Sixty-three percent of all voters – including more than half of Democratic primary voters – say the length of the Democratic primary battle has hurt the Democratic nominee’s chances. Just 27 percent say it has helped the nominee’s cause.
But the solution to this seems a bit nutty…
Roughly two-thirds of Democratic primary voters think there is a better way: to have a single national primary day instead of the current, staggered timeline.
It’s over in one fell swoop? I’m not really a big fan of that. The one silver lining to all of this is that the candidates visited nearly every single state and territory in the union, and that’s definitely a positive thing. It may not result in party unity, but it was certainly good for democracy and the economies of all the states involved.
Also, a single primary day could result in a huge mess. Because it wouldn’t be just between two candidates, right? CBS didn’t detail what they meant by a single primary day, but imagine 7 different candidates splitting up the delegate pie. Sure, you’d have probably two people vying for a majority and then somebody in a close third and then a bunch of people wrestling for fourth, fifth, etc., but would anybody get the delegates they’d need to clinch? Highly, highly doubtful. What it would result in is a guaranteed fight at the convention. I mean, maybe I’m not fully getting this idea, but it doesn’t seem like a good one.
And sure, this would cut down on all the media coverage and spin and nonsense we see on the campaign trail, but part of that is definitely practice for what a candidate will face when he or she is in the Oval Office. As maddening as the process is, that experience campaigning shouldn’t be discounted.