The idea that running early is a good thing can be attributed to the successful campaign of Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton reinforced that notion, and Howard Dean nearly did so.
For 2012, I think that the lack of any clear front-runners helps someone who starts out early, but I think that Romney is too much of a known quantity to get much of an advantage from that. The type of politician who would benefit most from starting an early presidential run is probably someone who is relatively young and relatively unknown to the point that people say that person should wait until 2016 or later.
I'd rather just tie voter registration into a national ID card. Make it government-funded. Make sure that everyone gets a card. Have a grandfather clause where everyone 60 or older when the card is implemented doesn't have to get one and can register to vote by the old rules. Otherwise, there is a national voter roll which includes the name of every citizen.
This proposal will get bipartisan support from the populist nativists in the Republican Party.
If it passes by a slim majority with declared Clinton backers switching their votes from a previous "no" vote (if they voted for stripping Michigan and Florida previously), then people being for punishing the two states before being against it might be the big media story that comes out of the vote.
You could, for example, have 13 public Clinton endorsers, Katz and Brewer voting for their states, and one other voting as a majority. Accurate or not, the comparisons will be to things like the 2000 Supreme Court decision on the presidential election and Henry Clay's "corrupt bargain."
How many of them were on the Rules and Bylaws Committee when it voted to strip Michigan and Florida of delegates? Has the membership changed at all? (The only dissenting vote last time around was Allan Katz of Florida, who is in the Obama column.) I tend to think that Alexis Herman and James Roosevelt Jr. are not inclined to reverse their votes, especially Roosevelt, who called himself a "rules geek" and signaled that his emphasis is on following the letter of the law. I tend to think that Howard Dean made them co-chairs of the Credentials Committee at the national convention because they were inclined toward deciding things for legalistic rather than political reasons.
As I pointed out, one link in the diarist's chain, that the DNC is convinced by future events to stack the credentials committee in Hillary Clinton's favor, is not reasonable because those members of the committee have already been chosen.
3) DNC simply stacks the 25 members of the rules board that Dean selects with Pro Hillary votes. Thats where it will happen. Dean will crown Hillary for the good of the party.
Howard Dean has already made his appointments. As a clue for how they will vote, two of the three co-chairs that Dean named to head the committee are/were the co-chairs of the Rules and Bylaws Committee that voted to increase the delegate penalty to Michigan and Florida.
That's not entirely true. Since it will be close, Howard Dean appointed a bloc of delegates who will probably decide anything where Obama and Clinton delegates are divided by candidate. Considering that two of the three co-chairs of the credentials committee were the co-chairs of the rules and bylaws committee that chose to enact the fullest penalty on Michigan and Florida and the rest of Dean's appointments may be similarly-minded, it looks like the committee is tilted against seating Florida and Michigan.
Your ideas are too direct. You need to ask leading questions. Insinuate, insinuate, insinuate!
Get bloggers to write posts answering these questions:
-Is George W. Bush actually smarter than John McCain? (probably)
-Did John McCain do anything of distinction in the military besides become a POW? (not that I know of)
-Is John McCain too old to be president? (change vs. tired old politics)
If you're lucky, the mainstream media will pick up on these questions and post polls on their websites.