2008 Conventions Scheduled Back-to-Back

[AGENDA21]

The Republicans plan to hold their 2008 nominating convention just three days after the Democrats wrap up theirs, setting up the closest political conventions in 50 years.

Republicans on Thursday announced that their convention will be Sept. 1-4. Democrats had already set their dates for Aug. 25-28, just after the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.

The timing of the GOP event could undercut any bounce that a Democratic nominee might get from the party gathering and would give the Republicans the last word politically.

The party in power traditionally holds its convention after the challenging party. In 2004, Democrats held their convention in late July in Boston and Republicans met in New York City at the end of August.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/143325.shtml?s=ic

[Faygo Kid]

1. Nasty brutish stuff coming from the GOP in 2008, assuming. . .

. . .there is a convention.

[bryant69]

2. Yeah that's a bit of nasty - I wonder how much the olympics played

into this. I also wonder why we announced our convnetion first.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Zen Democrat]

7. No more than ever. The Olympics always coincide with the conventions.

I don't see this adjacent conventions as a minus. We'll have a convention, following which the nominees for Pres and Vice Pres have historically gone on a bus tour blitz through the country -- drawing enormous and enthusiastic crowds. The crappola that will be coming from the Republican podium every night can be dealt with immediately on the Dems campaign blitz. It has always been the case that the opposing party lays low and goes on vacation during the opposing party's convention; however, with the Republicans doing this, the Dems can go after them while the bullshit is going down.

Also, after a week of the Dems, people may be speeched-out and just ignore the Repukes altogether. In a case of going back to back .... I'd rather be first!

[saltpoint]

3. Have the conventions' locations been named yet?

[AGENDA21]

5. According to the article...No.

[gkhouston]

4. actually, I'm wondering if Joe Average will have had his fill

of convention coverage after the first one and pay no attention at all to the second. Maybe it's a good thing they're so close together.

[AllegroRondo]

6. Interesting timing

If I remember correctly, the Repubs had some difficulties with holding their convention so late in 2004, because many states require the nominees to be named by Sept 1. This allows states to print ballots and send out absentees, etc. The Repubs had to ask for extensions in a number of states last time, and many were not happy about it.

[safi0]

8. The good thing

About it from our perspective is that we'll minimize the August swoon. I know the reason the good Doctor scheduled it at this time because we all saw how poorly Kerry did in August because he was waiting till federal money was available and the Swiftboat stuff hit the fan.

[THUNDER HANDS]

9. once again

we f up. Why couldn't we have waited until the GOP announced their convention date? I mean, its not like we won't know who our nominee is by then.

[liberal N proud]

10. Typical rovian type tactics.

Play as dirty as they can.

[Gabi Hayes]

11. dems should change theirs to come after the pugs....do they ever

go last?