California primary may be moved after SC, could clinch the nomination for Harris

[Shadows]

California may move up its primary, shaking up 2020 presidential race

S.B. 568 appears to have broad support among lawmakers. Final votes in the Senate and Assembly are expected by Friday; it would then advance to Gov. Jerry Brown for his signature. With Brown's checkoff, the statewide primary would shift to the Tuesday after the first Monday in March, giving California among the earliest primary elections of all 50 states.

Politico reported the move to an early primary could benefit two Californians who may run for president in 2020 — California's junior senator Kamala Harris and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, neither of whom have announced their intentions to run for higher office.

https://www.scpr.org/news/2017/09/12/75564/california-may-move-up-its-primary-shaking-up-2020/

Goodbye Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Chris Murphy. The only person who can compete is Sanders or Biden both of whom have high name recognition. California TV ads are extremely expensive & people with less money can just not compete. Sanders has a huge email funding list & big name recognition & was only 7% behind CA vs  HRC even after losing the delegate math & the nomination. Biden was Obama's VP.

This would also make Super Tuesday meaningless. It will basically be about CA. If someone wins CA 65-35 odd, that is like a 150 delegate odd lead, almost insurmountable. If Sanders doesn't run, it is over for progressives. Warren will have a hard time beating Harris in CA.

[Cory]

Yeah I hope this doesn't happen. Smaller states should go sooner so lesser candidates have a chance to gain momentum and name recognition.

[Shadows]

Thank God. California voted Clinton in both 2008 and 2016 and trended 9 points Dem last year in the presidential race.

They don't like populist demogogues thank you very much. Harris, Booker, Kaine, etc. will all prevail over Bernie Sanders in this state because people there actually think about electability in the GE when they vote.

This is again ridiculous. You are actually giving Clinton supporters a bad name with your ridiculous comments. You can't schedule states based on their vote for Clinton but on overall principles. Clinton only beat Sanders by 7% after she had won the nomination according to the AP.  Your opponent crashes when he has no chance to win, fundraising dries & there are people who don't care about wasting votes & many swing voters switch to the winner.

Sanders has very high name recognition now, has run a Presidential campaign & has a huge fundraising list. If he could get 47% in 2016 vs Hillary (& the entire Dem party) after losing the nomination, then in 2020 he would be very competitive at worst. Have you thought what happens if Harris doesn't run & Bernie does.

Cory Booker can't win without the Southern states. This helps Sanders. He doesn't have to go through the Early Southern states where he would have lost & started from behind. This hurts Elizabeth Warren the most. She will find it tough to beat Harris.

[Rookie Yinzer]

I don't agree. It won't be a one on one race like 2008 and 2016. Harris may get a plurality of the vote but a 65-35 victory is not guaranteed.

[Mr. Morden]

We already have a thread about this:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=272438.0

[cvparty]

Thank God. California voted Clinton in both 2008 and 2016 and trended 9 points Dem last year in the presidential race.

They don't like populist demogogues thank you very much. Harris, Booker, Kaine, etc. will all prevail over Bernie Sanders in this state because people there actually think about electability in the GE when they vote.

how political

[Kringla Heimsins]

Thank God. California voted Clinton in both 2008 and 2016 and trended 9 points Dem last year in the presidential race.

They don't like populist demogogues thank you very much. Harris, Booker, Kaine, etc. will all prevail over Bernie Sanders in this state because people there actually think about electability in the GE when they vote.

As far as electability goes, I don't think Hillary Clinton is a good exemple...

[MAINEiac4434]

Harris polls lower with Blacks than Biden.

Harris is the Democrat's Marco Rubio. She will choke

Wouldn't this have more to do with name recognition, though?

[Rookie Yinzer]

Black voters (sans millennial voters) are pragmatic. Harris will have to prove herself. Black voters did not coalesce around Obama until he won Iowa. Had he had a poor showing there, Hillary Clinton would have swept the south and been the 2008 nominee. If Harris doesn't have momentum out of the gate, many of the "establishment" black voters will be inclined to go to Biden.

[Possiblymaybe]

Harris polls lower with Blacks than Biden.

Harris is the Democrat's Marco Rubio. She will choke

Wouldn't this have more to do with name recognition, though?

I'd say it also has to do more with personality and his experience of being Obama's VP too.

If you have low name recognition it sort of follows that the general public don't know your personality very well. Obviously biden is in a completely different league whereas name recognition is concerned.Harris is hyped up in political circles but a vast number of people don't know who she is let alone have any idea about her personality. Like obama she's going to have to work for it if she decides to run.Black voters didn't really come out for obama with full force until after he won Iowa. They preferred Clinton who obviously had much higher name recognition at the time.

[Fuzzy Bear]

My concern about this move is that it will be a further step toward identity politics becoming the Democratic Party's guiding principle.

That being said, California IS the biggest piece of the Democratic coalition, state-wise. 

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Thank God. California voted Clinton in both 2008 and 2016 and trended 9 points Dem last year in the presidential race.

They don't like populist demogogues thank you very much. Harris, Booker, Kaine, etc. will all prevail over Bernie Sanders in this state because people there actually think about electability in the GE when they vote.

[I’m not Stu]

Warren will have a hard time beating Harris in CA.

I think a race between Harris and Warren would be close. I can see Harris losing to Warren in CA.

[I’m not Stu]

Harris would probably win CA, but is no lock to win.

[GoTfan]

Harris would probably definitely win CA, but is no lock to win according to white male teens.

And you've lost it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Remember how California on Super Tuesday in 2008 locked up the nomination for Hillary?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Thank God. California voted Clinton in both 2008 and 2016 and trended 9 points Dem last year in the presidential race.

They don't like populist demogogues thank you very much. Harris, Booker, Kaine, etc. will all prevail over Bernie Sanders in this state because people there actually think about electability in the GE when they vote.

The three people you listed all represent completely different ideologies.

[Mr. Smith]

Good, the largest state shouldn't be locked out of the process so badly anyway.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

I think it is actually possible for Warren to win CA, even if it's the third state to vote.
There are several Californians that consider running (Harris, Villaraigosa, Brown, Becerra), thus they could split their votes among each other and therefore make Warren the winner.

[Jeppe]

I think it is actually possible for Warren to win CA, even if it's the third state to vote.
There are several Californians that consider running (Harris, Villaraigosa, Brown, Becerra), thus they could split their votes among each other and therefore make Warren the winner.

California Democrats are usually pretty good at avoiding big-name primary battles, I doubt more than one or two big name California Democrats would run.