the state party did not chose to go last. The state did. The state experimented with moving the primary to a March date, a few years back, when every body else did. That kind of frustrated them. That poster does not know this, but the parties do not fund the primary, the state does. (We are progressive that way, and the State believes that parties should have as little as possible to the actual running of elections as possible... for some odd reason). The cost of doing the primary separately from the June election is high, the state says prohibitively high. So they basically have it the same day as the June ballot.
It pisses me off, from the we would like to influence the process a tad more. After all when June comes, most likely I will be voting for the minimum wage initiative on the ballot, and a few other things that matter to me. The Primary, if we actually matter, I will be shocked and since this is an OPEN PRIMARY STATE, and yes both parties agreed in the end, one can be strategic about it and that happened over the last two cycles. We moved to a modified form of run on voting for State offices as well, it was actually a Republican idea, and it works great... I WISH we could do that for federal offices.
I WISH the party stopped enforcing the very much unwritten Willie Brown rule, that states you shan't run a challenger for any democrat in office who is in good standing.... becuase you know what? I expect that idiocy to cost the dems my congressman's seat (and there won't be too many tears locally either). Why? Labor got him over the top last time. Labor already said we ain't playing this time around due to TPP. And the Rs seem to be running a better candidate this time. Carl DeMaio was really flawed. Trust me, in San Diego running a gay man, in certain quarters might have cost them the few thousand votes by which Peters won. We are progressive, but we still have some very conservative pockets if you will. I can almost point to what neighborhoods.
But that is what the party does... they do not set the election in any way, shape or form. Neither party has no say in this.
That has transformed California into a Ka-Ching machine for BOTH parties. And yes I have asked the Democratic chairman about this already, and I am not shy... when the opportunity comes, I will ask the Republican. (By the way, on tape, so it is on record). The answer from the Dem back in 2012 was kind of troubling by the way. They have no issue with politicians not really campaigning here, and consistently raise the retail politics.
Yet, the person you are talking too, retail politics is harder, but not impossible... just ask a master of it, Ronald Wilson Reagan, who did that, very well thank you very much, as both governor and President, in 1979 he launched his campaign here in San Diego, and then went to towns all over the state before going to the usual suspects for the early primaries. Reagan, with all his defects, is still remembered fondly by many Californians, for actually doing that, wether they agree with him or not. That was the last presidential candidate that actually gave a hoot to do that in California, and the calendar was not favorable either... and for god sakes, he was well known in the state already as a two term governor.
So a lot of it is just common sense knowledge that none wants to test. Doing revolving primaries gets shot down regularly as well.
I consider this country to have a fantasy democracy and every so often they reinforce it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
K&R