It used to be that campaigns didn't really get underway until the New Hampshire primary. Yes, there was always backstage jockeying, for years beforehand, but it seems like the whole process is moved up a year from, say, 30 years ago. It may be partly that there are so many news outlets that need to fill time these days. But certainly much of this phenomenon is because the process HAS changed.
Is this good? Is this bad? Does it leave us too little flexibility, when both candidates are nominated (in fact if not officially) by early March? Is a party "stuck" with a weak candidate these days only because that candidate got in early? More states are now moving their primaries to earlier dates, to make sure they have a voice. Is this just making it worse?
Is there any way to address this? Should it be addressed? Would a national primary, sometime before Memorial Day, be a good idea?
Are people already sick of the candidates by the time the primaries start? :)
2007-01-19
03:01:49
·
10 answers
·
asked by
American citizen and taxpayer
7