Display:


Long vs Short Primary Season (3.00 / 1)

The front loaded system benefits the IA/NH winner, but everyone else loses.

The longer the primary season, the more Free and UNFILTERED Media our team gets.

There should be two weeks between IA and NH, and two weeks before the next contests. John Kerry ran the table because of the front loaded process, and he was the worse for it. If he had won after a longer process, he would have been forced to develop a real message that would resonate with a diverse group of voters. As it was, he rode the electability pony to the nomination, and never bothered to craft a viable general election strategy.

Stretch out the Primary Season -- and we ALL win.

by ck on Sun Oct 02, 2005 at 01:19:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Long vs Short Primary Season (none / 0)

The danger is not that primary contest follow Iowa or New Hampshire quickly, it's that they all quickly flood the place with votes in things like Super Tuesday. What the DNC needs to do is carefully pace out the various primaries and caucuses and make sure that there's not too much regionalism. In other words, putting a Western state and Southern state in the Iowa and NH mix is a good thing.

But avoid states where big TV markets dominate at first because candidates with a lot of money immediately become the favorite there. Or (gasp) actually limit the amount of money candidates can spend on advertising but not other campaign expenditures like events, travel, etc.

In any case, there's no coincidence that the only two successful Democrats to win the Presidency after Nixon implemented the Southern Strategy were Carter and Clinton. Both men enjoyed crazy, elongated primary seasons against an incumbent who didn't take them as seriously. Hopefully the Democrats will win again for a reason other than this...but it bears keeping in mind.

by risenmessiah on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:07:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]