Why a Long Campaign Is Worth the Pain

Young Abigael Evans spoke for a weary nation when she famously broke down in tears: We're all tired of Mitt Romney and Bronco Bamma. It's been an excruciatingly interminable campaign, that's no doubt left many longing for the kind of brisk races seen in Britain and Australia. But USA Today doesn't think our process is all bad. "At the risk of having lawn signs hurled at us, let us offer a few words in defense of the long campaign," its editors write in an editorial today.

First off, the long campaign lets us weed out weaker candidates—remember when Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich seemed like good ideas? Each "shot to the top, only to fall back when their inadequacies were exposed." We get to really know our candidates. We have enough time to dig up dirt like Romney's 47% remark. We get to see them react to events over time, witnessing, for instance, Obama's clumsy Libya response. So thank goodness it's over—but thank goodness it lasted so long. Click for the full editorial. (More Election 2012 stories.)