I know the next election will be important, with no incumbent and a possible female or black candidate, but the election is 21 months away! Why can't we just wait until next year?
2007-02-15 02:55:04 · 17 answers · asked by andyman531 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
That's because Georgie boy is doing such a horrendous job that everyone decided it's high time for a quicky change before more damage is done to America, Iraq and the rest of the world.
2007-02-15 02:58:28 · answer #1 · answered by Edward 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would have supported an early election in fact we could have had one while slick Willy was giving his first inaugural speech. If that doesn't sound good to you, you are a typical liberal; want everything both ways. You also seem to assume (in this case only making an ****of*u) a number of facts not in evidence. Don't forget President Bush received more than 50% of the popular vote, a trick President Clinton couldn't pull off on his best day. No, stick with the four year cycle, it is best for the country and everyone in it. Liberals and Conservatives alike. You may have noticed as I have, many times when some government official gets a law passed if fixes one problem but in the process creates a dozen more. One more thing, give these people running some rope. They will surely hang themselves well before you have to waste any time trying to sort them out. Actually I love campaigns. It is the best time to watch bottom feeders eat their own. Good day.
2016-05-24 03:24:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
IIRC, Presidential campaigns have a tendency to start up about 2 years or so prior to the actual election. As mass media continues to develop into more and more "instant comm" (radio, TV, the internet, etc.), the lead time prior to the actual election has steadily increased.
Personally, I'd like a big juicy series of debates on live TV - broadcast, satellite and cable -, open to ALL candidates of ALL parties (there are more than 2 parties, but most of them can't get off the ground for lack of funding) for the week immediately prior to Election Day. Even better, make it a Trial by Combat - the surviving 4 are voted on. ^_^
2007-02-15 09:48:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The liberals are hoping to capitalize on the anti-Bush sentiment and the fact that they re-took the majority in the House and Senate. So they'll spend the next 21 months doing what they've been doing all along -- bashing Bush -- and saying they'll turn the country around, all the while giving zero specifics as to HOW they're going to turn the country around because they don't have a plan (other than bashing every conservative plan).
2007-02-15 03:03:43 · answer #4 · answered by sarge927 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The reason they start so early is canidates drop out due to lack of intrest and support. From voters and also their own parties. And also with the war going on, they are all yelling I can bring our troops home. But we are all so quick to forget that when
Sept. 11th happen. Most of us felt the President was going to slow to send our sons, dauthers, husbands and mothers to WAR. Picking a President is not easy and being the leader is even harder. Just remember whom ever we elect will not be able to bring the troops home in mths. It will take yrs and not all will return to their love ones.
2007-02-15 03:19:18 · answer #5 · answered by morgan1690 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There's a media hunger for this -- because of the pro-Dem, pro-GOP talkshows across TV, radio, web, etc. that NEED everyday "news" (which is actually quite CHEAP, and the reason why news-organizations assemble this garbage. The other side is, there's plenty of people that tune in to hear WHAT they WANT to hear "the planet is burning up! do something" or "there's 0 plan for Iraq by Dems, riiight?" and this audience BUYS houses, cars, mortgages, prescription drugs, etc.) Soooooo... people like HILLARY and Obamamama get their faces on media, just like that.. the media WANTs them ("is she gonna run" stories were on, everyday for 6 years before Hillary declared). This is the BUSINESS of candidates... and it amounts to nothing.
2007-02-15 03:06:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Exactly! Better yet, why can't we give all of them a certain amount of money to campaign with--and they can't use any more--and not allow them to campaign until six weeks before the election? That way everybody has the same amount of money to use and we are not annoyed for years with campaign adds, etc.
2007-02-15 03:12:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The more power the people allow the government to take, the more motivation there is for people / companies / interest groups / etc. to make sure that someone who'll use that power to help them and hurt their competitors. So as the government gets more power, campaigning will start earlier and earlier.
2007-02-15 02:59:51 · answer #8 · answered by Faeldaz M 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
500 million reasons. It is estimated that it will cost half a billion to run a national campaign this cycle. The earlier they announce, the sooner they can start raising the money.
2007-02-15 03:03:25 · answer #9 · answered by Billy Dee 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think it's cause the next election will be a popularity contest.
Let's hope there's someone more popular the Hillary.
2007-02-15 02:58:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋