Why not split your broader population up into smaller groups, and micro-target each of those individual groups? The more personalized message swill be more effective, and the overall cost will still likely be lower.
I'm not ure if the ocmpacted schedule lessens Iowa and NH's impact or strengthens it--if Hillary, for example, does worse than expected in both (or possibly even one of those staters), she will have virutually no time to change her message or strategy. The press momentum from Iowa and New Hampshire will be the last thing in voters' minds as they vote in a semi-national primary.
Perhaps it means that there won't be time to move the national numbers. Perhaps not.
I would also add that we no longer have the same imperative to 'get bush out of office,' which might mean that primary voters won't see the same impetus to coalesce around a frontrunner that they did in 2004.
The ironic part is that Bush is just defunding the war. With every veto, he is refusing to fund the troops. This latest bill gives him everything he wants, with the simple stipulation that he actually work with Congress.
Not in elective political office. You have to admit that it is pretty rare to start out at the US senate in a state where you are not native. She is obviously smart and talented enough to have built up her own career if she hadn't been helping Bill for his run, but she hadn't won an election for anything in 1999.
Why is she unlikely to reproduce the fiasco of the early 90s?
She authored the fiasco of the early '90s. Her inability to sell it, along with her inability to author a plan that was comprehensible to the average voter is the reason we don't have UHC now. She claims to have learned from her mistakes, but I don't know whether or not I trust her on this, considering she still refuses to admit her mistake on Iraq.