Should Democrats Disallow Big State Early Primaries in 2012?

    Do you remember those Feb 5th, "Super-Duper" primaries?
    California spent 60-90 million dollars to push their primary from June to February.
    At the same time, Governor Schwarzenegger, cut the successful $55 million dollar program which helped the thousands of  mentally ill homeless.
    Those big state primaries, never gave the voters enough time to take a look at Barack Obama, for example.
    Because, in small states, the voters get to really know the candidate, and word of mouth means something, and an insurgent candidate can beat the better known politician.

    However, if  the  big contests are so soon after Iowa and New Hampshire, the insurgent candidate is at a distinct disadvantage to the early funded and better known person.

    Senator Obama, was successful, only because he outwitted the Clinton campaign, and fought in those smaller caucus and primary states, immediately afterward.

    If California held their primary, even in March, Barack Obama would have the money and time to convince the voters in the Golden State to vote for him.

    Word of mouth, means nothing in a huge state...it is all about name identification, and television advertising.

    Because, Mrs. Clinton has been in front of the electorate for about 16 years, she had the advantage of  competing in those early big states.

    Its bad enough that Michigan and Florida are a mess, going into Democratic convention, but once again, California takes a back seat to Texas and Ohio, in this election cycle.

    A new candidate needs more time to develop a solid presidential campaign, prior to competing in the big states.

    I hope that the Democratic National Committee, develops new rules for the 2012 presidential campaign, protecting minority candidates, and newer office holders, after the election of 2008.

    Thanks for reading:

    Bob Kholos