[omnivore]

I'm especially wondering about the whole dynamic of the early campaign and the compressed primaries. We've basically got about 8 months or so now, where the only things that will "count" are the MSM "polls" (bogus), and the "money primary" of who are the best fundraisers. Those are two seriously flawed ways to judge who would actually be a good president.

Then, all of a sudden, the primaries will come and go. Wham. The candidates will have a couple weeks to blow their budgets on un-informative TV ads, and people will have voted. But there won't be the traditional process of somebody getting momentum, while the tail of the list drop out one by one. It'll be much more sudden.

Is it going to be just a process of the voters rubber-stamping the "front-runner"? Or just the guy who can buy the most (or best) TV ads? In the one case, the party is basically handing the choice over to the MSM and their "polls." In the other case, the party is just handing the choice over to the big donors. Between the MSM and the big donors, I'm not sure if the ordinary people have any role any more, other than just voting "da" for the annointed one when the day comes.

I'm not talking about people like Freepers, I'm talking about the 90% of people who do vote in primaries but are not "politics minded" the way we are.

[patriciaruth]

Yes, the rules have changed.

The DEMS changed the rules.

McCainFeingold stopped ads they didn’t like before elections so their media would have more power to influence choices.

They moved many of the primaries up so only big media attention or big money can win.

They even get to call a lot of the shots in the “debates”— like asking the Republicans “what do you think about belonging to such a corrupt political party?” Ssheesh louise! And “how bad a President to YOU think Bush is?”

God help us all.

Now I really have to go to bed.