Suddenly, June Primary Is Looking Like a Winner

By now, anyone who remotely follows politics knows that the 1988 presidential nomination is wide-open in the Democratic Party, and all but the most Pollyanna George Bush supporters believe that the same can be said for the Republicans. Many observations can be made about the election. But certainly surprises are in store for Californians.

It is appears that the Reagan personality will play only a small part in the election’s outcome. Californians went from eight years of Ronald Reagan as governor to eight years of Jerry Brown. It is likely that the so-called Reagan Revolution will have little relevance to the electorate in 1988. They will be more interested in what the future will bring than what the past has brought.

It also is probably true that the Democrats will offer a candidate who was too young to serve in the military during World War II. While this may have symbolic importance, it isn’t clear how it translates to a Baby Boom generation band-wagon. There may be a strong desire for a change from the Reagan years in all age groups. Californians are accustomed to simultaneously electing candidates of different parties, ages and philosophies.

But what may surprise Californians, and will almost certainly surprise the rest of the country, is the rapidly growing likelihood that Californians will decide the nominees of the two major political parties. The fact that our primary is one of the last in the nation and holds the greatest number of delegates for party nomination gives California great power.

Only a few months ago a major effort was on to move the date of the California primary in order to avoid having our June primary become irrelevant to a process that pundits said would have decided the winners by March or early April.

Now pundits are saying that both parties may end up with brokered conventions in the summer. An equally plausible and increasingly likely scenario points to the California primary as the decisive political battle for the nomination of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Thebattle for California’s electoral votes is likely to be just as decisive.

This is very good news for Californians. We are a state that is diverse, progressive, in the forefront of developing issues for both major parties and capable of organizing grass roots campaigns for candidates able to inspire them.

We are a state that uses the best and the worst of slick, deceptive media ads, but our electorate seems to be growing more sophisticated than other states’ in sorting out the garbage. The candidates who put together a successful campaign in California are much more likely to win in November, and the delegates who attend the conventions know this.

The withdrawal of Gary Hart from the race has completely opened up the Democratic primary in California, where Hart’s organization had worked hard to build on their winning position in 1984. There is room for new organizations, and those who supported Hart are unlikely to move to the same candidates as a bloc. None of the other contenders, except for Jesse Jackson, are well-known in California.

It is not too great a leap to predict that the person who develops the most effective campaign in California will win the Democratic nomination. California Republicans need only recall Barry Goldwater’s victory in 1964 to know that they, too, can decide the next nominee of their party.

For years Californians of both parties (especially the wealthy) have been contributing funds to presidential candidates to spend elsewhere, because the crucial battlegrounds were presumed to be elsewhere.

This year is as good a time as any for Californians of both parties to stop shipping most of their money out of state for candidates to use campaigning elsewhere, and begin demanding that a larger share be spent on developing more effective political organizations in California.