Are the early primaries a problem?

[zzxf]

Is it a problem that the Republican Party has voted to cut half the delegates from several of the early primaries as punishment for going too early (see http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/republicanprimaries/index.html)?

Obviously this could cut both ways, depending on how things go, but if you look at the donor map (http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/donors.html), Ron Paul could do well in places like Wyoming and New Hampshire.

Of course, most of these early states are small, and it's their symbolic impact more so than their numbers that tend to influence candidacies. So, maybe this isn't a big deal. But it still seems disturbing to me. Anyone else have any thoughts?

[hueylong]

IMHO, this is not a big problem for us. Moreso for the big money / tight with the party types candidates...

Ultimately, it is likely that these delegates will be seated anyway at the convention... The party (RNC) is trying to make a point -- but the convention can seat anyone they want.

[AlexMerced]

it's a good thing, cause it makes those early primaries less vital in the final count. There is no way if they were later on we could build enough momentum to win outright.

THis gives us aoppurutnity to place 2nd and 3rd to build the momentum we need, without sacrificeing to many delegates that would cost us the win.

It also looking at things now gives no time for giuliani and romney to make any sort of comeback... they're dead in the water cause of this

[fireworks_god]

These are great points. :)