This is why your obscure candidate will NEVER get the Dem nomination

[matcom]

PRIMARIES!

Folks, here are the facts. There are no less than 12 states who will/are moving up their primaries. In fact, February 5th is THE 'National Primary' Day next year.

Those 12 states are 'roughly' HALF OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION!

What does this mean?

Your PRIMARY campaign cycle next year will effectively last 3 WEEKS.

What does THAT mean? If you aren't the FRONT RUNNER, you will NOT HAVE TIME to get the $$ to get elected.

Dirty little secret I know but facts are facts. The 'front-runners' as of around 10/01/07 (both parties) are virtually a SHOE-IN for the nomination. No more dark-horses, no more 'comeback kids', no more 'coming from behind'.

You got the early bucks, you got the shot.

Sad but true.

[patrice]

1. . . .

:grr:

[matcom]

2. hey, I don't like it either

but its reality

[Ignacio Upton]

3. Not necessarily

It may become more likely that some candidates will bypass the earlier primaries and concentrate on later states. Other candidates (most notably Clark) were doing this in late 2003 because the conventional widsom at the time was that Dean would wipe the floor in Iowa and New Hampshire. Kerry ultimately won the nomination because of a "snowball effect" that came about because of his bounce from his unexpected win in Iowa. Had Dean won as expected, the primary season would have been much more drawn out.

[matcom]

4. won't work that way now

again. almost HALF the population will decide on effectively ONE DAY. they won't have the OPTION to pick and chose

[WI_DEM]

5. My guess is that given the way the primaries are clustered together this year that the nominee will

be one of these four people: Clinton, Obama, Edwards or Gore if he runs.

[matcom]

6. my bet is you would be 100% correct

and will really be decided around October

[manic expression]

7. It's not about who people want

it's about how much money they have. That's the way it works, because of the capitalist system. Do away with capitalism and you fix this problem completely.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. So the nomination is sewed up by March 1. Wow. That's a disaster

in the making.

The main problem that I see is that the Repugs will know who their Swiftboat target is by March. Can any candidate withstand a steady barrage of lies and pustulent propaganda from March to November?

Of course, their candidate will likewise be known early. Given the effectiveness of negative politics in winning elections, mostly by generating voter apathy among the opposition, the only way to win might be for us to engage in an equally destructive campaign against their candidates. We may actually win in the short term with such a strategy, but the whole nation will lose in the long run.

[matcom]

9. If they wait till March 1, they will be VERY late

[Jackpine Radical]

11. I was just picking a date. OK-Feb 15 or something. My point

becomes even stronger as the date gets earlier.

[smalll]

10. Exactamente - and not just obscure candidates either --

Even blockbusters like Gore "will NEVER get the Dem nomination" if he waits until :silly:"Fall":silly: :rofl: to get in the game. Gore will NOT do that - he knows better, he's a grown-up politician, he will get in soon enough, or he WON'T get in.

You point to an important fact about the process this time: because of this front-loading, BY THIS TIME NEXT YEAR, the nominees WILL be known. For the nomination, 2007 is the campaign year.

I think it's a little sad we see so many posts here on DU right now fantasizing about a Gore Fall entry: ("The current candidates will seem so awful that America will be demanding a new face!" ) Hmm. So when did that last happen, exactly? And are Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Richardson, Biden and Dodd really any worse as a group that the usual collection of Democratic candidates? They're really not that bad as a group.

And then there's that skunk of an argument that says that Gore playing possum until the end of the year is somehow "brilliant" because, you see, without running, he won't have to face being attacked by the big bad MSM, Rush Limbaugh, etc. etc. (Even though he is being attacked even now. And will be anyway when he gets in.) I even saw a post today (I swear) that claimed that, because Gore is being attacked in the media NOW because the powers that be are afraid of him, when he gets in "in the fall" the attacks will be "old" at that point, and somehow go from fatal to inconsequential. I SAW THIS KIND OF THINKING BEFORE, as a lurker, post-election 2004:

I think the idea that the election was stolen is perfectly valid, I think the idea that Bush actually won somehow is also valid. But what was NOT valid was all the people here at DU at the time, that when Kerry conceded the next day and said nothing, started up all this jibber jabber about how "brilliant" it was, because after all, Rush Limbaugh would attack him just unbearably if Kerry complained at that point, and you know what? Kerry's working "stealthily" and will get all his proof (quietly) and all his legal ducks in a row, and then will show up on January 6th (or even January 20th) and Bush will be arrested and frog-marched out and Kerry will be inaugurated and pink unicorns and candy-colored rainbows and yes and oh yes I say yes! I believe!

[matcom]

12. goes for Gingrich as well

same boat

[WI_DEM]

13. I agree. I'm not one of those who say that Rudy will never be nominated

first, he is leading all the polls early and he will raise a lot of money and I think that many Republicans just want to win in '08 (especially if Hillary is looking like the nominee) and they may hold their noses and vote for Rudy if it seems like he would be the strongest nominee especially among the all critical Independent voters.

[question everything]

14. This is why we need grouped primaries rotating in orders

Group states by geographic location, by size, areas of interest or other criteria, and have about 7 or 8 primaries, one a month.

And rotate the order at which they occur each cycle.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. "Democracy" as dictated by the money bosses and media.

Gee, I wonder how corporations got so much power and influence.

graft (n)

1. Unscrupulous use of one's position to derive profit or advantages; extortion.
2. Money or an advantage gained or yielded by unscrupulous means.

oligarchy (n)

1. a. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
b. Those making up such a government.

2. A state governed by a few persons.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. I HATE PRIMARIES!!! There, I...

said it.

I hate democracy.

I don't know of any real altermatives, but I did grow up with the suspense of conventions and multiple votes to get a nominee. That system, and all the corruption behind it, gave us a couple of Roosevelts, a Wilson, a Lincoln, an Eisenhower, a Truman, and some great losers like Stevenson.

It gave us some lousy Presidents, too, but what's so great about the crop we've had in the last 30-40 years? One thing it probably wouldn't have given us is a total disaster like this Bush character.

So, from smoke-filled rooms and backroom deals among party bosses we now still have smoke-filled rooms and backroom deals, but with even more massive fundraising and an almost preordained candidate with over 7 months to campaign and raise even more money.

Permanent campaigns are nothing new-- everyone interested is always working an angle to get the nod, like Clinton was for years, and there were those like Bryant who were publicly canmpaigning forever. But, moving these primaries up reduces any chance of real choice.

That, of course, is exactly what they want.