With California in $$$ trouble - should Mar primary be cancelled?

With Dean's approaching withdrawl from the race and Kerry already picking out curtain colors for the white house, wouldn't it be fairer for the many, many needy people in the nations most populous state to have the state money used for the primary be instead redirected to healthcare, education, and the poor? Give reasons why carring on like this is still a contest has more priority.

the outcome has already been determined.

about giving the voters a chance to make their voices heard in these primaries before the media coronation of Kerry is completed. Cancelling the CA primary would not serve this interest.

you disagree, Will.

If I lived in one of those states I'd be royally pissed off by this primary.

I have trouble remembering a primary season when the later states got a say. In 2000, the deal had gone down between Gore and Bradley before Super Tuesday. Hell, Bradley was toast after Iowa - remember the farmer who blasted him?

This season doesn't strike me as being much different. That having been said, I do think no state should cancel its primary.

Take my vote away...crown Kerry before I get to vote, or deny a huge block of voters/delegates the chance to vote.

Not exactly a way to build party unity in November.

This Californian expects to be able to cast a vote for Dennis Kucinich on March 2nd.

Deny me now, and I'll write him in next November.

by arguing the Democrtats don't care about democracy, so we weren't really doing anything so bad in Florida in 2000.

There are some vital things on that ballot besides the presidential primary. Other primaries, initiatives, measures, etc.

After all, we already have a Resident in the White House. Why go through all the trouble of having an election with the risk of having to change all the WH letterheads and President's portraits in government buildings if a Democrat should win? Isn't it time to give the long-suffering American taxpayer a break so our dollars can be spent on more useful things like promoting teenage chastity, fighting the War on Steroids and holding back the Gay Menace?

</sarcasm>

:evilgrin:

:shrug:

You don't simply cancel an election because the budget is screwed. If that were the case we might as well forget voting in november too.

George W Bush*: "I *know* I will win the November election. The country is in a massive budget crisis. An election would cost money. OK. Let's cancel the election"

If money trouble stopped an election, we wouldn't have had the "special election" for the terminator and then less than 1 month later held regular elections.

Oh and I hate to burst your bubble but this state has more going on then the California Primary--for example 2 propositions that are suppossed to get us out of this mess by passing the bill onto our kids.

They don't matter anyway!

Actually, the governor of Colorado already did cancel our primary. He went with caucuses instead. They are supposed to take place in April.

Think it'll matter?

In Kansas we have a caucus in March. I will be very pissed off if I do not get the chance to be a part of that and have my say.

Sad, but true. The March 2 election still must take place though. We have a number of propositions on the ballot so cancelling the primary wouldn't save any money.

There are more rich people in CA than in any
other country in the world. If you reached into
your wallet and there wasn't anything in there,
would you go "Oh my I'm in $$$ trouble?" I.E. what's
in your wallet is not a sign of if you're in $$$
trouble. Most $$$ trouble is a simple matter of
thinking right and seeing the big picture. Money
is not real, but only rich people know that
secret. How and what you think is real, so if
you have $$$ trouble what you really has is
thinking trouble. I.E. CA has thinking trouble.
I.E. to cancel the primary would feed into the
thinking there is a $$$ trouble in CA. Rich people
stay rich by spending money not by not spending
it. As soon as you think you're poor you're poor.
The state of CA has a mind that must start thinking
it doesn't have a $$$ trouble. That is already
happening because of leadership at last. Why would
a billionaire want to run a poor state with $$$
trouble? One reason: to show mind over matter. It
doesn't have anything to do with budgets or loans or
Proposition this or that or these other things,
numbers, etc. That's all illusion. Hocus-pocus.
The only thing that matters is how and what you
think.

what kind of Democrat even considers the notion of undermining democracy for money.

dictatorship, it's sooo much cheaper. :eyes:

It appears to be. We have all the money we need for bombs and jails, but none for schools or elections.

Coinicidence?

I sincerely hope it is.

Bah, who needs elections! Hail King Kerry!