particularly given the attempt to qualify a statewide initiative to ban rent control. The February primary is a bad idea for many reasons, and California should not fuel the madness. First, it is unlikely that California will get to decide the outcome of the presidential race, even with an earlier primary. Second, a front-loaded schedule puts insurgent candidates at an insurmountable disadvantage, virtually guaranteeing that the establishment candidate (i.e., Hillary Clinton) will win. Third, pushing the whole primary schedule further back forces candidates to campaign even earlier and raise even more money. Fourth, having two California primaries (the presidential one in February and the legislative one in June) will help right-wing propositions sail through in a low-turnout election.….
Already, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is gathering signatures to place a “son” of Proposition 90 on the ballot – probably for June 2008. While its language makes it sound less extreme than Prop 90, it is actually worse because of its retroactive effect and would eliminate rent control in California. The religious right will also try to place an anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot – it would also likely be voted on in June 2008.California’s a very blue state – but past elections have shown that a low turnout can pass right-wing propositions. In March 2000, California had a low statewide turnout — the average voter’s age was fifty – and the state passed a legislative ban on gay marriage (Proposition 22) and a drastic juvenile justice initiative (Proposition 21) by healthy margins.
Thoughts?

18 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 31, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Fred
And what will we do if the other states in question decide to move their primary even earlier in the year so they can have their influence back?
January 31, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Anonymous
Leave the primary where it is. It’s not like it will make much difference, as the Republican Party has about as much chance of electing a President in 2008 as a snowball has in hell. Either way, the polls clearly indicate that the Democratic nominee will have to screw up severely not to be elected President.
January 31, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Anonymous
Even you Eric have to admit that white people generally make better decisions than yellow, brown or black people.
January 31, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Considering that I vote with the latter groups much more often than I vote with my fellow white men, I’m not sure why I’d have to admit that. As far as presidents are concerned, the black vote has been right in every election since 1932.
January 31, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Admittedly I did vote for Nader in 96 and 00, but at least in 00 I think the black vote was right and I was wrong.
January 31, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Carol Ann
Yes.
However, I am also in favor of having all the states hold their primaries on the same day, too.
January 31, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Eric V. Kirk
I’m not sure about that Carol. That would make it very difficult for low financed/high grassroots campaigns to pull any upsets.
January 31, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Anonymous
The Clintonistas want the primary moved up, as they believe they can buy the nomination for Hillary. God help us! The only possiblity the GOP has of winning the presidency again in 2008 would be for Hillary to be the Democratic nominee. Anybody but Hillary!
February 1, 2007 at 12:14 am
Eric V. Kirk
No. As bad as she is, I’d take anybody but Biden.
February 1, 2007 at 12:27 am
Anonymous
I think February should just move to Calif. We could be the Valentine state,(btw, guys, best start thinking now).
That would still leave 11 months for all the other states while we would enjoy an extra wake up every four years.
Primaries, shlimaries.
February 1, 2007 at 1:08 am
Carson Park Ranger
“…white people generally make better decisions than yellow, brown or black people.”
And “white” people write such intelligent comments.
February 1, 2007 at 1:15 am
Eric V. Kirk
CPR – I’m giving the poster the benefit of the doubt that s/he was referring to voting choices of group majorities.
February 1, 2007 at 2:04 am
ernie
No matter when we have our primary, I do not think California’s political influence can ever be disregarded. I feel it would be far more practical to change the voting time (of day) to the same time, so all the poles open and close at the same time. It would give California more of an edge in the exit poles. The trend of the poles seems to sway voter opinion and turnout.
I am not sure that my political opinions fit any party. I am not religious. I am fiscally conservative. I believe in government sponsored education and heath care. I like the idea of government provided infrastructure. I believe that if you are too lazy to work, you should starve. So, I usually vote for whom I trust.
I lean more toward the “Democrat philosophy”, but the Democrats usually have so many candidates running and sniping at each other that it confuses the political message. Too many candidates dilute the vote. Then, I vote Republican and regret it. I voted for Nader once, not because I hoped he would win, but because the vote in California was moot before we had a chance to vote. Gore was the overwhelming choice. Bush did not stand a chance. So I voted for Nader just to say that we need to have more choices.
I think it is a shame that the most powerful state in the union has too little to say in the National election. We need to vote the same hours!
February 1, 2007 at 4:49 am
mresquan
Phil Angelides was our democratic candidate for governor,how sad.That’s all I have to say.
February 1, 2007 at 5:50 am
Anonymous
To think that Calif. is without political influence is absurd.
Do they names Reagan and, yes, even Nixon ring a bell?
And who is the Speaker of the House?
Don’t forget Earl Warren.
We may not be the state to annoint the next president at times, but how could any of the aforementioned gotten into these offices if our primary system worked against us?
Yes, yes, Earl wasn’t a pres., but he sure as hell had political influence.
Maybe our own JPL’s down in Pasadena can figure out how to reverse the earth’s rotation. We’d be way ahead of the pack then, but then Hawaii could spoil things.
February 1, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Fred
“I feel it would be far more practical to change the voting time (of day) to the same time, so all the poles(sic) open and close at the same time. It would give California more of an edge in the exit poles.”.
Not putting down Ernie by using his quote, but I think he makes the point about this whole controversy:
This is such a big issue because one state or another (just like one group or another) wants to put itself in a position of advantage (“have more of an edge”) over other states (or groups): Let’s get the most influence so we can have more goodies coming our way than those other people do.
I suppose conventional wisdom would say there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s a natural tendency amongst people to act that way and I guess that’s what politics is all about.
Still, doesn’t mean I have to play along with it or be happy about this sad state of affairs.
February 1, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Anonymous
Don’t worry, Eric. Joe Biden has no chance of winning the nomination. Neither does Hillary Clinton, for that matter. Just wait and see. Hillary will be knocked out of the race quickly, after she loses in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
February 1, 2007 at 10:42 pm
mresquan
It’s not the primary scheduling that hurts California anyways.It’s the electoral college that does.