Do you think the Presidential campaigning started way too early?

Question

After the first few debates, this forum would be filled with questions about who said what, speculations on who won, etc. Now, it seems as though it's 'old hat' and I'll bet that there are many who aren't even paying much attention.

Did things start too early? Are we, the voters, burning out already? This reminds me of the immigration/amnesty situation. Once discovered that it was voted down, the issue was dropped, yet the problems continue to linger.

Answer 1

It probably did start too early. But there's a couple of reasons it did, and there might be some benefit to some candidates because of it.

It started so early mainly because of the states that moved their primaries up. Also, it started early because of the division over the war and the anger that so many Americans feel toward Bush and his Administration. Sort of a "we can't wait until this election takes place" because of the intense dissatisfaction so many feel about Bush's job performance.

It benefits both Clinton and Obama for one reason. The more time that they are in the spotlight only gives the public more time to get used to the woman/black factor. Which means eventually the public will get tired of all the discussion swirling around those two factors and actually start hearing what they have to say instead of focusing on those factors alone.

But many people are already tired of it, and we have so long to go. My husband for instance. He doesn't want to watch any more debates until we are much further along in the process. He's already burned out - and he's already made his decision about who he's voting for in the primaries. So he won't pay much attention until those primaries are right around the corner. I think a lot of people are reacting like this right now. Except for those of us who are politics crazy, like the regulars in Yahoo ;-).

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

Without question it began way too early. As has been seen in the past, the Clinton campaign machine is always the slickest and most innovative. She's basically been a "candidate" the longest and the most in the public eye. She forced Obama out before (I think) he was really ready.

The debates are boring because the moderators are softballing them. Its "same old same old" because they havent yet said anything at all! There are some small exceptions to that here and there, but there's no substance.
Why there are so many democratic candidates for a party that is in desperate need of unifying itself is beyond me as well.

Things should get more interesting after the primaries. I strongly suspect to see some independent action this year.

Answer 4

Yes it started WAY too early. I think that they should all only be allowed to campaign for six months prior to the election. There is far too much money being wasted on this ridiculous stuff. Not any of mine though. I would never give my hard earned money to a political campaign of any kind.
The attack ads are the worst though. Just wait in a few months the mailers will start coming out telling us all the bad things that every other candidate has said or done. Real or imagined.
Our campaign laws need to be totally rewritten. But you can't let the politicians have anything to do with it or it won't change anything.

Answer 5

YES!! Way too early!!. And how we go about it is worse than stupid-- It's dumb.

You have both major parties having primaries in which if you aren't a declared member of that party you can't vote in it. What if you are (for the sake of discussion) a registered Democrat. But you feel the best candidate for President is a Republican. You can't vote for him in the primary, unless you change your party affiliation to Republican. In my state if you do that you may not get to vote for a lot of your local sherriffs, judges, mayors etc. There aren't any republicans running for those offices.

Do you see where I'm going? Why do we have two primaries, one Republican and one Democrat? Why not have one primary and put everyone on the same ticket? You can only vote for one person for any office. There are good people out there who are Democrats and Republicans. Let's make it so we can vote FOR someone instead of as is the case most often, we end up voting against someone.

Down with political parties!!

Answer 6

YES! Way way to early and it will cause people to burn out before the elections. I'm burned out by it and dread the many many more months of it. I think the Republicans are doing it smart tho. They aren't going gung ho right now, from what I'm hearing they will gear up a little later saving them money, and grabbing the attention of the voters with 'new material'.

Answer 7

yes it certainly has started too early. There are far too many candidates as well. And they don't all have an equal say in the media, so many of them don't even have name recognition with most potential voters.

I hope this doesn't affect how many (or how few) people actually get out to vote next year.

Answer 8

I used to think that. But considering all the states are moving their primaries into January and Febuary of 2008, I don't think that anymore. Afterall, January 2008 is only a quick 5 months away. It is way too costly however.

Answer 9

It is starting more and more to early. Some of it I think is because of the hatred out there that just launches the next campaign but the big thing is the media loves it because it gives them news stories and money for ads.

Answer 10

It always starts early and the front runners at the begining are rarely the same at the end. It's difficult to get too excited this early if you've been through a few elections before.