When you look back over the last several decades, the "frontrunner" for a presidential nomination almost never gets it: Dean, McCain, Bradley, Gore (in 88), Hart, Bush (in 80) and the list goes on.
Hilly is formidable but something tells me she just won't be able to get it together for the 2008 dem primary. I agree with you.
I guess it depends when you annoint the frontrunner.
Dole in 1995, Bush in 1999, Gore in 1999, Kerry in 2003 -- they were ALL frontrunners. Didn't hold leads the whole time, perhaps, but they were the favorites starting out.
Dean was only in front for a few months in late 2003, McCain was NEVER in front, Bradley may have led at some point.
"When you look back over the last several decades, the "frontrunner" for a presidential nomination almost never gets it: Dean, McCain, Bradley, Gore (in 88), Hart, Bush (in 80) and the list goes on."
Uhh... On what planet were McCain, Bradley and Bush (in 80) frontrunners? You're calling a one-term congressmen and long-gone chief spook a front-runner over the former Governor of California who won 48% of the primary vote against an incumbent just four years earlier?
Or you expected the monster from Goonies to beat the incumbent vice president in 2000?
And please, McCain was a media darling, but W had been the favorite since 1997. Did McCain ever top 10% among registered Republicans in any state besides New "We hatessss Bushesss" Hampshire.
The only two people that weren't seen a mile off were, ironically, the two you did not mention: Mike Dukakis and Bill Clinton. And even Bill was known by insiders to be the 1992 nominee as early as 1988.
The good news for democracy is that 2008 will see, for the first time since 1980, two primaries whose results have not been pre-determined. (Even though Reagen was the obvious eventual winner in 1980, I'll at least allow that this was because he had run such a great insurgency race in 1976: THe party didn't want him, but couldn't beat him.)