"You go to the Democratic primary with the candidates you have, not the candidates you might want"

[derby378]

I realize that this is way, way earlier in the primary campaign than many of us are used to, but are many of the Democratic front-runners setting themselves up for a hard fall? Let's talk about this.

[TahitiNut]

1. The Philosophy of Rumsfeld - a great way for liberals to campaign.

:puke:

[derby378]

3. Do you get the feeling that someone is choosing your candidates for you?

I think someone in the Democratic Party is scared to death of the grassroots and is doing everything in their power to blunt the grassroots.

[TahitiNut]

15. Well, there again seems to be an aroma of "be a good soldier!" in the air.

After all, only the Establishment Picks have a chance, right? :eyes:

[Deep13]

8. What does that mean?

[TahitiNut]

12. You don't know? Really?

:eyes:

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
-- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A132-2004Dec14.html

[Deep13]

13. That's it?

I knew about the quote, but your remark suggested we were using Rumsfeldian strategy to choose candidates. I thought you might have meant something more than just noticing that the OP's title was based on Rumsfeld's quote.

[skipos]

2. Non-vp frontrunners tend to lose the nomination

Kerry, Clinton, Dukakis and Carter were not the frontunners.

[saltpoint]

4. Of announced, on-the-ballot candidates, we get our choice,

but often a majority of Democrats nationwide select someone else, and the first-ballot convention candidate is already decided.

Late-season primary Democrats' votes count less toward nominations because often their first-choice candidate drops out after poorer-than-expected showings up-calendar.

That's why I favor condensing and consolidating the caucus/primary schedule so that the voting is much more evenly weighted.

First week of April: 17 states hold primaries/caucuses, the states chosen randomly every four years so it isn't the same 17 states each time.

Second week of April: 17 more states, same rules.

Fourth week: 16 remaining states, same rules.

That's a month of primary campaigning. It gives all candidates plenty of time to raise cash in advance and to build organizations.

[derby378]

6. I actually like that idea

I've felt rather bad for states so late in the primary season that their votes are merely considered formalities. It's like declaring a winner in a Presidential election before the votes from Alaska and Hawaii have been tabulated.

[saltpoint]

10. Hi, derby378. Yes. It would just feel better, too. I'd like to be

part of a large constituency of Democrats voting in 3 waves, with no guarantee that any state will be in any particular wave.

I'd sacrifice the romance of the New Hampshire primary to give everybody a much more competitive vote.

[Deep13]

5. I frankly think the three so-called front runners are highly problematic.

With the public now more concerned than ever with competence, I am concerned that Edwards and Obama have too little experience to woo voters or to govern if they do win. HRC is bringing so much baggage to the race that I don't see her winning anything that Gore or Kerry did not and perhaps losing Wisconsin and PA.

A non-rock star like Richardson will be a concesus candidate in the fall and will have the experience to govern.

[Subdivisions]

7. I know this doesn't add much to the point of the OP, but once

Al Gore announces, there will be no other candidates that can beat him.

[derby378]

9. I think you're on to something

My current choice is Al Gore, and I'm part of the Draft Gore Meetup down here in Dallas. We're a small but mighty crowd, but hopefully our ranks will continue to grow.

[Nay]

14. I tend to agree with you. Al Gore, once he announces (if he does),

will be able to build a warchest and a following that will dwarf any other. How?

1. If his movie gets an Oscar and he gets the Nobel Peace Prize, his standing is so vastly improved that he approaches superstar status.

2. There are a lot of people who see now that Gore in 2000 would have meant that we would not have been in the mess we are now mired in, and feel like they want to "cleanse" themselves of their wrong votes in 2000 by voting for Gore this time. Psychologically, this may be a very powerful force in Gore's favor.

3. The whole "he invented the internet" "brown suit" "Love Story" shit is now stale and seems pretty weird in retrospect, so maybe it won't have the power is seemed to have in 2000.

I can only hope.

[Lost-in-FL]

11. ROFL!!!

:rofl:

Because we don't know what the future might have for us Democrats. And it because there are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.