Posted on 02/28/2007 9:38:42 AM PST by centurion316
Nineteen states or more, with half of America’s population, are moving to hold their presidential nominating primaries on Feb. 5, 2008, a mere three weeks after the Iowa caucuses and two weeks after the New Hampshire primary. In effect, we will now have a national primary and the presidential nominating season will last only three weeks from start to finish.
The effect of this gigantic sea change will be that whoever is the frontrunner in each party by the fall of 2007 will be virtually certain to win the nomination because only the frontrunner can possibly hope to amass enough money to compete in half the country at once. Nobody but the likely winner in each party will be able to compete at that level on Feb. 5.
Money will now be king. Nothing else will count very much. If you can afford to run a national campaign three weeks after the first caucus, you will win. If you can’t, you’re doomed. And the polling that designates a frontrunner now will do much to determine the nominee.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Meaning inflation in the political universe.
I think money always has been the king...
The entire idea of a "Super Primary" is the beginning of the end of our system. Thank our former party leaders for such campaign reform.
Wait...Are you saying that all the genius freepers who say that Hunter is going to emerge from nowhere and blaze to the nomination, are going to be wrong???!!
Surely not. After all, remember how the polls were wrong back in November? Remember how the GOP held the House and the Senate, Blackwell crushed Strickland in Ohio, Harris became a Senator, etc.?
I kind of like this. Anything that can potentially remove meddling by the MSM is a good thing.
Perhaps April 16 would be better. They might not have done their taxes yet before midnight on the 15th.
> The entire idea of a "Super Primary" is the beginning of
> the end of our system.
You say that like it's a bad thing....
The 2 party "system" in the US has been a nightmarishly disfunctional noose around the neck of the polity for too long, anyway.
OK Newt...if you're reading this...DECLARE YOUR CANDIDACY NOW.
Doesn't remove meddling by the MSM one bit. They just change *when* they meddle...
the infowarrior
Is there really any other way to do it in a winner-take-all system? Since Congress and the Senate are based on a single plurality winner in each seat, not a proportional system like most Parliamentary systems, regardless of what parties are out there it naturally levitates to a 2 party system after a couple election cycles even if a "third" party arises. Then the third party simply displaces one of the other two...see the defunct Whig and Federalist Parties for examples.
It is a bad thing. Now all the effort will be for one single day, February 5, 2008 to nominate. That is FAR too soon, and far too dependent on an election. It will become national, not state by state as we once knew it. The local or statewide issues will be tossed aside. I predict disaster.
Consider the situation where, very early on, a candidate locks up sufficient delegates to win the nomination. That candidate does something to self destruct making it a virtual certainty that they will not win the general election.
If the candidate doesn't withdraw, the party faces certain defeat. If the candidate does withdraw, the party risks putting an untested candidate on the ticket.
Spaced out primaries are a good training ground for the general election. The also ensure that the cream rises to the top slowly and is not boiled away in a flash of steam.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
>> "You say that like it's a bad thing...."
>
> It is a bad thing. Now all the effort will be for one
> single day, February 5, 2008 to nominate.
I don't necessarily agree that it is a bad thing. It may be just the right thing to finally put a stake through the heart of one (or better: BOTH) the major parties and allow the rise of third parties.
I think that would be a good thing.
Unfortunately, it may very well end with a disaster in the White House and Congress. If America can survive 4 years of a liberal in the White House, perhaps you will be proven right.
I would also like to see the end of a "Democrat Left" and a Democrat Lite" two party system.
Meaning that it is quite possible to see several different winners in the various regions of the country. Only the frontrunners can compete everywhere. So the 'also-rans' won't compete everywhere. They'll concentrate their efforts and we could see upsets in some states. That'll force the "frontrunners" and the MSM to take notice.
Anything is possible. In 1988, Al Gore barnstormed the South leading up to Super Tuesday, which he won the majority of. It catipulted him from last place to third place behind Dukakis and Jackson. Granted, after that, he was a Super Thud and even the endorsement of Ed Koch couldn't help him in New York but he made himself a factor in the race.
I'm already sick of the 2008 election. If we select the candidates in February the whole country will be sick of them before November.
How late could someone enter the presidential race as an
independent?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.