CHICAGO (Reuters) – Skimpy budgets are cutting into the way states pay for schools, health care, and now -- even primary elections.
At least six states are considering either canceling or delaying their 2012 presidential primaries, mostly to save money.
None of this will likely have much effect on the Democratic presidential candidate, expected to be President Barack Obama.
But it could cause trouble for moderate Republicans, by allowing a protracted battle and giving conservatives a louder voice, according to political analysts.
"The candidates are going to be falling all over themselves to appeal to the Republican base, which is very, very conservative, and the Tea Party people, and they could paint themselves into a corner there, taking positions that are far to the right of the swing voters," said Alan I. Abramowitz, professor of political science at Emory University.
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

The biggest state considering a delay is California, where a bill has unanimously passed a State Assembly committee that would move the presidential primary from February to June, to coincide with its state and local primary.
"We'll save $100 million by eliminating the stand-alone presidential primary," said Democratic California Assemblyman Paul Fong, the bill's sponsor.
Fong believes the combined election will increase turn-out and fight voter fatigue. "Three major elections in one year is too much," Fong said.
Legislators in Missouri and Alabama have also proposed bills shifting their presidential primaries to June, combining them with state primaries. Washington and Kansas are considering skipping the presidential primaries altogether, allowing parties to pick candidates through caucuses. The idea of skipping the primary also came up during a Massachusetts budget hearing.

Skipping a primary in favor of a caucus I like. Caucuses are better and bring out the real activists who really believe in something (not to say that those people cannot vote in primary, but still).

Delaying until June I don't believe in... well, at least not Huckastates like Alabama and Missouri. California on the other hand ought to move their primary to sometime after the national convention

Well, not that I'm an expert, but it takes hours to vote in a caucus, there's much less privacy too. Therefore, fewer not-so-involved people care to vote

No problem.Like I said, I'm not an expert myself.

I have a hard time seeing the point with letting super-blue states have a primary at all; they are not going to vote for whoever the nominee is, so why are they given such influence? New York and California will never vote for the GOP, yet they might give the nomination away to Romney.

The biggest state considering a delay is California, where a bill has unanimously passed a State Assembly committee that would move the presidential primary from February to June, to coincide with its state and local primary.

Skipping a primary in favor of a caucus I like. Caucuses are better and bring out the real activists who really believe in something (not to say that those people cannot vote in primary, but still).

Delaying until June I don't believe in... well, at least not Huckastates like Alabama and Missouri. California on the other hand ought to move their primary to sometime after the national convention

Point made, German4Huckabee (do you have any snow in Germany? We still have loads here, won't be gone for another month or so). Still think caucuses are better, just in general. GOTV wasn't a big problem the last time for the Ames straw poll anyway, right?

I see your point though.