On the same theme of Dr. Pitney’s post below, see the following recent articles and columns about how California’s primary actually matters:
Cathleen Decker’s Los Angeles Times article:
To California political activists who have labored for years under the mantra that the state doesn’t matter in the presidential primaries, 2008 has been the campaign that brought back wonderment.
California voters Tuesday are going to do something they haven’t done in more than a generation: have a say in a closely contested presidential primary.
“We finally have a vote that matters, even if it’s not going to be the decisive blow,” said Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California-Berkeley.
Dan Walters Sacramento Bee column breaks down the Field Polls:
It’s been more than a half-century since America had a wide-open presidential contest with no incumbent president or vice president in the running, and more than three decades since California was important in choosing nominees.
As Phil Willon’s Los Angeles Times article makes clear, even Bakersfield has been getting some love from the campaigns:
Until now, voters here were a bit of an afterthought for the presidential candidates, who instead focused their time and money in other primary states and in California’s voter-rich metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, Orange County and San Francisco.
The unusual circumstances have energized voters, says Juliet Williams’ article in the San Francisco Chronicle:
“There’s still a lot of uncertainty and there’s been a lot of buildup and drama to the Super Tuesday, and people want to be a part of that,” said Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute of California.
The Los Angeles Times rejoices that California matters (with a hint of “we told you so”); Sherry Bebitch Jeffe notes California’s importance (as well as the fact that the election matters for California) in her analysis.