Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

One Black Sheep

(458 posts)
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:12 PM Jun 2016

I'm sick of California and the West Coast going damn near LAST in having a say in the process

in the primaries!

This is so wrong. All the liberals and progressives are out here in the West (yes, I live out here as well ) And we deserve a more important place to decide the candidate!

California, Oregon and Washington should all move up their primaries to damn near Iowa. If not all three, then at the very LEAST California. It should go Iowa is first, then California!

35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I'm sick of California and the West Coast going damn near LAST in having a say in the process (Original Post) One Black Sheep Jun 2016 OP
well then hill2016 Jun 2016 #1
Actually whites are a minority in CA when all minorities are joined. upaloopa Jun 2016 #6
the OP mentioned hill2016 Jun 2016 #8
Yeah, screw those people, huh. Warren DeMontague Jun 2016 #32
Because liberals and progressives are an important part of the Democratic base One Black Sheep Jun 2016 #9
CA voted in February during the 2008 primary season. LonePirate Jun 2016 #2
Yup. Agschmid Jun 2016 #27
Oregon and Washington voted weeks ago PepperHarlan Jun 2016 #3
We went early in 2008 Retrograde Jun 2016 #4
Good point. OP, your vote counts, Hortensis Jun 2016 #24
If california goes sanders PowerToThePeople Jun 2016 #5
On this I agree RandySF Jun 2016 #7
Because putting an enormous state second would help the lesser known candidate? mythology Jun 2016 #10
Public finance all elections then One Black Sheep Jun 2016 #11
That's the way it should work!!! n/t RKP5637 Jun 2016 #34
Iowa and NH aren't very diverse. Exilednight Jun 2016 #22
Glad someone made this point! Hortensis Jun 2016 #25
Takes the Liberals out of the equation. Octafish Jun 2016 #12
It was moved back to June to save the cost of a special election Bluestar Jun 2016 #13
If California went 2nd, then Bernie would never have had a chance to win thelordofhell Jun 2016 #14
Do you remember 2008, when California was a part of Super Tuesday? Tarc Jun 2016 #15
All the liberals and progressives are out there in the west? onenote Jun 2016 #16
All primaries on the same day. Lars39 Jun 2016 #17
I can't see how that makes the process better. HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #18
It would actually be beyond exciting if the race was close. NCTraveler Jun 2016 #19
I'm loving it ucrdem Jun 2016 #20
I'm sick of Iowa and NH going first wyldwolf Jun 2016 #21
The establishment would LOVE large states to go first instead. Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #26
Yup. Heck if Cali voted first in this primary workinclasszero Jun 2016 #30
You realize that if CA had gone first, instead of Iowa, Bernie would be toast much earlier... Sancho Jun 2016 #23
if people want tokeep this system,fine DonCoquixote Jun 2016 #28
Maybe California should divide into multiple regional primaries on different dates HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #29
Cali went early in 2008 (nt) bigwillq Jun 2016 #31
50 million people on the west coast are ignored, which is why the beltway still thinks Warren DeMontague Jun 2016 #33
Somebody has to be last goldent Jun 2016 #35

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
6. Actually whites are a minority in CA when all minorities are joined.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:16 PM
Jun 2016

Minorities are 51% of CA population

One Black Sheep

(458 posts)
9. Because liberals and progressives are an important part of the Democratic base
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:23 PM
Jun 2016

We are not being represented with the proper respect and significance in this process, IMHO.

Retrograde

(10,001 posts)
4. We went early in 2008
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:15 PM
Jun 2016

And the candidate we picked in the Democratic primary went on to lose the nomination to Obama (my own candidate dropped out by the election day itself - a drawback to voting early by mail).

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
24. Good point. OP, your vote counts,
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 06:15 AM
Jun 2016

but you want the winner called after you vote, which is hardly unreasonable. But if it happens before, surely you can take it? After all, it would be very wrong and dysfunctional for California, with something like 548 delegates, to vote early. Many millions of Californians, including my husband and I, have had no problem handling this great adversity like mature adults.

Coming last in a long line for a public bathroom--now that can be a problem.

RandySF

(56,065 posts)
7. On this I agree
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:16 PM
Jun 2016

But, for some reason, they refuse to move the rest of the primary ballot to an earlier month alongside the presidential.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
10. Because putting an enormous state second would help the lesser known candidate?
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:24 PM
Jun 2016

The first four states are small and demographically diverse for a reason. It allows a lesser known candidate to build a base of support.

Putting California and it's giant population, size and expensive media markets would make it harder for lesser known candidates to gain traction.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
22. Iowa and NH aren't very diverse.
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 06:09 AM
Jun 2016

The AA community is less than 3% of the population, the and Hispanics make up approximately 5% of the population.

The state that comes the closest to matching the countries demographics as a whole is Illinois.

Personally I would go for a rotating system by dividing the country into thirds. Each third of the country selects one state to go on the first day. Once a state goes first it goes to the back of the line and during the next presidential election each section picks a new state to go first.

Bluestar

(1,400 posts)
13. It was moved back to June to save the cost of a special election
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:31 PM
Jun 2016

California always has an election in June. The legislature decided it didn't make sense to pay for a special primary earlier.

thelordofhell

(4,569 posts)
14. If California went 2nd, then Bernie would never have had a chance to win
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:37 PM
Jun 2016

The time frame for changing parties and requesting the proper ballots would have been far past the point of the freshly declared Bernie to do any good in California......He would have lost and lost big......to the point where it would almost be useless to go on from there.

onenote

(41,965 posts)
16. All the liberals and progressives are out there in the west?
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 11:42 PM
Jun 2016

Tell that to the folks in Vermont, among other places. Tell it to the folks in dozens of communities in states around the country.

By the way, California was a relatively early primary state in 2008 and the winner of that primary didn't end up winning the nomination.

I know the news from tonight is hard to take (and it would've been hard to take tomorrow if it hadn't been announced tonight).

But let's try not to go entirely off the deep end.

Lars39

(26,081 posts)
17. All primaries on the same day.
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 01:21 AM
Jun 2016

Full transparency. Should be illegal for media to call it before the votes have all been counted.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
18. I can't see how that makes the process better.
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 05:50 AM
Jun 2016

I don't think the order must be what it is, and I think there are ways of avoiding loading the primary season so that early events have more influence than later ones.

But unless there is some big value I don't see, no thanks. I don't want consolidation of any thing political. Democracy as a process really requires promotion of access to different voices with different ideas.

Protecting the process so that it cultivates new voices identifying new problems and new solutions when they are still small and relatively unknown is really enormously valuable.


 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
19. It would actually be beyond exciting if the race was close.
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 05:52 AM
Jun 2016

They set themselves up to be queen maker. It just didn't work out that way. Think about this. If both NJ and Cali were last in '08. If I remember correctly they weren't. I think that is the scenario the state parties were hoping for. Clintons lead is simply too big for it to matter.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
26. The establishment would LOVE large states to go first instead.
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 06:21 AM
Jun 2016

Much more money required to advertise and build name recognition, more travel expenses, much less likelihood of a Dean or a Sanders insurgency breaking through to challenge the big-money establishment favorite.

 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
30. Yup. Heck if Cali voted first in this primary
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 06:51 AM
Jun 2016

It would have dealt a deathblow to pretty much unknown candidate Bernie Sanders right at the start!

Be careful what you wish for folks.

Sancho

(9,056 posts)
23. You realize that if CA had gone first, instead of Iowa, Bernie would be toast much earlier...
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 06:13 AM
Jun 2016

At the beginning he had no money, no recognition, and no rallies. If CA had gone first - Hillary would have trounced Bernie before he got any traction.

If Hillary had won 60-70% in CA in Feb. or March for example, then a caucus in Iowa would be worthless in May or June.

The rural caucus states are "easy" for new candidates to get their name out there. That's exactly what Bernie did. It got him some money, some TV time, and a place on the ballots.

DonCoquixote

(13,610 posts)
28. if people want tokeep this system,fine
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 06:31 AM
Jun 2016

I say Florida, California and Texas get together and have their primaries the friday before Super Tuesday

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
29. Maybe California should divide into multiple regional primaries on different dates
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 06:33 AM
Jun 2016

placed across the entire primary season. Let it function more like the mini-nation state that it mostly is.

If they did that they'd have influence in multiple super-Tuesdays (more influence for CA and keeping CA issues talked about during the entire primary season) and it would probably more accurately track the developing/shifting sentiments of CA voters across the entire campaign season.

Why have all the eggs in one basket at all???

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
33. 50 million people on the west coast are ignored, which is why the beltway still thinks
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 06:58 AM
Jun 2016

Pot legalization is a giant joke- or a 3rd rail.

Like on marriage equality, theyll catch up eventually.

As for the primaries, i think the order should be random, or rotated every 4 years.

goldent

(1,582 posts)
35. Somebody has to be last
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 07:15 AM
Jun 2016

Besides if California voted for Bernie it might well have an effect on the process - at least it would make the convention more interesting. If the race were a little closer, CA might actually be the decider.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»I'm sick of California an...