amended early March primary bill advances in California legislature

[I’m not Stu]

But who knows? What if Harris places >3rd place in IA, NH, SC and NV? A win in CA wouldn't save her.

Harris likely wins SC and NV.

[AN63093]

I agree with Morden.  I don't think this necessarily precludes the rise of a "minor" candidate, and Huckabee is a good example of that.  Now, were CA to go first, that would be different.

Second, while this probably helps Harris, I don't see it as building in some insurmountable advantage for her.  If she doesn't place in the top 3 in IA or NH, she's not going to place in CA... irrespective if she's the "perfect fit" for CA or not.  Consider what happened to Giuliani and his "wait for FL" strategy.

That strategy doesn't work.  You have to make a showing in the first couple of states or people start forgetting that you exist.  Harris can't count on CA to save her if she doesn't make a strong showing in either IA or NH.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

But who knows? What if Harris places >3rd place in IA, NH, SC and NV? A win in CA wouldn't save her.

If she gets a huge win in California it could save her.

New Hampshire in the Democratic primaries is pointless (it's what the Iowa caucuses are to the GOP) and she'll do well enough in SC and NV.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

California voted on Super Tuesday in 2008 and Obama got blown out in it. It didn't really matter.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

President Kamala Harris.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

But who knows? What if Harris places >3rd place in IA, NH, SC and NV? A win in CA wouldn't save her.

If Harris won a massive victory in California (expected) It could make up for her losses in the previous states and could jolt her into Super Tuesday. That's the intention of the California Democrats.

[Mr. Morden]

But who knows? What if Harris places >3rd place in IA, NH, SC and NV? A win in CA wouldn't save her.

If Harris won a massive victory in California (expected) It could make up for her losses in the previous states and could jolt her into Super Tuesday.

California would be on Super Tuesday if this bill passes, not before it.  It would go:

Iowa
New Hampshire
Nevada and South Carolina in an order yet to be determined
Super Tuesday (including California, Texas, and several other states all on the same day)

She can't be jolted into Super Tuesday by event that's happening on Super Tuesday itself.

EDIT: Of course if Harris manages to consolidate the black vote and wins South Carolina, then she probably does pretty well in other Super Tuesday states as well, since so many of them will be in the South, and have large black populations.

[politics_king]

It looks like people are gathering around Kamala Harris, but you never know until the Primaries start, anything can happen. California should have a say and you never know who the people may vote for until the process stars.

[Mr. Morden]

I would actually be rather curious to see a 2020 presidential primary poll of California conducted right now.  Not that it's going to be terribly predictive of anything, but I am curious to know just how many are already on the Harris train.

[Shadows]

It forces all the other candidates into a catch-22 where if they campaign hard in California and lose, they only make the loss look more significant, whereas if they don't, they lose massive delegates. Either way they're at an unfair disadvantage.

Well OK, I agree that an early California primary is an advantage for Harris (or, less likely, some other California candidate).  And yes, obviously winning California offers a big advantage for winning the nomination.  But winning the state doesn't guarantee that you'll win the nomination, as we saw in 2008.  And so my point was simply that the margin there could be important, even if there's a favorite son or daughter running.

This is especially possible if there's still a large field of candidates in the race, and Harris wins California, but with less than 50% of the vote.  Potentially, that could even lead to a contested convention (not likely, but not out of the question).

As for the catch-22 you talk about with regard to how hard do the candidates campaign in California....I'm assuming that none of them will have time to campaign that hard there at all.  If they only have a week or less after Nevada or South Carolina to campaign in 10+ different states, including California and Texas, then there isn't much time to do anything.  They would only be able to coast off of free media at that point.  Even the candidates with money would struggle to be able to put enough ads on the air to make an impact.

It could be a substantial advantage & the early states will become somewhat meaningless if you can do well in California. All the attention on the media will be about Cali. Someone can open up a 100-150 odd delegate lead. In a multi-corner race, it is very unlikely or hard for anyone to open up a huge delegate lead.

Let us say Harris loses all the 4 opening races (but stays 2nd/3rd to stay in the convo & in the delegate race), her 100-120-150 Delegate lead can really change the perception. Perception = Reality in Politics. You will be the new front-runner. Democratic donors will coalesce around you. The media will give you more TV Time & disproportionate time. If Harris can go with a 100-120 Delegate lead in CA (& keeps it close & wins other Super Tuesday races), then she will have a huge chance of winning the nomination.

Booker is a guy I think will be most negatively effected by this as Harris will take a huge chunk of the establishment vote. Booker needed the Southern states to get an early lead. Bernie & Biden will be fine by this arrangement, Doesn't help Warren or any Dem Gov.

I do wonder if the Dems are inadvertently setting themselves up for a possible contested convention.  It's not super likely, but it's not impossible with the Democratic delegate rules.  I mean, if the 2016 Republican primaries had been run with the Democratic delegate allocation rules, then a contested convention would have been an inevitability.

What you need for a contested convention is:

1) More than two candidates win a non-negligible %age of the vote fairly deep into the primary season.

2) The delegate allocation is proportional, or close enough to proportional that the leading candidate struggles to get a majority of the delegates.

3) The second and third and/or fourth place candidates refuse to formally drop out of the race and release their delegates.

The Dems have much more proportional delegate allocation rules than the GOP does, and that doesn't look like it's going to change.  They've recently had primary contests that quickly coalesce into a 2-person race early on, but that's not guaranteed to happen again next time.  And if California is going to move to March 3rd, which will be only about a month after Iowa, then I can see 3rd and 4th place candidates talking themselves into staying in the race through Super Tuesday, just in case something happens.  You can talk yourself into waging a zombie campaign where you already know you're dead if it's only for a couple of weeks.  A bit harder to do that for months and months.

The Dem. rules do offer the possibility that the superdelegates will unite behind the pledged delegate leader, in order to prevent a contested convention, but it looks like the number of superdelegates will be reduced in 2020 (or rather, some of them will be pledged on the basis of the primary result in their state, which means that they won't really be superdelegates anymore), so it might not be enough.  I don't know the exact math, but if the leading candidate only has 43 or 44% of the pledged delegates, there might not be enough superdelegates to give that candidate a majority.

So the final escape clause is if the trailing candidates gracefully bow out and release their delegates, which would then allow the leading candidate to pick off enough of them to win a majority.  This works as long as the 2nd and 3rd place candidates find the 1st place candidate an acceptable nominee.  But is this a given, considering the splits within the party, which may be exacerbated if there's another contentious primary contest in 2020?  And even if the candidates themselves concede defeat, do the divisions in the party make it less likely that their delegates will be willing to vote for another candidate than would have been the case in primary campaigns past?

If a multi-person race is there & if it is close then Contested Convention is very much a possibility. Let us say this is the result - Harris 25%, Booker 15%, Gillibrand 15%, Warren 15% & others will get the rest then you will have multiple candidates taking 60-80 odd delegates going forward. Everyone stays in the race & at the end of the nomination, you could have the leading candidate with 35-40% of the delegates.

It will be messy situation. On the other hand if Harris picks up 55% odd & the rest goes to the others (Booker 12%, Warren 15% etc) then Harris will 100% win. California will be pivotal, whether there is a contested convention or for determining the winner.

[Tintrlvr]

But who knows? What if Harris places >3rd place in IA, NH, SC and NV? A win in CA wouldn't save her.

True, but in a highly fragmented field it would make her an important player in a potential convention or in the endorsement jostling to prevent a convention, given how many delegates California has. Depends how the rest of the primaries go and whether another candidate sweeps them, which seems unlikely given the diversity of other candidates. The Democrats' system is designed in a way that could in theory have three or four candidates still with a realistic chance to come out on top (or at least be contenders at a convention) after Super Tuesday.

That said, I can't see Harris doing worse than 2nd in South Carolina, at least, if she runs. And that 2nd place would have to be to Booker (or Patrick, I guess). Edit: Or in Nevada. Regionalism matters in primaries, and an absurd percentage of Nevadans were born in California.

[The Mikado]

I'm actually not sure a brokered convention with a floor fight would be the worst thing in the world. The media has been openly salivating over one of those for as long as I've been alive. It would totally eclipse Trump for weeks, and the dangerous thing about running against Trump is he's a black hole for attention because all anyone thinks or cares about is him when he's around.

[Mr. Morden]

It forces all the other candidates into a catch-22 where if they campaign hard in California and lose, they only make the loss look more significant, whereas if they don't, they lose massive delegates. Either way they're at an unfair disadvantage.

Well OK, I agree that an early California primary is an advantage for Harris (or, less likely, some other California candidate).  And yes, obviously winning California offers a big advantage for winning the nomination.  But winning the state doesn't guarantee that you'll win the nomination, as we saw in 2008.  And so my point was simply that the margin there could be important, even if there's a favorite son or daughter running.

This is especially possible if there's still a large field of candidates in the race, and Harris wins California, but with less than 50% of the vote.  Potentially, that could even lead to a contested convention (not likely, but not out of the question).

As for the catch-22 you talk about with regard to how hard do the candidates campaign in California....I'm assuming that none of them will have time to campaign that hard there at all.  If they only have a week or less after Nevada or South Carolina to campaign in 10+ different states, including California and Texas, then there isn't much time to do anything.  They would only be able to coast off of free media at that point.  Even the candidates with money would struggle to be able to put enough ads on the air to make an impact.

It could be a substantial advantage & the early states will become somewhat meaningless if you can do well in California.

You sound like Rudy Giuliani. 

He thought he could rely on the larger states voting later, like Florida and his home state of New York, but he ended up sinking in both the early states and nationally, and not only lost Florida, but was trailing in the polls in his home state of New York by the time he dropped out.  You usually have to win early somewhere if you want to do well later.

Like I said in my other post, frontloading all these states onto Super Tuesday could actually make the first four contests *more* important, because the winners of those early states would still have the early glow from being winners, and the momentum (to the extent momentum matters) wouldn't have subsided yet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no reason to assume that the winner of California is going get a 100-150 delegate lead out of it.  It's possible, but that's a huge victory margin, and it's hardly a given that Harris will manage it.  Clinton's biggest net delegate boost in 2016 was actually from Texas rather than California, because she won Texas by such an overwhelming margin.  Texas will also vote on Super Tuesday in 2020, so I don't think we can assume that the winner of California will automatically be leading the delegate count after that day.  It certainly might happen, but not a sure thing.

[Shadows]

It forces all the other candidates into a catch-22 where if they campaign hard in California and lose, they only make the loss look more significant, whereas if they don't, they lose massive delegates. Either way they're at an unfair disadvantage.

Well OK, I agree that an early California primary is an advantage for Harris (or, less likely, some other California candidate).  And yes, obviously winning California offers a big advantage for winning the nomination.  But winning the state doesn't guarantee that you'll win the nomination, as we saw in 2008.  And so my point was simply that the margin there could be important, even if there's a favorite son or daughter running.

This is especially possible if there's still a large field of candidates in the race, and Harris wins California, but with less than 50% of the vote.  Potentially, that could even lead to a contested convention (not likely, but not out of the question).

As for the catch-22 you talk about with regard to how hard do the candidates campaign in California....I'm assuming that none of them will have time to campaign that hard there at all.  If they only have a week or less after Nevada or South Carolina to campaign in 10+ different states, including California and Texas, then there isn't much time to do anything.  They would only be able to coast off of free media at that point.  Even the candidates with money would struggle to be able to put enough ads on the air to make an impact.

It could be a substantial advantage & the early states will become somewhat meaningless if you can do well in California.

You sound like Rudy Giuliani. 

He thought he could rely on the larger states voting later, like Florida and his home state of New York, but he ended up sinking in both the early states and nationally, and not only lost Florida, but was trailing in the polls in his home state of New York by the time he dropped out.  You usually have to win early somewhere if you want to do well later.

Like I said in my other post, frontloading all these states onto Super Tuesday could actually make the first four contests *more* important, because the winners of those early states would still have the early glow from being winners, and the momentum (to the extent momentum matters) wouldn't have subsided yet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no reason to assume that the winner of California is going get a 100-150 delegate lead out of it.  It's possible, but that's a huge victory margin, and it's hardly a given that Harris will manage it.  Clinton's biggest net delegate boost in 2016 was actually from Texas rather than California, because she won Texas by such an overwhelming margin.  Texas will also vote on Super Tuesday in 2020, so I don't think we can assume that the winner of California will automatically be leading the delegate count after that day.  It certainly might happen, but not a sure thing.

That was Giuliani. But in a tight race of many decent candidates, a candidate having a gigantic sized home state early will have a natural advantage. Clinton vs Sanders was a 2 person race, 2020 could have a 4-5 way race & if one person takes 45-50% in CA, then that person will come up with a 150 odd advantage.

While winning early states is important for the narrative but the importance will fall IMO because people have to win all 4 or atleast 3 early rates in 5/6 way contest atleast to take serious momentum. Or they will do the obvious - Campaign heavily in CA & invest big in ads. There is not time after SC. You need to campaign for a month atleast in CA. So obviosuly, some focus will shift from the early states.

In a multi-person race if Harris & Booker are both there, someone like Bernie or Warren can obviously totally give on SC & concentrate on NH or Iowa/Nevada & California. I can see candidates giving up 1 or 2 states among the Top 4 (if it is not a 2 person race).

[AN63093]

I'm actually not sure a brokered convention with a floor fight would be the worst thing in the world. The media has been openly salivating over one of those for as long as I've been alive. It would totally eclipse Trump for weeks, and the dangerous thing about running against Trump is he's a black hole for attention because all anyone thinks or cares about is him when he's around.

[Mr. Morden]

It forces all the other candidates into a catch-22 where if they campaign hard in California and lose, they only make the loss look more significant, whereas if they don't, they lose massive delegates. Either way they're at an unfair disadvantage.

Well OK, I agree that an early California primary is an advantage for Harris (or, less likely, some other California candidate).  And yes, obviously winning California offers a big advantage for winning the nomination.  But winning the state doesn't guarantee that you'll win the nomination, as we saw in 2008.  And so my point was simply that the margin there could be important, even if there's a favorite son or daughter running.

This is especially possible if there's still a large field of candidates in the race, and Harris wins California, but with less than 50% of the vote.  Potentially, that could even lead to a contested convention (not likely, but not out of the question).

As for the catch-22 you talk about with regard to how hard do the candidates campaign in California....I'm assuming that none of them will have time to campaign that hard there at all.  If they only have a week or less after Nevada or South Carolina to campaign in 10+ different states, including California and Texas, then there isn't much time to do anything.  They would only be able to coast off of free media at that point.  Even the candidates with money would struggle to be able to put enough ads on the air to make an impact.

It could be a substantial advantage & the early states will become somewhat meaningless if you can do well in California.

You sound like Rudy Giuliani. 

He thought he could rely on the larger states voting later, like Florida and his home state of New York, but he ended up sinking in both the early states and nationally, and not only lost Florida, but was trailing in the polls in his home state of New York by the time he dropped out.  You usually have to win early somewhere if you want to do well later.

Like I said in my other post, frontloading all these states onto Super Tuesday could actually make the first four contests *more* important, because the winners of those early states would still have the early glow from being winners, and the momentum (to the extent momentum matters) wouldn't have subsided yet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no reason to assume that the winner of California is going get a 100-150 delegate lead out of it.  It's possible, but that's a huge victory margin, and it's hardly a given that Harris will manage it.  Clinton's biggest net delegate boost in 2016 was actually from Texas rather than California, because she won Texas by such an overwhelming margin.  Texas will also vote on Super Tuesday in 2020, so I don't think we can assume that the winner of California will automatically be leading the delegate count after that day.  It certainly might happen, but not a sure thing.

That was Giuliani. But in a tight race of many decent candidates, a candidate having a gigantic sized home state early will have a natural advantage.

But why do you assume that Harris's lead in California would be so much safer than Giuliani's lead in New York?  Giuliani was the "national frontrunner", but his early state polling #s collapsed, then his national polling #s, then even his New York #s.  He was ahead in New York by over 30 points in early December 2007, and then six weeks later, he was losing in the polls there by double digits to John McCain, after Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan all voted and Giuliani failed to do well in any of them.

I'm not saying that Harris will follow the same trajectory.  I'm just saying that we don't know.  She might win big in California, or she might only win it by single digits.  (Plenty of candidates have only won their home state primaries by single digits, and it's possible that Harris will as well.)  Or she might see a Giuliani-like collapse, and fall behind in the polls even in her own home state.  It's just too early to know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How many delegates will California have?  About 500?  So getting a net advantage of 150 delegates out of California would require her to win the state by something like 30 points over her nearest competitor.  I guess that's possible, but I see no reason to assume it's inevitable.  And there will be a huge number of delegates up for grabs in other states on Super Tuesday, including Texas.  It's not like California is everything.

And like I also said, if you believe that Harris is really that strong in California, then it's an advantage for her that'll also exist even if the state votes later.  You can't have it both ways on momentum.  If momentum matters, then Harris has to make a decent showing in the early four states to stay alive, so her opponents still have the possibility of stopping her there, before we ever get to Super Tuesday.  But if momentum doesn't matter, and she has a big advantage in California, then it's a problem for the other candidates whether the state votes early or late.  Unless your argument is that momentum from early small states like IA and NH isn't important, but momentum from big states is.  But that flies in the face of past presidential primary experience.  What other primary contests worked like that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I actually don't think so.  We've had this scenario before, with Super Tuesday coming up right after Nevada and South Carolina, and for the most part it just means that people end up spending very little time in the Super Tuesday states.  They go on a big round the country tour for a week before Super Tuesday, but the battlefield is just too large for them to make a dent, even if they kept at it for weeks.  There will be some candidates who will opt out of one or more of the four early states, but it really doesn't end up making much difference, other than tamping down expectations in the states that they skipped.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, like I said above, not every candidate will go all in on all of the first four early states.  But even for those who skip one or two of them and spend more time on Super Tuesday states, there will be more than 10 states voting on ST.  You can't just rely on California or just on Texas.  There are too many places to compete, and even candidates with money will only be able to afford so many ads.  (I mean the # of TV markets in play on Super Tuesday alone has got to be bigger than what you get in a presidential general election, because those are focused on the GE battleground states, which aren't as big as CA and TX.)

So I really think that by Super Tuesday, the biggest factor is free media.  The candidates can coast on the glory of any wins they have from the first four states, and they can hope for positive coverage from debates and the like, but beyond that, they are limited.

[Mr. Morden]

Btw, the legislature hasn't passed this bill yet, and tomorrow is apparently the last day on the 2017 calendar that a new bill can be passed:

http://assembly.ca.gov/legislativedeadlines
https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/908403953846681606

If it's not voted on tomorrow, then it's not going to happen until 2018 or later.

[Shadows]

It forces all the other candidates into a catch-22 where if they campaign hard in California and lose, they only make the loss look more significant, whereas if they don't, they lose massive delegates. Either way they're at an unfair disadvantage.

Well OK, I agree that an early California primary is an advantage for Harris (or, less likely, some other California candidate).  And yes, obviously winning California offers a big advantage for winning the nomination.  But winning the state doesn't guarantee that you'll win the nomination, as we saw in 2008.  And so my point was simply that the margin there could be important, even if there's a favorite son or daughter running.

This is especially possible if there's still a large field of candidates in the race, and Harris wins California, but with less than 50% of the vote.  Potentially, that could even lead to a contested convention (not likely, but not out of the question).

As for the catch-22 you talk about with regard to how hard do the candidates campaign in California....I'm assuming that none of them will have time to campaign that hard there at all.  If they only have a week or less after Nevada or South Carolina to campaign in 10+ different states, including California and Texas, then there isn't much time to do anything.  They would only be able to coast off of free media at that point.  Even the candidates with money would struggle to be able to put enough ads on the air to make an impact.

It could be a substantial advantage & the early states will become somewhat meaningless if you can do well in California.

You sound like Rudy Giuliani. 

He thought he could rely on the larger states voting later, like Florida and his home state of New York, but he ended up sinking in both the early states and nationally, and not only lost Florida, but was trailing in the polls in his home state of New York by the time he dropped out.  You usually have to win early somewhere if you want to do well later.

Like I said in my other post, frontloading all these states onto Super Tuesday could actually make the first four contests *more* important, because the winners of those early states would still have the early glow from being winners, and the momentum (to the extent momentum matters) wouldn't have subsided yet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no reason to assume that the winner of California is going get a 100-150 delegate lead out of it.  It's possible, but that's a huge victory margin, and it's hardly a given that Harris will manage it.  Clinton's biggest net delegate boost in 2016 was actually from Texas rather than California, because she won Texas by such an overwhelming margin.  Texas will also vote on Super Tuesday in 2020, so I don't think we can assume that the winner of California will automatically be leading the delegate count after that day.  It certainly might happen, but not a sure thing.

That was Giuliani. But in a tight race of many decent candidates, a candidate having a gigantic sized home state early will have a natural advantage.

But why do you assume that Harris's lead in California would be so much safer than Giuliani's lead in New York?  Giuliani was the "national frontrunner", but his early state polling #s collapsed, then his national polling #s, then even his New York #s.  He was ahead in New York by over 30 points in early December 2007, and then six weeks later, he was losing in the polls there by double digits to John McCain, after Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan all voted and Giuliani failed to do well in any of them.

I'm not saying that Harris will follow the same trajectory.  I'm just saying that we don't know.  She might win big in California, or she might only win it by single digits.  (Plenty of candidates have only won their home state primaries by single digits, and it's possible that Harris will as well.)  Or she might see a Giuliani-like collapse, and fall behind in the polls even in her own home state.  It's just too early to know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How many delegates will California have?  About 500?  So getting a net advantage of 150 delegates out of California would require her to win the state by something like 30 points over her nearest competitor.  I guess that's possible, but I see no reason to assume it's inevitable.  And there will be a huge number of delegates up for grabs in other states on Super Tuesday, including Texas.  It's not like California is everything.

And like I also said, if you believe that Harris is really that strong in California, then it's an advantage for her that'll also exist even if the state votes later.  You can't have it both ways on momentum.  If momentum matters, then Harris has to make a decent showing in the early four states to stay alive, so her opponents still have the possibility of stopping her there, before we ever get to Super Tuesday.  But if momentum doesn't matter, and she has a big advantage in California, then it's a problem for the other candidates whether the state votes early or late.  Unless your argument is that momentum from early small states like IA and NH isn't important, but momentum from big states is.  But that flies in the face of past presidential primary experience.  What other primary contests worked like that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I actually don't think so.  We've had this scenario before, with Super Tuesday coming up right after Nevada and South Carolina, and for the most part it just means that people end up spending very little time in the Super Tuesday states.  They go on a big round the country tour for a week before Super Tuesday, but the battlefield is just too large for them to make a dent, even if they kept at it for weeks.  There will be some candidates who will opt out of one or more of the four early states, but it really doesn't end up making much difference, other than tamping down expectations in the states that they skipped.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, like I said above, not every candidate will go all in on all of the first four early states.  But even for those who skip one or two of them and spend more time on Super Tuesday states, there will be more than 10 states voting on ST.  You can't just rely on California or just on Texas.  There are too many places to compete, and even candidates with money will only be able to afford so many ads.  (I mean the # of TV markets in play on Super Tuesday alone has got to be bigger than what you get in a presidential general election, because those are focused on the GE battleground states, which aren't as big as CA and TX.)

So I really think that by Super Tuesday, the biggest factor is free media.  The candidates can coast on the glory of any wins they have from the first four states, and they can hope for positive coverage from debates and the like, but beyond that, they are limited.

I don't know if Harris will meet the same as Rudi. I think she will do better. She is a blackman from a strong blue state while Rudi was a white man from a liberal state. I also think Harris is better than Rudi.

I am not denying that the early states will give momentum. But in a multi-cornered race where the wins are split with no-one coming out hugely ahead, CA can give a decisive advantage. That helps in shaping perception. If you come ahead with 120 odd delegates (net) from CA, you will the new front-runner. That delegate math will come up in TV & even after a few losses, it will show Harris as the front-runner. It also harms Booker's possible Southern strategy. ST last year was packed with Southern states having high African American voters. CA will change the dynamic.

Besides CA is the largest state by a distance & is a key state for the Dems. Any-one who wins in CA gets a fillip. CA was too late to matter decisively. Just initial interviews won't cut it though. CA will have a huge TV investment in ads & a significant number of rallies & GOTV & ground effort. That required time & investment.

It was a 2 horse race, Harris vs Booker, perhaps Harris or someone else should focus on winning the early states & carrying the momentum into ST. I think 2020 could see 4 different winners in all 4 states & who takes delegate lead out of ST & who wins the largest state does matter a lot. In that respect it helps Harris.

Now, if Texas would fall off the map, it would help her even more. The next biggest state will less than 1/4th the delegates that CA has. If the initial 4 races has 4 different winners & if Bernie/Warren runs & Biden/Booker do good in the South, then Harris has to win this. If as you said, Harris loses her home state in CA & does poorly (like Rudi), then her campaign is over.

[Mr. Morden]

Again, they will have to pass this today if it's going to pass in 2017.  Haven't heard where things stand with that, but on another note, it looks like Oregon and Washington are always weighing moving up their contests to March:

https://apnews.com/6a9e8cf3971849f8805d563b2e444720

[Mr. Morden]

The bill has passed the Assembly, and now heads back to the Senate for concurrence:

https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/908881922629218304

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The bill has passed the Assembly, and now heads back to the Senate for concurrence:

https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/908881922629218304

Just passed the Senate

Oh for f**ks sake, how about trying doing something for the housing crisis rather than passing bills for a sh**tty junior senator?

[GlobeSoc]

Are there any other primary date shifts in the cards?

Edit: Just saw the Oregon and Washington proposals, anything other than those?

[Rookie Yinzer]

YES WE KAM

[Mr. Morden]

Are there any other primary date shifts in the cards?

Edit: Just saw the Oregon and Washington proposals, anything other than those?

A few months ago, the North Carolina legislature was considering a bill that would also move their primary up to Super Tuesday:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2017/06/north-carolina-inches-toward-joining.html

I'm not sure where that stands at the moment though.

But the much bigger potential shift is the talk coming from Georgia SoS Brian Kemp that California's move might prompt the Southern states to abandon March 3rd, and move their primaries en masse a week or more later:

http://politics.blog.myajc.com/2017/09/12/california-mounts-a-challenge-to-a-2020-sec-presidential-primary/

If all of the current southern Super Tuesday states abandoned March 3rd and moved their primaries a week later, then March 3rd would be left to California, Massachusetts, Vermont, Colorado, Minnesota, and any other states that want to join them.  March 3rd would then no longer be "Super Tuesday" really, as March 10th would have more states voting and more delegates at stake.

I am really skeptical of that happening though, as it requires a lot of coordination among the Southern state legislatures, and a coordinated move *later,* as opposed to earlier, is a rather rare thing.

[catographer]

Turnout will be sh**t. Bad idea!