Why are state caucuses/primaries spread out for 5 months anyway?

[snowbear]

Starting with Iowa in January and finally wrapping up with Montana and New Jersey in June. :silly:

I realize Iowa loves the dubious distinction of being "first in the nation", and I can see why. Iowa and New Hampshire create the mojo it seems.

But how did it come to be that the primaries last from winter to summer?

Would you prefer it stay that way, or would you like for all states to have an even chance at creating the front-runner?

:shrug:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Why?

To maximize press, I would think.

They should shorten primary season and hols all the votes the same day. That would save the money for the campaign of the nominee and would allow him or her to hit the trail immediately.

[One_Life_To_Give]

2. These date from times when

it would take a candidate a long time to get around to all of these places. And to actually try to talk in front of people in an age before radio.

IMHO doing away with Iowa and NH will reduce the race to who can buy the most TV time. It's not practical to expect the candidates to talk to a majority of Californians. But in NH, they actually rub elbows with a fair portion of the voters.

[cestpaspossible]

7. I learned alot about the candidates from watching their Iowa and NH

events on cspan. I loved the town hall meetings where the camera would follow the candidate around afterwards and you'd get to see the interactions with individual voters, their questions and the responses, instead of just hearing the same stump speech/ sound bite over and over and over and over....

[havocmom]

3. Used to want a one day primary for the whole place, but now, I like that

it drags on a bit. Smaller states would never get any visits otherwise. And a longer season gives time to get more info out there. A shorter campaign would benefit those who look good for a bit but don't do pressure well. The US needs leaders that can take a bit of pressure AND we need time to try and get a real look at the ponies in a race.

Now, if the media were just truly independent and unbiased so candidates would be exposed instead of just getting exposre, things would be better.

[housewolf]

4. Look at it from the perspective of the candidates

An incredible amount of primary campaigning, particularly in the beginning, is about personal contact. The candidates go to places like New Hampshire and do stuff like go to small meetings of people, walk around town and talk to people, go to union meetings, Rotary club meetings, meet & greet people in delis & restuarants - all kinds of stuff that enables them to meet with people personally.

And the reason they do that is because for many of the candidates, unless they are local politicians, they are not well known in those areas.

As the candidates spend time in small areas talking to people, they gain press some national press coverage. Over time, people across the country get to know them through the national press coverage but in the early days of the primary campaigns, most of America isn't paying attention.

It takes a huge build-up of support over time for a consensus to build as to who the nominee should be.

Admittedly, it's a flawed system in which states with the earlier primaries have more influence over who will be the nominee than late-primary states do. Particularly in this "horse race" media culture we're in.

But we're a very large country and the vast majority of the population doesn't pay that close attention to political campaigns until the election is upon them.

[snowbear]

5. Thanks for the answers! ...I know one thing...

General Clark learned the hard way that Iowa makes a huge difference. I doubt Clark (if he runs again) or ANY candidate will ever bypass the first state in the primaries again!

BTW.. Iowans kicked ass in raising money for the '04 election (12th in the nation) and most of it was for the Democratic party (58% D to 42% R) :)

Yet even though they launched Kerry into the spotlight (face it.. THEY gave him the momentum).. he definitely didn't do so well in the end.

http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050605/OPINION01/506050334/1035/archive

[cestpaspossible]

6. One of the original reason Montana set their primary in June

is just to have a short election season. Makes it easier for the part-time citizen legislators to get involved.

[Orangepeel]

8. theoretically, it is to give less known, less funded candidates a shot

a candidate can, theoretically, campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire without a lot of money (because they can talk to many voters individually) and then use momentum in those states to campaign elsewhere and raise funds. If all the primary votes were held simultaneously, it would be harder for a lesser known candidate to compete because he/she couldn't be everywhere and couldn't afford mass media.

But, that said, I don't like that so few people have such a big influence on the primary and I would have liked my vote to count.

[Awsi Dooger]

9. A long primary season has plus/minuses for the out party

If everything were decided in January, the focus would immediately shift away from the eventual nominee and the party in power could dominate every news cycle and define its opponent, particularly in the case of an incumbent who will run again like last year. Clinton was smart to keep running long after he had clinched the nomination, tagged along by Jerry Brown who refused to drop out.

On the other hand, as others have mentioned in this thread, an early identification of the nominee allows for earlier fundraising and formulation of fall strategy, plus supposed unification around the nominee.

My belief, as always, is that money is preposterously overrated as opposed to basic likeability. You'll never convince me that cash or commercials sway via preference the critical non-polarized 8-10% more than a general impression of the candidate. I would prefer a longer primary process and one that doesn't commit so early, allowing latecomers more of a chance in case something breaks late.