Replies

I know my history and I am stunned about how far the campaign go pushed out. In the 90's going up to 2000 there was rarely a debate before 12 months out.

I personally think that in 2004 election cycle when the democrats thought they had a legit shot and a birthright to beat Bush that this changed. The democrats were doing debates (almost all about gay marraige) 18 months before! And the liberal MSM ate it up becuase they all think alike and could not wait to sponsor debates with Al Sharpton and Howard Dean.

Also too the 2004 election cycle the DNC moved up all their primaries, basically front loaded them, so that there would not have a lengthy primary fight and just coronate a winner. Dims believe that tough primaries make them lose elections, not their $hitty ideas. Because of the front loading process, advantage would go to to person with the most money, which people like Kerry.

Yeah, and I think both sides are terrified of a "Kerry" moment whereby a couple of minor states create a whirlwind for an inferior candidate. No system is going to prevent a bad candidate (not making a judgment here on the values of the candidate himself or herself, just the ability to run a competitive campaign). The caucus system gave us John Quincy Adams; the early Jacksonian system gave us Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan; the spoils system gave us Chester Arthur; the 20th century reforms gave us Warren Harding and Jimmy Carter.

I'm still trying to figure out if the Dems REALLY want Hillary or not. I know they want Bill, and probably think she's the only way they can get him. But I think they'd LOVE to nominate Obama, except he's so stupid and says such moronic things.