. “Iowa, NH, MI, SC and throw in a western state is a good group of states to use to get a feel for the candidates.”
Thats exactly what we had with Wyoming (who) in the middle.
After NH, half (the better) of the GOP was already eliminated by the MSM pundits and they had drafted the candidate pairings they wanted, shutting the others out of the campaign reporters in tow and the press releases.
I think the primaries should be conducted in alphebetical order in pairs. Wisconsin/ Alabama Washington/Alaska etc.
Run the primarys two per week for 11 weeks with 6 states on the last week. four states per week in groups of two elections allows the candidates travel time for campaigning between elections. Put a spending cap on what each candidate can spend for each state election, or a total cap based on whatever spending strategy each candidate prefers.
Spending caps put all of the candidates on equal terms with the big budget campaigns. Let the campaigns save the majority of the campaign budget on whoever gets the nomination and return any excesses to the party for the final campaign. We have to get the big money out of the primary cycle. No thanks to John McCain and his CFR his plan has totally backfired on campaign finance. That should be a final warning that McCain is not a viable leader as President.
What really turned me off about this election cycle was two things. Starting a year earlier than tradition. And allowing 5% of the states and voters to statistically eliminate certain candidates (with help of the MSM).
I don’t know if we could have ended up with any different front running candidates using my idea. But we will never know what could have been and we are pretty much out of choices as of now.
I agree that the primary schedule should be spread out with a limited number of states per week. How it is organized can be debated. I don’t think there is anything that can be done about the media declaring winners and losers so early that candidates are marginalized before they even get going.