Reply #78: I agree that there should be a dialog [View All]

and people should be able to discuss why they support a specific candidate.

I also agree that the media and the national chair should keep their rhetoric down to a minimum.

The problem here was the front loading - no time for a candidate that didn't run well to recover (Gephardt anyone?) Or for candidates that couldn't mortgage their mansions to raise more money.

There used to be a lull between NH and the next primary - we should return to that time table (it worked well for Bill Clinton).

The reason to NOT have several states early on is to keep costs to a minimum - imagine a campaign having to have HQ and staff in ten states at one time? And the candidates having to fly from state to state to attend as many events as possible. It would become a tarmac to tarmac campaign and we wouldn't get to know any of the candidates outside of their commercials and brochures.

I do agree with grouping smaller states together (but only three or so) and having the larger states go individually - that way a candidate could do poorly in one state (or group) but rally in say New York or California giving the nation time to get to know the candidates and not ram through the nominee.