It seems to me that the early Dem front-runner seldom gets the nom, while

[Jackpine Radical]

the early Republican leader of the pack almost always wins the nom.

Gore 2000 was an exception to this rule.

[bluestateguy]

1. Mondale was the frontrunner in 1984.

nt

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Maybe we should combine Gore, Mondale & Humphrey as

the Vice Presidential Exceptions.

[gateley]

2. Is there someone who's considered the frontrunner for the R's at this point? nt

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Giuliani, I guess.

Maybe they're getting all the negative stuff out early so he can demonstrate his Teflon and not be bothered with late revelations. Hey, wow, I didn't know I was going there when I started writing this, but it suddenly seems plausible.

[gateley]

9. Yikes. If that's their frontrunner......Yee Haw! nt

[frazzled]

3. It seems to me that past history is never very predictive when it comes to primaries

Primaries are very odd fellows, and each quite unique. Especially with changing schedules (not to mention demographics), we can't use what has happened in previous cycles to predict.

I take some exception with the pundits who claim (as usual) that whoever wins Iowa will get the big "mo." I don't think that's necessarily so this time around. They'll get some mo--but it won't necessarily be like 2004 (and thank goodness for that: we're better off with a more competitive race--it only makes the eventual nominee stronger). In that year, New Hampshirites had all but given up on their near-native-son Kerry (I know: I knocked on hundreds and hundreds of their doors during that cycle, and many of them said "I was thinking of going for Kerry, but he's really tanked). His winning in Iowa gave them license to return to their original favorite. There aren't really any favorite sons/daughters in NH this time around for the Democrats (Romney is a Republican favorite son there)--New Hampshire may just rebel against the Iowa factor this time around because they are kind of pissed about losing their status.

The fact is: we don't know. And that what makes primary season such good blood sport.

[nachoproblem]

4. I don't know about "seldom"

but it does seem to follow the pattern of last election.

I said in another thread that I think the media would end up "Dean Screaming" the front runners to justify their failure to predict who will win the first caucuses & primaries. From the looks of this, they may already be starting. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071130/pl_nm/usa_politics_frontrunners_dc_1

No doubt, the race is much closer now than it has been. But in addition, I've seen a number of articles like this one:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071130/pl_nm/usa_politics_primaries_dc_2

claiming that the primaries may be "over" as soon as the results are in. Meaning, I think, that the media will instantly call it for whoever wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. And I believe they will do it because they are lazy, greedy, spineless weasels who are asleep at their watch post.

Yes, I suppose I have an axe to grind with the mainstream media. I'm a lazy, greedy, spineless weasel so I often kick myself for not going into journalism. :P

Edit: Oh yes and I live in California, the state with the most electoral votes, so it makes me grumpy that the primary is usually "over" long before I get to vote.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Well, I think Bill's waffling on his Iraq war position is a legitimate topic.

The Dean Scream and the Hillary cackle are not.

[nachoproblem]

10. It may be

It also doesn't have the cheesy meme-power of a Dean Scream. My point really was, they're out *looking* for one.

[KharmaTrain]

8. Why I Don't Get Involved In The Primary Silly Season

In '92 it was all Mario Cuomo...in '88 it was Gary Hart. That's until the ground game begins.

The bottom line in primaries...especially the early ones...is boots on the ground. The candidate that has the money and better organization can and will do well in these early primaries, while the others flounder and fade out (especially the media darlings). I'm finding it both interesting and heartening to see such a close race in Iowa...this is where the candidates not only are showing their stuff, but selling the voters on why they should be the candidate. Its not enough to have "good ideas"...there needs to be both the fight to see the election through and the organization/people who can make it happen.

Someone mentioned Mondale in '84...I'll also throw in Humphrey in '68. While he had to fight for the nomination, he was the annointed one that year.