American Republican Presidential Primary Race

[Don Corleone]

And now, we have the other side weighing in. Honestly, there's no bigger fan than I of Ronald Reagan and even I'm starting to gag on the continous stream of references to him. Shameless sucking up in my book.

I may have to rethink my position on Romney. Jim Gilmore appears to have his act together, though. Rudy appears too polished and slick, and John McCain looks too practiced (though I think his animosity towards Iran is quite unrehearsed). Tommy Thompson spent a good amount of time bashing an administration that he actually spent a good amount of time working for.

All in all, I was quite underwhelmed. I found all the candidates to have a basic rudeness in not answering the questions posed to them. Chris Matthews isn't my favorite moderator in the world, but he's no pushover, and even he couldn't keep them on topic.

And by the way, nothing personal against Gravel. The Republicans have their own crackpots on the stage tonight, and primary among them would be Ron Paul (that guy needs to tone it down a FEW notches...)

Okay, summary: I think Romney did okay, Rudy did okay, McCain hurt himself. I think everyone else succeeded just by letting the rest of the country know they're actually in the race. I'm going to tentatively lean towards Jim Gilmore tonight, but I'm not real thrilled with any of the guys tonight. I'm gonna have to brush up on Fred Thompson a little more.

[Don Corleone]

And Rudy doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites. :embarassed:

[Tristrem]

Just a personal opinion, I am not a Rudy fan. After reading an article on him, I think it was in newsweek, about his style of leadership my opinion on him changed. the article talked how Rudy is like an urban cowboy and it talked about his work habits, and he seemed to much like George Bush for me. I think we need a break from a lone ranger type leader, we need a healer, and a uniter, not a divider. I fear Rudy would be a polarizing figure if he was in power, even more so than hillary, whom I dislike also. I think it is too bad, because he is a good guy, but I wouldn't want him running the executive branch. Just my :2cents:

[Divinus Arma]

Romney/Hunter.

But that ain't gonna happen. I'm no longer the optimist. The media has far too much power in swaying the weak minds of the vast uninformed middle.

[Lemur]

As with the Dems, this ... is ... GAH! Too early in the process, want to see how they fare in the coming months.

[Xiahou]

Fred Thompson is the only potential generating any interest for me out of either party. Romney would probably be my "Well, he's better than the other guy " candidate.

Here (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=IiQ&q=+site:article.nationalreview.com+fred+thompson+paul+harvey+commentary) is a link to a bunch of Fred Thompson NRO commentaries- most of them have an audio format link at the top of the page. I think this guy sounds great. :2thumbsup:

[Odin]

Mitt, mainly because he was my govenor and I know what i will be getting. He's a moderate but I think being from MA, and being Mormon is going to hurt him as this process moves forward.

The only other candidate that has piqued my intrest is Fred Thompson, McCain is distant 3rd.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Huckabee has struck me pretty well during the interviews etc. I have heard from him. Doesn't seem to be building much of a "groundswell" though.

Romney is ginning up the cash needed, but going into a General as the underdog in your home state won't help him generate sparks.

Guliani is, for most GOPers, a mixed bag. The law and order/fight a war on terror stuff plays well, but the relatively liberal social agenda will hurt him. There are comparatively few single-issue voters in the GOP base, but the key single issue group is the Pro Lifers and Guliani does not score highly with them.

McCain simply lacks the verve he had in 2000 -- hard to quantify really -- and McCain faces an uphill fight against much of the AM Talk radio media. Guliani actually gets less flak from them then does McCain.

Fred Thompson is currently enjoying all of the advantages of not running. If he tosses his hat in the ring -- and this seems likely -- he will vault to the top tier quickly with his solid conservative pedigree and strong personal style/charisma....but does he have enough time for the needed funding to be in place?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This is such nonsense. Its not even a debate its a mass press conference. Im sick of it. Pluys its way to early to form positions on whats going to be happenning in 2009. The whole thing seems pretty worthless to me. They never dso what they say at these things anyway. And people wonder wy theres voter apathy. Let the candidates really debate eachother. The hell with the press and their phoney moderators and stupid questions. I mean whats the point of askking the republican candidates if they think Hillary would make a good president? What do they expect to hear? And Newts not even in it yet. Smart man.

[Don Corleone]

As with the Dems, this ... is ... GAH! Too early in the process, want to see how they fare in the coming months.

Do you ever find yourself saying "Geez, why is it always a choice between Dumb and Dumber?" That's because by waiting until primary time, you've allowed the media to filter your candidates for you, Democrat or Republican. The only time the 2nd tier candidates even have a shot anymore is right now, while they can still get some momentum. If they haven't raised 25million by labor day, they will be forced to drop out of the race. The only way they can raise that kind of money is to get some kind of public interest. Personally, I like picking my own candidate, not having Exxon Mobil and/or Microsoft select one of the CNN/MSNBC/FOXNews approved ones.

But by all means, if you want to wait until it's another Bush/Gore type choice, go ahead and wait until next year. You should know however that once the primaries start, because they're all staged so closely, they'll be over by mid-February. There's no time for a candidate to poll badly and recover in another state. The time between the first and last primary is 3 1/2 weeks.

[Odin]

Do you ever find yourself saying "Geez, why is it always a choice between Dumb and Dumber?" That's because by waiting until primary time, you've allowed the media to filter your candidates for you, Democrat or Republican. The only time the 2nd tier candidates even have a shot anymore is right now, while they can still get some momentum. If they haven't raised 25million by labor day, they will be forced to drop out of the race. The only way they can raise that kind of money is to get some kind of public interest. Personally, I like picking my own candidate, not having Exxon Mobil and/or Microsoft select one of the CNN/MSNBC/FOXNews approved ones.

But by all means, if you want to wait until it's another Bush/Gore type choice, go ahead and wait until next year. You should know however that once the primaries start, because they're all staged so closely, they'll be over by mid-February. There's no time for a candidate to poll badly and recover in another state. The time between the first and last primary is 3 1/2 weeks.

Don my friend you had your coffee yet this morning? Your posts have a more cynical edge then normal the last few days.

So what if the primary states all want to move up to be first? Heck this would be a good opportunity for sponsorship deals too.

I can see it now "This Jan 1st california primary, brought to you by foldgers, when the best part of waking up is foldgers in your cup" :clown:

But on a serious note, its far to easy to blame the media IMHO. Thats an old tactic that might have some merit, but with the advent of the internet there is enough data available from multiple sources to make an informed decision and not pawn it off on the presentation of a few media outlets looking for advertising dollars.

[Don Corleone]

That being said, I'm afraid I have to agree with Gawain. Last night's forum was awful. 30 seconds to make a position on an issue so complex as how to treat Iran, or illegal immigration? No wonder we get ridiculous answers. I think they should have cut the questions down to about 1/4 of what they had, and allow them 3 times the amount of time to respond. At the end, they should have gotten 3 minutes to explain why they were different from the other 9 candidates, and the 8 the week before.

I did notice one big gaffe on Rudy's part that nobody picked up on. During the 'email questions from America' section, somebody asked Rudy how he could appeal to African American voters. His answer? "I reduced crime during my tenure as mayor of New York by 66%. Most of the impact of that was felt in the poorest sections of the city...<awkward pause> not that African-Americans are all living in the poorest section of the cities>.

And did anybody else find it weird when McCain said "I'll follow him to the gates of hell", then grinned from ear to ear? I did like some of the soundbytes about Iran though... Rudy saying AJ is a totally irrational man who needs to be taught nuclear weapons just aren't an option.... McCain, in answering the question about where his trip wire for action against Iran basically said they'd already crossed it, and while it's actually Osama, Mitt Romney saying "We're gonna hunt him down, we're gonna catch him, and then we're gonna kill him".

All in all, like Gawain said, a dog and pony show. Too bad really. Very poor format, IMHO.

[Don Corleone]

Don my friend you had your coffee yet this morning? Your posts have a more cynical edge then normal the last few days.

So what if the primary states all want to move up to be first? Heck this would be a good opportunity for sponsorship deals too.

I can see it now "This Jan 1st california primary, brought to you by foldgers, when the best part of waking up is foldgers in your cup" :clown:

But on a serious note, its far to easy to blame the media IMHO. Thats an old tactic that might have some merit, but with the advent of the internet there is enough data available from multiple sources to make an informed decision and not pawn it off on the presentation of a few media outlets looking for advertising dollars.

I agree that we have alternative outlets. But most of the country ain't like you and me. They don't go blogging or hunting for primary source news articles. They flip on CNN and get spoon fed sound bytes and say that they're well informed. Well, CNN's feed, come September, is going to be "well, the only candidates really worth talking about anywmore are Hillary, Obama, McCain and Rudy". That's it. Any other candidates still in the race would have to burn down an orphanage to make it on TV. They did it in 2000, when they set the primaries up to be Bush vs. McCain and Gore vs. Bradley, and they did it again in 2004 when they made it Kerry vs. Dean.

All I'm saying is if you don't want the annointed candidate, now is your best chance to wade in and learn something about them, because if you wait, your choices will be made for you.

P.S. Yes, if anything, too much caffiene in the system. I was sleepy so I ordered a double-shot espresso this morning. :charge:

[Odin]

I agree that we have alternative outlets. But most of the country ain't like you and me. They don't go blogging or hunting for primary source news articles. They flip on CNN and get spoon fed sound bytes and say that they're well informed. Well, CNN's feed, come September, is going to be "well, the only candidates really worth talking about anywmore are Hillary, Obama, McCain and Rudy". That's it. Any other candidates still in the race would have to burn down an orphanage to make it on TV. They did it in 2000, when they set the primaries up to be Bush vs. McCain and Gore vs. Bradley, and they did it again in 2004 when they made it Kerry vs. Dean.

I agree with the disposition of news outlets and thier ability to set the favorites, I disagree with the underlying sentiment that the voter is somehow less educated and therefore is subject to influence by the outlets.

Are some? Yes, but if Bush has done anything he has increased the polarization of the political parties of this country, and that will be the determinate factor on who gets the nomination. Both parties are firmly organized now and have thier base in order, and the undecided bloc is thinner then ever before.

Is this phenom a one trick pony? Maybe, but I think in this particular election the methodology of the past can be cast aside. It really comes down to a polarizing issue (Iraq) media outlets can spin candidates any way they want, there is an issue on the table larger then that now and thats the war.


All I'm saying is if you don't want the annointed candidate, now is your best chance to wade in and learn something about them, because if you wait, your choices will be made for you.


I agree its the best time to review the candidates, I disagree on the notion that the american public as a whole will have thier candidates picked for them by thier portrayl in the media, at least not this time around.

P

[Goofball]

Rudy for me. His politics are closest to mine.

I also like Thompson. Though his politics are pretty far away from my views he gets my "integrity" vote. He seems like the guy least likely to be a big, fat liar.

Having said all that, since I am not allowed to vote in the U.S. my opinion is worth about a half a fart.

Good luck making your choice in 2008 Yanks. I hope you do better than the last two times...

[spmetla]

If I were to vote Republican it'd probably be Guliani because I agre with his social policies more than the other Repubs. Although in theory I agree with him on terror and war and what not he having been out of office doesn't have anything to back up his rhetoric, unfortunately his being mayor of NY during 9/11 is the primary reason I know who he is and have respect for him. Since 9/11 though I haven't seen or heard much of him.

As for McCain, I just don't like the guy. He presents himself as a know it all but one who doesn't know much. I support the war but I dislike people that say we need to support the war and the Co in Chief.

This election reminds me of Southparks election episode, having to choose between a turd sandwich or a douche. Guess it's like that every time though.

[Lemur]

Apparently Ron Paul won. Who knew?


Ron Paul Wins MSNBC Debate Poll

Ron Paul steps into national spotlight

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 4, 2007

ARLINGTON, VA – Congressman Ron Paul finished first in the MSNBC poll following the GOP primary debate last night held at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. Dr. Paul received 43 percent, beating the second-place finisher by five points, and crushing the rest of the field.

“Last night, Americans met Ron Paul and loved what they heard,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul’s message of freedom and limited government resonates with Republicans hungry for a return to their party’s core values.”

“Ron Paul is the only true conservative in the GOP race. Americans saw that last night,” continued Snyder. “The campaign looks forward to further debates and opportunities so even more Americans will discover Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, peace and prosperity.”

[KukriKhan]

Repeating the Kukri mandate:

My next president (and VP) must:

a) fix Iraq
b) Get Europe, Asia & Africa on our side (and work on South & Central Am).
c) fix my Army
d) make a firm, informed decision on immigration
e) handle the next terrorist attack on US soil
e1) find, arrest and try OBL
f) secure my borders and ports
g) close Gitmo


If the election were held today, with the above slate, I pick McCain & Rudy.

McCain because he's a known quantity; soldier-friendly, war-averse, since-we're-in-it-let's-win, knows all the current players, can work with the opposition to achieve a goal, is a plain-spoken, believeable spokesman for america, to both Americans and the international community.

Giuliani (as VP) because he's cool and informed in a crisis. Failing his VP nomination, I'd make him Sec o'Homeland Scty. I personally 'druther he not be chief exec o' US; I think he's not up to speed on ME, NK, Russia, and so on.

I like Mr. Thompson, but if he hasn't declared by now, that tells me that he's either cagey (and we don't need that now, IMO), or he's ignorant of today's political reality, or he's too timid for the job, despite his heartwarming, homespun rhetoric.

[Xiahou]

I like Mr. Thompson, but if he hasn't declared by now, that tells me that he's either cagey (and we don't need that now, IMO), or he's ignorant of today's political reality, or he's too timid for the job, despite his heartwarming, homespun rhetoric.
I thought it was because he was still fulfilling his contractual obligations to "Law and Order". I expect we'll here from him this month though.

[KukriKhan]

Thanks for that info Xiahou, I thought they were done shooting this season. If he declares soon, I'll probably change my mind about him.

[BigTex]

McCain because he's a known quantity; soldier-friendly, war-averse, since-we're-in-it-let's-win, knows all the current players, can work with the opposition to achieve a goal, is a plain-spoken, believeable spokesman for america, to both Americans and the international community.

Well said, McCain would be one of the better republicans to run for president. Yet to really hear him change his tune about Iraq either, something rare these days. Hopefully whatever happens he wont run against hillary and just get the "Hillary Clinton's the devil" vote and have some real debate.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Didn't Keith Olbermann co-host? That guy is a democrat version of Ann Coulter, but dumber. Yet the GOP let him host, unlike dems who couldn't even deal with a debate hosted by Fox News,

Oh, and I'm pulling for Fred Thompson. Saw him on a new Law and Order show last night!

CR

[KukriKhan]

Oh, and I'm pulling for Fred Thompson. Saw him on a new Law and Order show last night!

CR

On that sub-topic, does anyone know when the "equal TV time" thing kicks in? After the primaries, or before? If Thompson declares and fund-raises, will NBC need to shelve all the Law and Order episodes he appears in?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If Thompson declares and fund-raises, will NBC need to shelve all the Law and Order episodes he appears in?


Dont you get it? What a clever marketing ploy. If that happens then all the other candidates will have to get guest appearances on Law & Order. :laugh4:

[Azi Tohak]

I don't like being in a sand-hill while this is going on. Makes me feel more out of it than I already am.

I like McCain, I just thing his chance was 2000. There is something wrong with him right now, I just can't place it. Sick maybe? Tired? I'm not sure.

But the Reagan butt-kissing has to stop.

Azi

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't like being in a sand-hill while this is going on. Makes me feel more out of it than I already am.

I like McCain, I just thing his chance was 2000. There is something wrong with him right now, I just can't place it. Sick maybe? Tired? I'm not sure.

But the Reagan butt-kissing has to stop.

Azi

I agree with you about McCain. He just seems to have something "missing," though I can't really quantify it either.

Interestingly, George Will said much the same about Reagan -- the he WAS the embodiment of modern conservatism but that conservatism itself needs to move forward and not simply look to re-create Reaganism or, worse yet, evoke it as a cheap motivational image instead of doing the work to move forward.

[Goalie]

I would have to say that I am for McCain currently. Foreign policy is the most important area in today's world of perverted religious fanatics and terrorists. McCain more than anybody understands the military and what we need to do with it. I do not to trust the security of the United States to Clinton or Obama. Guilliani would be my next choice, he has the invaluable experience with handling crisis.

[Lemur]

Guilliani would be my next choice, he has the invaluable experience with handling crisis.
Can't say this enough: Look, listen and read carefully before throwing in for Giuliani. It might help to talk to some New Yorkers who were around when he was running the show.

IMHO, there are much stronger candidates than Rudy on the Republican slate.

[Goalie]

Yes I have heard the bad things about Rudy as well. what happened before 911 and about his family problems, however I still support him.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Can't say this enough: Look, listen and read carefully before throwing in for Giuliani. It might help to talk to some New Yorkers who were around when he was running the show.


Ok Ill chip in then. Even though he s to liberal for my tastes I think he did a great job as mayor and i believe most of my fellow New Yorkers agree. I have little doubt trhat if he runs the republicans will win NY for the first time in ages.


Arent you a New Yorker as well?

[Lemur]

Gawain, you sly dog, you're looking for an all-NY general election. Hil (your Senator) for the Dems, and Rudy for the Repubs. It'll be like a subway series!

And yeah, I used to be a Brooklynite, which sort of makes me a New Yorker. You, I believe, are a Long Islander, which means we must all be very careful not to make Billy Joel jokes around you. (The lemur found this out the hard way whilst among the Islanders.)

[Pindar]

I would have to say that I am for McCain currently.

Boo! Hiss!

I agree with sentiment I've seen is many an article on McCain: he is a great American, a poor Senator and a terrible Republican.

[Lemur]

David Frum's NRO summation (http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Yzk4MDhhOTI5MjA2ODhmZmRjMzJmNDFhZjc3ZmU4MjQ) is worth a read.

The Party and the Candidates

NR readers have often taken me to task for my squishiness on abortion, but thanks to candidate Jim Gilmore I now have a new talking-point reply: I am firmly pro-life — after the first ten weeks.

O.K., that's kind of lame. But it's still better than the replies Rudy Giuliani offered, both at the debate and during a brutal battering by Laura Ingraham yesterday.

These early stumblings raise in my mind a question about both the Republican candidates and the Republican party. By any standards, the Republican contest has drawn what ought to be the most impressive array of candidates since ... well maybe since ever.

The mayor who transformed New York from failed state into surging financial capital;

a hero of Vietnam who became a leader of the Senate, sponsor of some of the most important legislation of the past decade;

one of the nation's most successful businessmen who brought universal private-sector health care after winning election as a Republican in the most Democratic state in the nation;

the governor who pioneered welfare reform and school vouchers in Wisconsin;

a former RNC chairman and popular governor of the must-win state of Virginia;

the Senate's leading advocate of the pro-life and pro-marriage cause;

Congress's leading immigration reformer;

a former governor of the state of Arkansas who is ideally positioned to challenge the bona fides of the Democratic front-runner;

and a former chairman of the House Armed Services committee running for president at a time when many Americans worry that the U.S military has not adequately prepared for the warfare of the 21st century.

Given that amazing roster — why does this campaign feel so feckless and lackluster?

Rudy Giuliani — a leader once legendary for his intensity, focus, and mastery of detail — has been running an improvised, unbriefed, unprepared campaign.

Mitt Romney has ignored and denigrated his two greatest political achievements — his health-care success and his trans-party victory in Massachusetts — in order utterly implausibly to position himself as a social-issues crusader.

John McCain, Mr. Bipartisan, now presents himself as a red-meat conservative.

Shall I go on?

But as much as I blame the candidates, I have to blame the party too. Have Republicans absorbed how much trouble their party is in? To the (limited) extent that we do, we tend to to attribute everything to Iraq — as if Katrina, the Schiavo affair, corruption in Congress, and the intensifying irrelevance of our domestic-policy agenda did not exist. And so we demand from our candidates ever more fervent declarations of fealty to an ideology that interests an ever dwindling proportion of the public.

I wish somebody at the Reagan Library had said: "Ronald Reagan was a great leader and a great president because he addressed the problems of his time. But we have very different problems — and we need very different answers. Here are mine."

But if one of the candidates had said that, would we have hearkened? Or would we say: The path to the nomination will be crossed by the candidate who does the best job of ticking the boxes of a coalition that probably now spans no more than 30 percent of the electorate?

Barring some calamitous mistake by the Democrats (and true, that can never be ruled out from the "war is lost" party), the GOP enters the 2008 election cycle at a serious disadvantage. If we want to win, we have to offer the American voter something fresh and compelling. I think most of us understand that. And yet at the same time we are demanding that our candidates repeat formulas and phrases from two and three decades ago.

Yes, the GOP needs candidates to display higher-quality leadership than they have exhibited till now.

But if we want higher-quality leadership, maybe we also need higher-quality followership.

[drone]

Editorial in the Washington Post sums up my disgust as posted in the Dem Primary thread. I hadn't heard about Florida moving up. God, this election cycle is going to suck.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/09/AR2007050902445_pf.html

The true insanity of the altered presidential primary schedule does not become apparent until you actually lay out the proposed dates on a 2008 calendar.

The mad rush of states to advance their nominating contests in hopes of gaining more influence has produced something so contrary to the national interest that it cries out for action.

The process is not over. Just last week, Florida jumped the line by moving its primary up to Jan. 29, a week ahead of the Feb. 5 date when -- unbelievably -- 22 states may hold delegate selection contests, either primaries or caucuses.

Florida's move crowds the traditional leadoff primary in New Hampshire, which had been set for Jan. 22. And New Hampshire is unhappy about the competition from two caucuses planned even earlier in January, in Iowa and Nevada. So its secretary of state, William M. Gardner, who has unilateral authority to set the New Hampshire voting date, is threatening to jump the rivals, even if it means voting before New Year's Day.

This way lies madness.
Apologies to the rest of the world, for both the never-ending, mind-numbing news filler about a bunch of losers for several more months than necessary, as well as the final result. :no:

[Don Corleone]

Actually, the rest of the world might actually benefit from it. It will shorten the amount of time people actually pay attention, as opposed to already having their D or R lever ready to pull. If current trends continue, we may nominate the 2012 candidates before the 2008 election. :help:

[drone]

If current trends continue, we may nominate the 2012 candidates before the 2008 election. :help:
Maybe not quite that bad, but the possibility of spilling into mid-term elections is getting higher.

The party primary system needs a serious overhaul, taking into account the modern communications possibilities. I'm not familiar with internal party finances, but I can imagine this extended cycle will drain the treasuries of the parties as well as the candidates. A much shorter cycle would reduce the costs, and probably do a better "reformation" than any campaign finance law could hope to achieve.

Edit->just saw this:
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/09/State/Dems__primary_may_not.shtml
The DNC might make the Florida Democrat portion of the primary non-binding since they moved it up. Every vote counts in Florida, right? What a charlie-foxtrot...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The real winners in this process are the single issue warriors and quasi-independent hate groups.

Consider:

The Party nomination process has always been dominated by more motivated (and usually more partisan) party loyalists, so nominations always reflect a greater importance on "core" issues relevant to the party faithful that may -- or may not -- connect well with the vast mass of politically inactive and somewhat ignorant (literally, not used as a perjorative) general election voters.

Broadcast media, through its agenda-setting function, has reinforced and expanded the importance of early primary/caucus victories to a would-be nominee. You may not win the nomination by March 15th of the election year, but the field has been narrowed to no more than three by that point. The increasing role of the internet -- an even "faster" medium -- will water down the impact of the "Mainstream" media organs in this agenda-setting process, but it will only exacerbate the speed of that agenda setting as the role of the internet increases.

Pushing forward YOUR state's primary or caucus makes you a "player" in the all-important early contests that determine who your parties top two choices will be. In the 40-odd years of the "open" primary system, there has been a slow trend towards moving forward on the calender.

Enter McCain-Feingold. Party money is now significantly restricted, as are campaign contributions by political action committees and lobbyists. Two impacts: #1 = The news media now has the exclusive right, confirmed by the SCOTUS to broadcast messages about the candidates in the 30 days prior to a primary or 60 days prior to a general election. No private citizen may now do so. The campaigns may themselves advertise, but the only other voices that may legally be heard are the news media. This returns some of their agenda-setting control. Impact #2 = lots of money that formerly went to the parties is now channeled to various groups -- usually quite partisan -- that launch attacks etc. independently of the campaigns themselves (Moveon.org et. al.). These groups work diligently to embarrass, harass, or otherwise harm candidates who oppose their agendas, and when they pass their days-limit for direct participation, they supply news items to the media (which is now a 24-hour affair and therefore ALWAYS needful of story material) so that them media can continue their efforts for them.

So, our parties' nominees' will probably be selected no later than 1 March under the new accelerated system. This then allows for 8 full months for the attack groups on both sides to hammer the nominees. We will learn every ugliness and sin they have ever considered -- and a few they were themselves unaware that they had been guilty of.

Some issues will dominate and influence the vote in the General, but mostly it will become a process of constant scandal-mongering by the attack groups and crisis communication by candidates. To keep their own attack groups happy -- and without them your campaign is outgunned -- you will have to take more of a "red-meat" approach which will serve to polarize the voters more. More and more of the blob in the middle will simply say "[insert flower here] it!" and this will, in turn, increase and reinforce the importance of the more fanatical party components.

We are in for a long stretch of ugly "the other candidate is the spawn of Satan"-style politics. Enjoy! :smartass2: