Has the frontloaded Dem primary season helped or hurt us?

[elperromagico]

Poll question: Has the frontloaded Dem primary season helped or hurt us?

[patricia92243]

1. Media coverage/free publicity has dropped to zero.

[Paulie]

2. Exactly

Now we have 8 motnhs of basically dead air. Kucinich, Dean and Clark are atleast still out there. It sucks that we have to wait for the next * scandal to have legs, and not just pound him constantly in debates...

[KittyWampus]

11. You Mean The Media Coverage Of Clark Wearing Sweaters

Or Kerry's fake "Intern Problem"?

The ONLY positive media was pretty much around Edwards.

By the way, once Clark was out, the media had already turned against Kerry and was desperately trying to help Edwards' along.

[AntiCoup2K4]

3. In all likelihood, it will lead to the death of this party (and country)

...and that's just the way they planned it :grr:

[Mairead]

20. I think you might be onto something there (nt)

[VOX]

4. I don't like it. There's what, four months until the Dem convention...

And RoveCo now has its sights narrowed on a single target. It feels like way too much time -- time to allow * dozens of flag-waving photo-ops, and for the GOP to get their ducks(and heavy cash reserves) in order.

[dmkinsey]

21. I don't believe there was a 'top down' decision

about the front loaded primary calendar.
Here in Michigan, Democrats demanded that our caucus be held earlier so that we'd have a chance to vote before the issue was resolved.
States holding their primaries and caucus' late simply don't count. The 'cash primary' and momentum will substitute for actual votes and damn it, we wanted to vote.

[Leilani]

5. I think it's too soon to know

The media attention has been lost, but Kerry has more time to raise money.

There's more time to attack Kerry, but the party is united early.

6 of 1, half dozen of another.

I'll wait to decide.

[charliebrown]

6. The media is lost and the party has a problem

You say it is united but in some respects it is divided. They are not coordinating. Dean goes public with something and Kerry is forced to run away from what he says. It just happened after Madrid. I think with the $$$ difference, the 8 months and Kerry not getting vetted in the primaries. This early choice was very bad.

[newyawker99]

9. Hi charliebrown!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[jpgray]

7. I don't think people realize Al Gore was the nominee at the same time

The frontloading didn't change much in that respect.

[elperromagico]

22. Yes, but Gore was the presumptive nominee anyway.

And he only had one major opponent, Bill Bradley.

This year, we've had a total of 10 candidates, 8 of whom competed in the primaries.

A better example would be Clinton in '92 or Dukakis in '88. It took them quite a while to clinch the nomination, if I recall correctly.

[Endangered Specie]

8. too early to tell

[KittyWampus]

10. As A Clark Supporter, Imagine My Surprise When I Voted "Helped Us"

Less money being spent between Democratic Candidates.

More time to get on One Message & speak with One Voice.

Organization & Unity is the KEY to winning in 2004

[DaveSZ]

12. It's too early to tell

The fact we nominated a guy from the Northeast really isn't that helpful though.

[trogdor]

13. Dragging it out would have been more costly.

Now Kerry has a greater ability to attract grass-roots campaign contributions because we're not already tapped out. If it dragged on into May or whenever, nobody'd have any money left to give JK for the campaign against Bush. Sure, Bush has a mountain of cash to throw at us, but we haven't already emptied out our wallets in the primary campaign, so catching up is easier. All it takes is for Bush to release another of those offensive attack ads, and out come the credit cards.

[cosmokramer]

14. Hurt us...and badly, too.

And here is why:

I don't necessarily object to front loading the primaries. The real issue is that the FIRST TWO states that get to vote (and their result is the media momentum in to the next series of primaries) ARE BOTH ABOUT 95% WHITE.

The democratic party is NOT 95% white, and it seriously disenfranchises minority voters to have no say in the first two contests. Iowa and New Hampshire do not have similar demographics to our party membership.

It is ridiculous that white people only are deciding, in all seriousness, our party nominee. Now, if the primaries were not so frontloaded (and I mean spread out like it was with Clinton '92) it might not matter so much because there would be some candidate vetting.

BUT, if the primaries remain frontloaded, it is VITAL for the sake of fairness to the people that 95% white states don't get to name the front-runner.

[DrFunkenstein]

16. Actually, Kerry Polled Best With African-Americans And Women

Not to throw you off-track or anything.

[jpgray]

17. That was after Iowa and NH, however

It's tough to guess if he would have had the same numbers without those two victories going into the diverse states.

[cosmokramer]

18. It doesn't change my point at all.

Perhaps most African Americans would disagree to allowing someone to act as their surrogate in a 95% white state.

[Walt Starr]

15. Irreparably

We are so close to losing it all that if Kerry is not elected, I'm certain the Democratic Party will be the 21st century Whigs.

[PATRICK]

19. This is like voting

for the Iraq War Resolution. Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons and then judging by pragmatic "success". Then, ironically, seeing that idealism or the right thing might have caused even more harm?

Have to change this whole dismal way of thinking. In general the primaries have been a success. The game plan stunk and still does. The other issue of the result- months left twiddling thumbs under constant GOP barrage seems quite independent of the primaries. That, or much worse, could have happened under any system.

And underneath this murk lies the assumption by some here that Kerry is a bad choice to begin with- which is ANOTHER problem and issue for some, but gloom sucks the universe into its self affirming complex.

Thank God it is Kerry and not some people here in charge of the campaign.

If you want a poll on more democratic process, fine. This one was a trap and I did not vote.

[elperromagico]

23. Some of you act as though any poll is legally binding.

It's just an opinion poll, and nothing more. Like any Internet poll (or any poll, arguably), it is essentially insignificant and just a gauge of attitudes at any given point in time.

There's a poll on favorite kitty cats somewhere over in the DU Lounge, I'm sure. Perhaps you can go over and complain about that one as well.