Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: EveningStar

I think Bill Clinton was described as an underdog when he won his parties nomination although he had far more name recognition at the time than Duncan Hunter does now.


21 posted on 02/10/2007 2:32:03 PM PST by saganite (Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: saganite
I think Bill Clinton was described as an underdog when he won his parties nomination although he had far more name recognition at the time than Duncan Hunter does now.

Yes, Bill Clinton was an underdog. He benefitted tremendously from Mario Cuoumo deciding not to run. and also from a last-second loan from a Jackson Stephens-owned bank, as I recall. However, the Democrat Party , being the closest thing America has to a party of social and political revolutionaries, is more apt to have a chaotic nominating process. Washington Republicans, at least, tend to be as far from revolutionary as possible, so our nominations are much more predictable.

I think this is a bad thing. Our primaries are so frontloaded that, frankly, there is no chance for a guerilla campaign to capture the nomination behind the backs of the establishment. The primary system was designed to ensure that only Washington, corporate-approved candidates could win, because of the upfront cash requirement of the primary campaigns.

I believe Morton Blackwell once said that if the current primary rules existed in 1976-1980, ronald Reagan would not have been elected President.

255 posted on 02/10/2007 7:07:00 PM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson