Should America presidential primary dates be moved up?

Question

Please i will want to know your opinion ,If Yes Or No ,and your reason.Thank you.

Answer 1

Yes. Iowa and New Hampshire are an outdated ideal of the American demographic.

Answer 2

No! This is like completely rediculous and similar to retailers advertising for Christmas in August. It only benefits the candates and as far as I can tell, it doesn't benefit the voter at all, unless there is a new law I don't know about that requires employers to pay you for two hours if you can prove you voted. (which I think is an interesting idea for a law and would encourage more civic participation. The time the company paid their employees to vote could be a tax credit---but that is a different post)

First of all, it limits the elections for presidency to those who can raise money the fastest and we are talking about career politicians (I don't want to guess what they'd be willing to do for it, but I'm sure its not pretty and you may not want to shake their hands in case they haven't washed)

Second, the farther the primaries are from the election the less accountability the politicians are forced to have concerning what they said and how they got on the ballot in the first place.

Third, campaigns usually end up mudslinging and I don't want to hear it ever and most certainly not longer.

Fourth, one of the main, if not the main issue of the next election is Iraq (although I never hear people criticize Afganistan, but that is for a different post). This was also the primary issue why the Democrats won congress, but what happened? They talked all their BS before the election about what they were going to do and has it happened? NO. Why? It was BS and they couldn't make it happen. Really? I didn't see that coming. (sarcasm) People can be for or against the war, but nobody that has a clue about the military or extremist idealogy would ever think that an immediate full withdraw would have positive and lasting effects around the world. My point is that the candadates are either going to lie about what is going to happen more than usual or are going to reveal the timeline and details of our exit------- revealing either publicly assures victory for the enemy and the death of more American soldiers, because all the extremists have to do is fight until then and if they can get somebody to kill themselves every couple of days between now and then.......the will be perceived as the winners, heroes and martyrs because they didn't give up against the obviously stronger military and killed some Americans and "heretic" muslims in the process.

fifth, If G-d forbid Hillary wins the democratic primary, may it never be, I don't want to have to think about that one second longer than absolutely necessary. Let me live in lala land for as long as possible and think that Obama or Edwards will win the primary.

sixth, I don't know who I am voting for yet and don't want to be rushed into a decision.

Answer 3

No.
There ought to be a law to limit the start and the end of primaries to 8 and 4 months (respectively) before the national presidential elections.
To preserve the influence of smaller states they should be given a choice to select the date for primaries. The state with the lowest population would choose first (something similar to the NBA or NFL draft).
No more than 2 states could have primaries on the same day.
No more than 7 states could have primaries in a single week. This would ensure that primaries take at least 2 months.

Answer 4

No, many of the second and third tier canidates are just starting to become known... Hopefully people will catch on and we will be saved from the Giuliani, Hillary and Obama campaigns of corruption!!

Answer 5

it is on different dates in different states.
where are you making reference to.

Answer 6

If it ain't broke don't fix it!

There is no need to move it up.

Answer 7

no. i'd rather these politicians spend their time working to solve problems, not campaigning.

Answer 8

No.