Does the Presidential campaign season start too early?

Question

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? :)

I know 1968 was a very unusual year, but RFK didn't even announce until March or April.

Could something like that happen in this atmosphere? I suppose if someone died, was impeached, etc., but still.

I keep looking for others to enter the 2008 race. "someone else," PLEASE! I don't know hwo.

But are we pretty much stuck with the names we have, almost two years out?

Answer 1

I think a lot of this is because of media fueled anti-Bush backlash.

But I think it good because there are a lot of people who have their names in the hat and not a lot is known about them. The early they declare the more time people have to learn about the candidates and hopefully use that to make an informed choice instead of voting along party lines because thats what their daddy did.

Answer 2

They have discovered that repetition is the key.

People remember things the longer they hear them. So they start with the campaigning as soon as possible. And what I learned working in advertising, anything that gets your name out there will get you some benefit. In campaigning, the people can be annoyed with someone due to hearing about them all the time, but they will remember the name. And research states that people vote for the familiar before anything else. THAT is what they are playing on. Some voters do the research, and vote on what campaing platform the candidate stands on, but a vast majority vote on the familiar first.

I think they also start early so that by the time the primaries roll around, they have weeded some of the candidates out, and the truly strong (or wealthy) survive.

Answer 3

i think of it relatively is enormously extraordinary, even though it relatively is all in keeping with today's media. we've media everywhere, no remember if it relatively is newspapers, television, and with the internet, you have real-time information and blogs that concentration on an entire variety of matters. The one hundred and tenth Congress replaced into fairly in consultation a month and we've been talking approximately John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain. there is not any doubt it relatively is way early. interior the previous few elections, the earliest has been January of the election 365 days, no longer the 365 days in the previous the election. although that's a various international and a various political panorama. you additionally can thank the Iraq conflict for the bounce on the 2008 Elections.

Answer 4

this particular election has garnered extra interest and so the press and the public have a stronger than usual appetite for events and news and developments and that is pushing the proecsss forward. at least the public has awakened to the imporatnce fo these issues and who our leader will be. these are imporatnt and exciting times and history is being made. how e all act will be discussed for many years. will we be like the german people who kept their eyes wide shut and let a madman take over so they could get their own selfish needs met? who knows. it is a character test and the sooner we get on with talking about it the better.
when the press becomes silent and people are afraid to discuss it, that is when i start to worry. That is what happened right after 9/11 and we all saw the result as we were stampeded off a cliff like lemmings.
we need to pay attention and ask questions and demand answers and seek better candidates than last time

Answer 5

WAY TOO EARLY. We already know who the lousy candidates are. Why do we have to listen to them for more than a year?

BTW, when are we going to start getting someone good to consider? So far they all seem bad.

We have a loud mouth ultra-liberal that tries to pass herself as a moderate (Hillary), a Democrat with an "R" next to his name (McCain), and a Senator that thinks he has enough experience after two years in the Senate (Obama). Tom Tancredo (spelling may be wrong) would be great but I doubt he can win.

Answer 6

yes it is bad, just think how Howard deans mess up condemned his campaign, then we where stuck with John Kerry's awful campaign for the rest of the year. I am a strong republician supporter, but in 2004 I wasn't happy with Bush's job performance, and wanted someone better, however John Kerry didn't have anything better to offer. This time they are all ready starting the campaigning which will make the people once again sick of hereing from them.

Answer 7

It certainly seemed to start way too early this time. The fun part is going to be seeing who's still standing when the conventions get here.

Answer 8

No, we need time to find out all we can about the person who will be in charge of running our country.

Answer 9

yeah....WAY too early.

There is only so many lies and so many empty promises a person can listen to before they get fed up with the whole thing!

No wonder voter turnout is so low.......they have all been turned OFF.

Answer 10

Yes - they start way too early - we have almost 2 full years of this ahead of us! UGH!!!!