Three weeks of insanity--2008 primaries

[KingofNewOrleans]

Right now according to National Association of Secretary of States the Democratic Primary/Caucus schedule looks like this:

http://www.nass.org/releases/2008%20Presidential%20Primaries%20Calendar.pdf

Jan 14th--Iowa
Jan 19th--Nevada
Jan 22nd--New Hampshire
Jan 29th--SC

Feb 5th--Alabama,Arizona,Arkansas,California,Colorado,Deleware,Florida,Georgia,Illinois,Kansas,
Michigan,Missouri,New Jersey,New Mexico,North Carolina,Oklahoma,Tennessee,Utah (and possibly Ohio,Montana, and North Dakota)

So, how does that affect the race?

Money and organization become paramount. Unlike previous years, a campaign won't be able to move their apparatus from state to state. You've got to be in 20 states on one day, that's alot more than having 3 or 4 teams skipping from state to state. The alternative is to focus on a region or group of states (ie Richardson the Mountain/Southwest/California, Edwards may ignore the Southwest and focus on Missouri/Michigan/Ohio/New Jersey as well as the South, Hillary and Obama everywhere, though even they may have to focus)

Pare it down some more and after NH, you've got to campaign in at least 20 states in 14 days. How does a campaign approach that?

The early races are vital for everyone, but especially those not named Hillary and Obama. However, since the primary season is so compact there's not much incentive for candidates to drop out before Feb 5th (what's an extra week more?), in fact it may be impossible to get off the ballot

Without the winnowing effect that primaries provide, it's plausible that candidates will be winning states with 25-30% of the vote on Feb 5th when a massive number of delegates will be chosen, and while the delegate selection rules are designed to prevent brokered conventions it certainly seems plausible that as many as four candidate could have large blocs of delegates after the voting is done on Feb 5th and by Feb 5th about 2/3rds of the non-superdelegates will be chosen (and I guarantee the Party doesn't want a brokered convention or the superdelegates having to make the choice)

It may shake out nothing like this, but the good old law of "unintended consequences" seems to have a higher than usual opportunity for havoc in this new primary set-up.

[PurityOfEssence]

1. Top-loading is the worst thing that can be done

That's the same kind of idiocy that forced Mondale upon us in '84. A long primary season shows who's got the right stuff: who can take it, dish it out, come up with the most rallying messages and show him/herself as a real winner. Shortening this process is just to empower the hacks and run roughshod over the people. What an extraordinarily bad idea.

Never fear, though: people adapt. Just as the '04 primary campaign was mostly fought in '03, the '08 one will be fought even more within '07. We're smack dab in the middle of a campaign right now. By this time next year, it'll probably be all over. That by itself is a very bad thing, since the reactionaries will have 8 months to slag the designated champion of the commoners. It's just a bad idea all around.

[karynnj]

5. A bigger reason is that not one person will have actually cast a vote

Polls have a very big flaw that many people will try to respond as they think the pollster wants. When big business uses polling to test likely popularity of possible products, they calibrate the response to correct for this.

Here, it gives hugh weight to the media, which says who is "in". It also may lead to a rapid cycle that crowns then dethrones winners, all before votes are cast.

You say that 2004 was mostly fought in 2003, but the results do not show that. In December 2003, John Kerry was tied with Sharpton in one poll and many in the media were speculating when he would drop out. This plus the party discouraging traditional Democratic donors from giving to him, led him to mortgage his house to have enough money to compete in Iowa and NH.

In 2003, Howard Dean first had a very heady month when he made the cover of 3 news magazines. Predictably, this was followed with the "is he too angry" magazines. Later, Clark was introduced as the knight in shining armor. A January 2004 article, less than 2 weeks before the primary had Clark closing in on Dean as leaders for 2004 - mentioning that the rise of Clark was bad news for Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt.

You could say that 2004 was won in January and February 2004. That was because Kerry won Iowa by meeting face to face with people and was helped by the coverage of his reunion with Rassman, where he looked liked an old fashioned American hero. From NH friends, people in NH always had liked him and when it seemed he had a chance, his numbers in NH zoomed. With those two wins AND the substance behind them, he was able to win most other primaries.

[election_2004]

2. Richardson is smart to be focusing on IA, NV, and NH

If Gov. Richardson pulls out a solid win in at least two of those three states, he will have tons of endorsements and financial goodwill spilling his way come February 5.

[snowbear]

3. I wouldn't mind that at all...

Obama and Edwards rock.. But when it comes to foreign policy experience, it's going to be tough to top Governor Richardson.

[ddeclue]

4. As someone from Florida I say it's about time..

I tired of tiny little Iowa and New Hampshire getting to make all the decisions for us when they have 1/10th our population and I'm glad Florida is moving up its primary.

We probably just need to have a single primary day nationwide and be done with it and if run offs are required, have subsequent run-offs with a 50%+1 vote rule taking all delegates of that state - then let the chips fall where they may at the convention.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL