[ilgipper]

I disagree that the primaries lost the election. In 2008, Hillary and Obama had a brutal primary and Obama still won the presidential election. This past election had more to do with the candidate the Republican Party placed on the ballot...Romney was not a strong candidate.I am with you 100%. That was a much, much more contentious primary in 2008. Ours wasn't 25% as intense. Our problem was a lack of good candidates. Romney, for all his warts as a candidate, had a much stronger organization, more funding, and frankly outperformed the others in advertising and preperation. I was and ABR, but the rest were underfunded, lacked ground support and frankly no one else really offered the whole package. We had great conservative ideas, great debate moments, etc, but no one was a clear better alternative for the general election. We just restocked our bench in the past three years with 1st term governors and senators and none were ready to run.

I do agree that the debates could be reduced some. There were so many, it was overkill. We have to have enough to allow voters to sort through the options, but not 1-2 a week for six months before the first primary.

[Tublecane]

There are people like us, who are forced to sit through every agonizing detail of all the endless debates because we are addicted to politics, and some of us actually care. This ought not be confused with the general public, which may have been sick of Republicans by the time the general election rolled out. But not because of endless debates. They don’t pay attention to those.

I don’t know why exactly. Maybe through half-remembered two second clips on tv or headlines bumped into online. Which has something to do with the endlessness of primary season, and more to do with media coverage of it. Anyway, my point is don’t confuse the fatigue of those who actually paid attention with the apathy of a majority if voters, who don’t reliably pay attention before the Dem-Pub debates, if then.