news.yahoo.com — California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Thursday moved the presidential primary of the nation's most populous state to February, shaking up the 2008 race and making a one-day, mega-primary increasingly likely.
Mar 15, 2007 View in Crawl 4
strangerzeroMar 16, 2007
Good I'm tired of the most populous state in the union being almost irrelevant in the presidential primaries.
ruffridrMar 16, 2007
A lot of states are moving their primaries to Feb. 5th. I don't think that this is a good thing. What's going to happen is more money is going to have to be spent to cover all the primaries that happen on that day. Especially the primaries in big ticket states like California. The winners will be the ones that have the deepest pocketbooks. Is that how we really want to run a campaign? One analyst on CNN last night said that this could be the first Presidential election where a candidate raises a billion dollars for the campaign. That is just ridiculous.
rawsharkMar 16, 2007
Now politicians won't have to bother with any state BUT California and everyone is going to campaign on issues that only matter to Californians. That is the advantage of starting with smaller states. Not to mention, it is much cheaper to run a primary in NH and IA. Smaller pols who make a good showing in these states can reap the benefit of increased donations. But now, you can't run a presidential campaign unless you can afford to campaign in California.Nobody but billionaires (and those who marry the widows of billionaires) or corporate lackeys will be able to run for president.
halleyscometMar 16, 2007
@forty1Oh well, at least you're a HUMAN Spammer as opposed to a bot.
zlintuxMar 16, 2007
An argument that a smaller state should get essentially better representation is flawed.How would it be fair for a handful states, comprising of probably 5% of the total US population get to vote first and completely tip the scales in all other states to their views?Yes, money is an issue. But I think it's worth noting that last year, the California Democrat gubernatorial primary went to a candidate with considerably less financial backing. Not to mention, the amount of money spent in those first states that votes is enough to push any small time candidates out as it is -- California, amongst numerous other more populous states, gives the candidates the funding to bombard those small states with more advertisements than I care to imagine.Face it, the way the game is currently played, money is a big factor.If you want to change things, then simple. Ban political TV commercials -- they only do disservice, telling half-truths or outright lies. In a fair, competent world, no one should be voting off what they saw in a commercial, and yet they routinely sway a scary amount of votes. Ban them, and the campaign costs will plummet, and the informed voter rates will soar.