I was having a discussion with a buddy of mine and we were talking about the presidential primary system. Why does it continue to churn out the more extreme candidates from both sides? Why not McCain in 2000? Why not Edwards in 2004? The fact that 21 states do not allow independents to vote in a major primary is a big part of it. There are many things that need changing, but we eventually focused in on the media. From the
Center for Politics,
QUOTE
New Hampshire and Iowa have established themselves as the permanent "poll position" occupants in the nation's presidential nominating season. Because of their "first-in-the-nation" status, these two small states consistently dominate media and candidate attention, thus giving them the power to make or break campaigns. The momentum from a win in one of these states, or more importantly, a symbolic victory as declared by the press, can help propel a candidate to the front of the horserace.
(snip)
Perhaps most troubling, the mystique surrounding Iowa and New Hampshire has played a role in prompting the other 48 states to follow suit. The phenomenon of front-loading, or states pushing their primary dates forward to gain national attention, poses a major challenge to the nominating calendar.
Questions for Debate: Is there adequate issue coverage by the media during Presidential Primary campaigns? Do media outlets focus on campaign coffers and horserace reporting-calling "winners" and "losers" one contest at a time have an adverse effect on the Presidential Primary system? If horserace reporting is a problem, what can be done to bring the issues and every states opinion to the forefront?