We need a 2008 primary contest WITHOUT a front-runner.

[Ken Burch]

One of the worst consequences of the party leadership's fixation with "frontloading" the nomination process and creating an early winner is that we've had a series of races where we got to the convention and our nominee-apparent was already mortally damaged but could not be dislodged. We also saw the death of the convention itself as a relevant political event where actual decisions were made.

I think we need a process in which we have a safety valve mechanism, so that a discredited candidate can be scrapped before he or she drags the party down. I also believe we need to restore the importance of the convention. The convention should be an event with real drama and real choice, an event the media actually WANT to broadcast.

This is all part of the process of opening the party back and bringing it back to life as a grass-roots organization that can respond of events as they develop. We need a presidential race in which the all the primaries matter, in which the convention matters, and in which rank-and-file Democrats matter.

Predictability, blandness and slickness are the path to defeat. And we should NEVER again have conventions that were meaningless, empty spectacles as 1996, 2000 and 2004 were.

[Webster Green]

1. That would put Tweety out of a job...

I like it!

[MercutioATC]

2. I think we need a 2008 primary contest without Iowa or New Hampshire.

Let's do a simultaneous 50-state primary so 2 or 3 states with almost NO influence on the general election don't get to pick our candidate.

[goclark]

3. I totally agree ~ why do they have so much

influence?

It is totally unfair!

[karynnj]

7. This would give more power to the media

The fact is that in most years, the candidate that finally wins often lost one or both of the early primaries. Kerry had an unusually easy, very convincing primary win for someone who was not a vp or incumbent President.

I may be off base in your case, but the last such race was 1992. You may want to read some of the "Making of the president" books - the norm was for the lead to change with different candidates getting momentum. The media tried to have this in 2004 - especially with stories in late February suggesting that Edwards still had a chance - when he really didn't. (The next group of states included NY, CA, and MA where Kerry was polling as much as 20 points ahead and which put Kerry over the top.)

[Redneck Socialist]

11. All that would ensure is...

that the candidate with the most money and highest name recognition wins. Terrible idea.

How about we spread the primaries out over a longer period, with the smaller states going first.

[election_2004]

4. Ha! Good luck!

If the media whores aren't able to manipulate the presidental primaries, they'll have to resort to discussing and reporting on - - *GASP!* - - real issues that actually matter to Americans!

Oh, the horror...

[longship]

5. We need people to set aside 2008 until it's time.

Not when the corporate media decides it needs to sell more SUVs by trumpeting a campaign which won't even begin for over a year. Not when some person who'll never win announces that he or she is gonna run 20-some months ahead of the election.

I am really getting pissed about all these 2008 election threads.

We've really got to stop letting others play us like idiots.
It's time to use our fucking heads for something other than a place to put a hat.

2007 is going to be probably the most important congressional year in our country's history and half the fucking idiots are flapping their gums about an election that's two fucking years off. Stop with the cockamaimie 2008 election posts. They are totally meaningless right now.

We need to work on our new congress before they start screwing things up.

[AnOhioan]

6. Excellent post , K&R

n/t

[blm]

8. When did that happen? ANY Dem will do well with a DNC strengthening infrastructure

in all 50 states. The nominee needs to have a strong party infrastructure to TAP INTO once they are known.

Gore and Kerry both won their races, but a weak and ineffective DNC that oversaw the COLLAPSE of party infrastructures in too many crucial states assured that neither could get their votes secured and tallied at the level where the votes are made and counted.

I notice you didn't blame the media decision to cut down the time allotted in 2004. They gave Kerry all of THREE hours of primetime, and gave 1 of those hours to Clinton. In contrast, Clinton was given NINE HOURS to introduce himself in 1992.

Or have you completeky FORGOTTEN the role that corpmedia plays in this country and how EASILY some people are DUPED into believing the media spin that gets used against our current Dems?

[Nederland]

9. Virtually Mathematically impossible

Barring an unlikely tie, there will always be someone who polls better than the rest of the pack. That person is the front runner. Sorry, but that's just the way it is...

[TayTay]

10. Front-runners are an illusion

Not a vote has been cast yet. Not a debate has been held. No one is yet in or out but by their own choice. The idea of 'front-runners' is a media driven illusion.

I hope that the Democrats have a large and diverse field of candidates running. This might actually see that a wide diversity of opinion is expressed and the American people have a chance to hear a lot of different ideas.

Let them all run. I believe in Democracy and letting the people make the choices. (Yeah, it's messy. Democracy is a messy, messy business. The orderly and precise system is what we rebelled against when we set up this country.)

Let them all run, and let the voters sort it out.

[zulchzulu]

12. We need sunlight...without the sun

Political races ALWAYS have a front runner. It's like saying that football teams should not have favorites or that restaurants should not have reviews.