Which is Better? A nominee sooner or a nominee later ??

[welshTerrier2]

the conventional wisdom has been that the Dems need to wrap up their primary season as early as possible to "heal" the wounds of the primaries, raise money for the general election and give the nominee as much time on "the big stage" as possible ... McAuliffe intentionally front-loaded the primaries to achieve this ... most talking heads tonight seemed to think this will all be over in two weeks ... that includes Carville and Begalia ...

but the wisdom of this strategy is not totally clear to me ... look at the great turnouts we've seen in Iowa and NH ... look at the incredible energy we see among democrats (even among non-DU'ers !!!)the dems are getting unbelievable "face time" because there's still a horserace in the party ... we don't just get to see THE campaign rally, we get to see 4 or 5 democratic campaign rallies ... and we get to see a debate a week ... all dems, all the time ... it's like a tidal wave that will drown bush and his evil minions ...

now, let's say that the democrats have a nominee in two weeks ... no more debates ... that little perk is gone ... and campaign rallies? i suppose C-Span will still cover them once in awhile, but without the horserace factor, i'm not sure they'll attract much interest ...

so, it's unclear to me just how soon this thing should be all wrapped up ... i'm leaning towards Kerry at this point ... but i commend the high energy Deanies and all the other candidates for keeping democrats on the front page ... keep fighting for your candidate ... we all are benefitting from the struggle ...

comments ??

[Maddy McCall]

1. A nominee when the best nominee has been selected and Dems in all states

have had an opportunity to vote. Unless candidates bow out, then all Dems in all states should have the opportunity to vote in the primary.

Is this about dollars or democracy??

[welshTerrier2]

5. well

you really didn't address the question i was raising but your answer is very interesting nonetheless ...

i like your suggestion about ensuring that all voters have a chance to express their preferences in a primary ... i think our current system is absurd for this very reason ...

the question i was trying to raise, however, was whether the dems chance of beating bush was better with a quick decision or a protracted primary battle ... or was your point that the dems would be better off, regardless of how long it took, if all democrats had a say in the primaries ??

otherwise, while i don't at all disagree with you, it seems like you're mixing apples and oranges ...

[dolstein]

2. I'd rather have Edwards later than Kerry sooner

I suspect a lot of elected officials are going to get behind Kerry now at least in part because they want to avoid a lengthy primary contest. I think this is a mistake. Only three weeks ago, Kerry's campaign was considered dead in the water. And all of Kerry's flaws are still they're -- they've just been obscured by the sudden wave of favorable press coverage. But if he wraps up the nomination early, all those doubts will resurface again.

[lovedems]

3. Living in Illinois, later is better. There are still alot of people who

would like a chance to vote and feel their vote counts. It shouldn't be over yet.

[PVnRT]

17. Indiana as well

n/t

[Catch22Dem]

4. Later

It makes the pukes spread their hatered around rather than concentrating it on one person.

[pacifictiger]

8. The Bushies will get ugly after

the nominee has been chosen so the longer the process goes on, the better chance the dems have of getting their message out before the pitch battle starts. And this year is about doing things unconventionally. The democratic establishment might not be flexible enough to realize that though. I think it should be dragged out as long as possible as long as the candidates do not start to slaughter each other - if that starts to happen, beyond legitimately pointing out differences in a gentlemanly type way, it would be time to pull the plug on the process.

[IndianaGreen]

6. On to California!

Let everyone's voices be heard.

[Nazgul35]

7. Later!

We haven't had this much coverage of Dem voices since Clinton was in office!!!!


And it's all free!!!

Hell Bush is having to run around the country because his message is being blocked out by the race!!!!

Every time one of our candidates talk about what a disaster Bush is...and it is echoed throughout the media, the more likely people are to be informed....

Also, many of the states in Feb. and early March are swing states, we get people to pay attention and learn the facts as the Dem race reaches them!!

[pacifictiger]

10. another thought I had

was, I think there will be chaos in iraq around about the time of the july 1 transfer of power deadline, and bush will be frantically coping with that image. The dems absolutely need to continue as a bush bashing team effort while things there are relatively smooth. It will allow more time for the scandals to surface also.

[Myra]

9. A good nominee is the most important.

Just do it right.

[John_H]

11. A little Historical perspective

For nearly 200 years of American history, the nominee was not picked until the convention. So does that mean we should all hope for a floor fight in Boston? Of course not, but we're going to have a nominee by the first week of March. That's about par for "deny the other guys a second term" course in recent times and is way early if you take even 20th century precedent into account.

[yellowdawgdem]

12. Later /nt

[Leilani]

13. Later

We need the strongest candidate, & different parts of the country need to be heard from. So few people have participated so far, & the longer it goes, the more attention the Dems get.

Bush is not making the news, the Dems are.

[HazMat]

14. Not too early, not too late.

It has to be late enough to create excitement, but early enough to be able to pump up the nominee and fight it out with the GOP. March 10 is good.

Too late is not good because we need enough time for all the dirt to be aired and dealt with. It's better if the dirt comes out early, way before November, so it can be ironed out, so it won't be the last thing the voters think of.

I get the feeling Dean is going to take his delegates to the floor, though. Hopefully Kerry will have enough delegates so he doesn't have to rely on Dean getting behind him.

[Piperay]

I would like a chance as a Californian to have my vote count. Also the longer it goes the more swipes the Democrats can take at chimp and he can't direct his at any individual candidate plus interest in the election grows and grows. :thumbsup: :-)

[Piperay]

15. Dupe

I accidently duped my message, so I removed it myself. :spank:

[iowapeacechief]

16. How about a link to best case for "front loading"?

I don't like it, but I'd like to read the best-case rationale.

[PVnRT]

18. Later

(1) It gives Democrats ALL OVER the country, not just those in select theaters, the chance to cast their opinion and vote.

(2) It forces the candidates to go to more states and spread their message more, ensuring that more people hear it. In essence, you can be campaigning for president at the same time you are trying to win the nomination. A head start of a few months can do wonders.

(3) Hopefully, if more candidates stay in it, we won't just see someone who got hot early win the nomination early then get trounced by the Republicans.

[creativelcro]

19. As later as possible...