According to the NY Times, several large states, including California, are once again attempting to gain influence over the nomination process by moving their Presidential primaries earlier in the calendar. We have made this error before.
In 2004, California moved its primary to March, which was viewed by all as a disaster--it was way too early and didn't give California a voice anyhow. Other states just leapfrogged California. So California returned its primaries back to the first week in June for 2006--the same time California had always held its primary elections since 1946. (Before that time, it was the first week in May for Presidential primaries and the last week in August for off-years.)
I cannot find any specific evidence of an attempt to move California's primary again--can anyone help?--but I strongly oppose it. Let California do its part to stay out of the fray and choose a date that is best for California's own concerns. I know that those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it--but come on, will California's political parties really repeat the same mistake made three years ago?
Thursday, January 25, 2007
June is Just Fine
Posted by Dr. Strangelove at 7:23 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I dunno. The problem is that the DNC and RNC need to set a drop-dead earliest date to prevent the leapfrogging. CA might as well play the game just like everyone else. The March primary was just not aggressive enough.
Now, if the DNC and RNC would set 3/1 (or even 5/1) as the absolute earliest possible date for a primary or caucus for choosing delegates to the convention, that would help a great deal.
As the state with the largest voting age population in the Union, it is a shame that our voters loose candidate before they even get to vote on them.
I agree with LTG about setting dates. This might push states to place their primaries all on the same day so everyone gets a shot.
Post a Comment