I, for one, think it is really interesting and almost exciting, that there is no way

[salin]

to predict the outcome of the Iowa caucus, the New Hampshire primary, and handful of other very early primaries.

On the one hand - I hate that the spate of early primaries (and caucuses) has pushed the campaign season to be nearly two years long.

But on the other hand, it has been a VERY long time since the question of who might emerge from EITHER party has still been in big question going into the first caucuses/primaries.

The headlines per polling are very confusing both for the dems and the repubs. I find that very interesting.

Perhaps this is from my observations as one who since being of voting age has only been able to vote in an 'early/influencial' primary once (1992 Michigan) and the rest of the time has been in states whose primaries were so late in the game, that I have been relegated to the position of "observer" of primaries for most of my adult life. (This year I don't get to vote in the primaries until May - I and many others - simply have no voice). The situation makes one more likely to sit back and watch than to pick a candidate and get invested. From that vantage point (instead of a vantage point pushing for a particular candidate - though I lean - I am not overly committed) - I can not recall an election where SO MUCH was up in the air in both parties.

Oh its also interesting "and exciting" to watch each next mis-step and ripe for well-deserved ridicule of all of the major GOP candidates. Their antics are really amusing. That is not to say that I take forgranted that the right is still incredibly disciplined and organized and could still pull off a win (by any means possible - legal or not), I have learned never to count on the feebleness of a GOP candidate to mean that said candidate will automatically lose. That said - I really find the tales of various antics, verbal blunders, and pure out idiot moves of the GOP candidates on the campaign trail highly entertaining.

[Yael]

1. This is the first election since 1928 where one of the GE noms is not known

as every election since then had a sitting President or VP running.

A lot less messy going into a primary season when you know who the final opponent will be.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Well, there's 1952, but...

your point is still valid-- no frontrunner on either side so far, and possibly even another brokered convention.

That would be exciting!

[Yael]

4. Indeedy it would!

[salin]

5. I was trying to quickly go back to find an election year with no

incumbent or former VP (and thus often default for that party) candidate who faced a serious contender. The poster below points out 1952, you point out 1928. Can it really be that only two times in the past 80 years that the primaries have been wide open for both parties?

Right now - it is so hard to get a feel or predict who might gain traction or what may cause or lose that traction in the next 45 days. Even on a single day, very different polls/predictions are being made.

While interesting to watch, it is also extremely frightening.

[gateley]

2. I agree! This is the first time I've paid attention, and the processes, deal making,

strategies, are absolutely fascinating.