Posted on by Californiacontrarian

Benefit . . . For Whom ?

The headline read: California’s Move to Earlier Primary Reshapes Strategies. 

This piece was not solely about California, as the presidential primary dates in multiple states have been adjusted. As I read the article I wondered if this moving forward of the dates of some of these primaries would benefit any party in particular, and I was especially querulous about what the effect would be of the moving up of the California primary. For years California held its primary in June, and in 2020 the California primary will be held on March 3. The reason for this movement forward is so that californians can have “more influence in picking presidential nominees.” Since I would assume that this would be the goal of every state, one wonders why all of the states don’t hold their presidential primaries on the same day. If all of these primaries were held simultaneously, then each state would have the same set of candidates to pick from. Now, by the time some of the states vote, a number of potential candidates have already been essentially eliminated. Be that as it may, let’s get back to California.

For the Republican Party the earlier primary date makes no difference. First off, in 2020 Donald Trump is going to be the nominee, and for at least another decade the Democrat’s nominee for president will win California’s electoral votes. The Democrats could run Joe Schmo for President and still win in California!

However for the Democratic Party what will be the effect? In order to try to prognosticate, first we should look at some of the people that the glorious state of California has elected and continues to elect. Only a partial list is necessary in order to make a point: Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Kampala Harris, Dianne Feinstein. Other than Sen. Feinstein all of the others are ultra-liberal and some of them have been in office for upwards of 20-30 years. So if one would have to predict which presidential candidate will be the favorite in the now much earlier  California presidential primary, the money would necessarily have to be on a very liberal candidate. California will indeed possibly have a “very significant influence on picking the nominee.” Okay good for the Democrats in California, but does that translate into being good for the Democrats in the rest of the country? 

My answer to that question, “No!” Why is it not good? The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind; the answer is blowin’ in the wind” . . . the rest of the country is not ready to elect an ultra-liberal. That ultra-liberal candidate will win California, no matter what, but can such a candidate win in the heartland of America? (Think George McGovern versus Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter versus Ronald Reagan, Walter Mondale versus Ronald Reagan, Michael Dukakis versus George H.W. Bush, Al Gore versus George Bush, John Kerry versus George Bush). 

So who will benefit from moving the California presidential primary to an earlier date? I think that it will benefit the Republicans come November, 2020, because the odds are that an ultra-liberal will be the Democratic presidential candidate – thanks in large part to California. 

Maybe we can convince the powers to be to move the presidential primaries in New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Connecticut all earlier . . . for the benefit of whom?

124 Replies to “Benefit . . . For Whom ?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.