Also, from a pragmatic standpoint, if large states like CA hold earlier primaries, then it's going to shake out the field much more quickly (not necessarily a bad thing, IMO), but it also means candidates are going to have to concentrate more of their time and money in those states (where most of their funding comes from in the first place), thus giving comparatively less attention to smaller states with fewer Electoral votes.

However, your point about this trend toward increasingly earlier primaries is well taken; it IS getting ridiculous. At the rate this leap-frogging is occuring now, by the 2012 cycle states will need to start holding primaries in late 2010 just to keep in the running as it were.

Also, from a pragmatic standpoint, if large states like CA hold earlier primaries, then it's going to shake out the field much more quickly (not necessarily a bad thing, IMO), but it also means candidates are going to have to concentrate more of their time and money in those states (where most of their funding comes from in the first place), thus giving comparatively less attention to smaller states with fewer Electoral votes.

However, your point about this trend toward increasingly earlier primaries is well taken; it IS getting ridiculous. At the rate this leap-frogging is occuring now, by the 2012 cycle states will need to start holding primaries in late 2010 just to keep in the running as it were.

Also, from a pragmatic standpoint, if large states like CA hold earlier primaries, then it's going to shake out the field much more quickly (not necessarily a bad thing, IMO), but it also means candidates are going to have to concentrate more of their time and money in those states (where most of their funding comes from in the first place), thus giving comparatively less attention to smaller states with fewer Electoral votes.

However, your point about this trend toward increasingly earlier primaries is well taken; it IS getting ridiculous. At the rate this leap-frogging is occuring now, by the 2012 cycle states will need to start holding primaries in late 2010 just to keep in the running as it were.

You don't want Cali or Texas first because it raises the bar so dang high. Also allot of money will get spent on candidates that don't have a prayer.

But the entire process is not going to break like the writer is freaking out about. Read up on some history of the changes in the nomination process that both parties (and the Whigs as well) have done and frankly this is not that revolutionary in the least.

Iowa has time-warped back to December 2005 and held its 2008 primary.

The results: Not interesting in the least.