California should move its Presidential Primary to February 5, 2008. And it looks like that’s going to happen.
It might cost us some more money but it’s worth it to have a real voice in the candidate selection process. If other states follow suit to have their primaries on the same day, so much the better – I think there ought to be a national primary anyway.
No, California should not move its primary to so early in the calendar, unless a national system can be worked out that will permit primaries in some rational order. There is a real value to the “retail” campaigning in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, even with the small number of minority voters in those states. The Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary allow second tier candidates the chance to make a mark and compete, which is better for our democracy than a series of closely-packed primaries in big states that reward fund-raising more than thoughtfulness.
What’s rational about having Iowa and New Hampshire first? Why not Alaska? A rational choice for an early primary would be Ohio. Iowa and New Hampshire don’t represent the rest of the country very well.What you’re talking about didn’t Howard Dean any good. Kerry and Edwards, the big fund-raisers, were the ones who mattered; Dean didn’t “make a mark” on the 2004 primary at all.
new hampshre is stupid
Old New Englander: I want California to have a meaningful voice in the primary selection process. As it stands now, I am effectively disenfranchised from selecting my party’s nominee for President.Anonymous (1): You must be a buckeye to suggest Ohio go first. I don’t think there is any political will for Ohioans to change their primary, is there?Anonymous (2): That’s not very nice.