Does the compressed primary schedule help or hurt the Democrats...

[Redneck Socialist]

...in relation to the general primary?

If we can rally around a candidate early on that will help us get a jump on the general election and start campaigning against bush. In the larger picture though I think the front loading of the primaries is detrimental to democracy as a whole.

It favors those candidates with better name recoginition and/or lots of money. I can hear people asking "what about Dean?" The lesson of Dean is start campaigning early and find a way to distinguish yourself. The primary schedule only helps Dean if he can meet expectations by finishing first in NH and first or second in IA.

Let me throw out a hypothetical here. What if a dark horse candidate, Kucinich for instance, pulls off an upset in NH? Could he sustain his momentum? Can he realisticly raise enough funds to continue a meaningful campaign? I don't think so and the democratic process is poorer for it. This is the problem with the current primary schedule. I think we would all be served better by a longer primary season.

I am interested in hearing what everyone else thinks about this.

[mitchtv]

1. all I know is that California is better off moving our schedule up

this state was reduced to irrelevance before with a late primary

[Redneck Socialist]

3. Has moving CA up helped?

I am from NH so I am more than a little biased, but I think there is real value in having small states earlier. It forces the candidates into contact with more people. The cliche in NH is "I haven't made up my mind, I haven't met all the candidates yet," but there is a real element of truth to that. Anyone who wants to meet a candidate can really do so with a bit of effort.

The value in this is that it forces the candidates to react to real people and to address their concerns directly rather than relying on a script or a message delivered remotely through the media.

If more of the large states, CA, NY etc, moved their primaries back it would allow the candidate more time to campaign in those states and perhaps enable a candidate to mount a more grassroots campaign. This would allow the citizens of those states to play a greater role in choosing the eventual nominee.

[mitchtv]

7. I didn't like our June primaries

Calif was reduced to ratifying the choices of places like SC and the like. or at least that's how it felt. The large states are extremely important, no less than the swing states that may or may not even vote Dem.I personally haven't made up my mind , and look foward to seeing a campaign here in Ca.I think it lessens the effect of super Tuesday, which as far as I can see does nothing for the voters of NY(my home town) and Ca.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. They should all be held within a month of each other,

smallest states first. I hate to see anyone's vote marginalized.


Iow, compress the schedule even more.

[KittyWampus]

4. I Honestly Can't Say & Look Foward To Reading Comments

Although it seems mudslinging is more popular lately.

It seems sad for ANY state to be considered unnecessary... but money can only go so far.

That's where grass roots helps!

[Redneck Socialist]

5. Well, I am hoping...

...it won't disolve into a "my state's great, yours sucks" flame war. For a long time I thought that front loading the primary schedule hurt democracy, however this election I am hoping that we dems can get behind a candidate quickly and get on with fighting bush.

[DJcairo]

6. You are exactly right, and there is another downside.

That the untested Dean wins simply because of early (i.e. pre-primary and early primary) success. There is no time for another candidate to offer an alternative candidacy as there was for Clinton and Bush in their primaries. The media, if not the states will have made their pick based on state polling probably before a single vote is cast. That will influence the election more than anything.