Does anyone else feel this frontloading of presidential primaries has gotten out of hand?

[WOSQ]

Posted: 8/24/07 at 4:37pm

It is like the whole thing has turned into a peeing contest.

Soon the first primary will be at Thanksgiving.

[yodamarie78]

Posted: 8/24/07 at 4:42pm

At this point it would make a lot more sense to just go ahead and have every state vote on the same day. They're all moving their dates anyway.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/24/07 at 5:00pm

Yes. It's absurd. Of course it makes no more sense to let Iowa and New Hampshire pick our candidates.

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 8/24/07 at 5:02pm

It is a terrible process that is not doing the country or the voters any good.

The current primary process has the federal government totally on hold from March 2007-January 2009.

[The Boy From Ohio]

Posted: 8/24/07 at 5:07pm

It might not be such a bad ideal to put the (current) federal government on hold.

[mominator]

Posted: 8/24/07 at 5:34pm

Let's just forget about it and have the election next week and be done with it all!

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 8/24/07 at 5:59pm

Right "boy"

Congress has a rating of 18%

[The Boy From Ohio]

Posted: 8/24/07 at 6:21pm

I know "HDT" if there were more Dem's they might have actually pass all the things they wanted. I hardly call 51-49 a majority. If the Repub's block everthing, they are equally to blame. America voted for change, and that's not happening. I agree with the low rating's, but I don't think we blame the same people.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 8/24/07 at 6:24pm

They have been out of hand for a long time.

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 8/25/07 at 10:27am

Harry Reid has been a GREAT majority leader.

(That's sarcasm for those of you in Manhattan)

[Elphaba]

Posted: 8/25/07 at 10:32am

yess well, they all just wanted to beat California, since we changed ours first.....damn copycats. As if some of thise tiny "weenies" mean anything by going before us, hrumph!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/25/07 at 10:34am

I agree that I would like to see all states share primary day--it would open the field.

I agree that this massive amount of frontloading has been a bit much, but as far as starting earlier, it could prove to be a good thing--get all the crap out of the way hopefully.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 8/25/07 at 11:40am

I just wish they were all moving them back, month after month after month of the General Election is fun for poltiphiles like me, but it turns off a lot of "casual" voters. It also becomes quite the headache to see 500,000 30second ads, which of course is about the worst way anyone could have ever devised to let someone know about important issues.

I agree with Yoda that it would be better at this point to have them all on the same day, although there is a small bit of validity to the counterargument the little states make. This system at least makes the candidates visit a state other than the 3 or 4 large "swing states" and meet the people there.
(Of course the problem that New Hampshire and Iowa then get disproportionately more say in the process than anyone else is a valid argument.)

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/25/07 at 11:42am

And is how one ends up with Kerry and not Dean.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 8/25/07 at 12:08pm

In 1992 though one may have wound up Tsongas.

[The Boy From Ohio]

Posted: 8/25/07 at 12:16pm

I never have understood why Iowa and New Hampshire go first. I'm all for a one day primary, be done whit it. Then the attack ad's begin. I'm suprised that commericals have not started in Ohio yet the "bellweather state", soon I'm sure.