Why it's almost certain that either Clinton or Obama will get the nomination.

[cali]

2008 is different than any other nominating year in the past. By Feb 6, over half the states will have voted- and that includes virtually all the delegate rich states: NY, CA, IL, FL, etc. On tsunami tuesday over 20 states will vote.

Choice is an illusion, unfortunately. Obama and Clinton are the only candidates with enough dough to blitz the airwaves after the 4 early primaries. Other voices will not be heard. They're the only candidates that will have large functional operations in the big states on Feb. 5th.

The system is fucked. This is no way to pick a nominee. We were better off when it was a longer process. I'm not suggesting a return to anything, however. Just a complete revamping.

[peacebird]

1. I think HRC is going to fare badly in the first true test and I think that

Edwards is poised to do well there. That could be enough to change the whole game.

But I agree with your statement that this is no way to pick a nominee.

[cali]

2. The odds so heavily favor either Clinton or Obama

that it would take a huge upset to catapult anyone else into the race.

[balantz]

8. Don't believe all of the media hype.

The best odds are that nothing is certain. Some campaigns are noise and glitz, some are quiet determination.

[cali]

13. what media hype?

I don't tune in to any MSM at all. Well, I do buy the Sunday NYT, but that's because I'm addicted to the cross word puzzle. My analysis rests on the front loading and the need to reach voters in CA, IL, NY, NJ, etc.

[balantz]

20. The hype that the media says it's a done deal.

You may be right. There is an awful lot of money the front-runners have to buy the big states. I personally hope it isn't the determining factor this time.

(spelling edit)

[ThomWV]

17. I think you are right, she will be another Howard Dean, first real vote and she's out.

[Le Taz Hot]

27. Completely inaccurate comparison.

Howard Dean was the people's choice. Kerry was The Machine's choice. The Machine understood that they didn't have to win in all primary states, all they had to do was manipulate Iowa and the rest (with the help of the MSM) took care of itself. No, Hillary has it. Obama supporters: Don't be surprised when your Iowa delegate votes disappear into Hillary's column. Those last-minute "conversions" are a thing to behold.

[ThomWV]

37. That is delusional

Really, you paint a scene that is pure fantasy land.

[SharkSquid]

3. little guys can raise some serious bank

isn't Dennis trying to catch Ron Pauls success with the one day "money bomb"?

[cali]

5. even if Dennis does a Paul with a big day

and nets 4 million, that's not nearly enough. Obama and Clinton both have something like $50 million in the bank, and they're undoubtedly raising like crazy in this last quarter of the year. But it's not just the money; it's what you can do with it in large states: silence all other voices.

[jpgray]

4. Just a quick note--by that rationale Dean should have been our nominee in '04

Anything can still happen.

[peacebird]

6. sadly it turns out that Dean SHOULD have been our nominee in '04......

[cali]

7. Again, this is a different set up

When was the CA primary in 2004? If Clinton or Obama does poorly in IA, NH or SC, they have the bucks to make massive media buys in the big states. No one else will have that kind of buying power. I'm afraid that this year, it really will come down to money.

[balantz]

We'll have to see if voters are dumb enough to still be bought.

If we don't learn the money thing this time around, we will have yet another lesson on allowing ourselves to be fooled by the machine of big bucks and big media. Someday we will learn, hopefully sooner than later. When will glitz and noise be seen through?

[jpgray]

25. What I'm saying is that an upset in IA and NH can still vastly affect the race

Who would have predicted that Edwards and Kerry would be the top two? Totally reorganized the race. There are vast differences, true, but this still remains I think.

[flashl]

9. Can anyone point to a time in recent memory when campaigning wasnt about money?

[cali]

10. no. but it wasn't about it as much.

2000 was a watershed moment. And now it's about the nexus of money and a compressed primary schedule, with all the delegate rich states voting on one day early in the process.

[zanne]

11. Unless one of them kicks a puppy at a news conference.....

Either Hillary or Obama will be our next president. They've both reached that certain point where noone can beat them now. And it would take a miracle for a Republican to win the presidency this year. They've done all their negative advertising for themselves. They set themselves up good and now there's no way they can turn it around.

[KharmaTrain]

12. Would You Prefer The Smoked-Filled Room?

That's was pre-dated the primaries. Party bosses horsetrading favors and hookers for votes?

I agree that the front-loaded system sucks...in fact the concept that the next election begins the moment the last one finishes is a big problem. It's festered a cottage industry...fulltime "pollsters" and consultants, campaign staffers and artificial corporate media stories they manipulate for ratings. When you talk about the money, a large chunk goes into this non-stop campaign system. Organizations are not cheap and it's just not the money to blitz on TV that counts here...that's the "heavy artillery" that comes in later. The big investment of any candidate is establishing a ground game...local staff and offices and to do so in a lot of states at the same time. It takes a lot of planning and connections to get a good operation going...and one should never discount this. In fact, I believe it's to the credit of Senator Obama for being able to get such an organization up and running despite being a "newcomer". Clinton has been through this before, as have Edwards...the advantage of prior campaigns, and they, too know how this game is played and won.

The Iowa polls that are deadlocked indicate that there is choice going on. There isn't a "coronation" and whomever wins will do so by working hard and getting out their vote. Some of it will be TV ads, but a lot is phone calls, driving people to caucus locations, knocking on doors and doing the little things that win elections. That's always been a constant...and always will be.

I would prefer a shorter primary season and to regionalize them. The Tsunami Tuesday concept isn't a bad deal as it gets the process over quickly and actually saves money in the long-run...candidates can't pour so much money and resources to win a small state but rather has to campaign regionally. And I'd favor compressing the time...holding primaries in April, May and June...when the weather is warmer and more people are able to participate...then the general election from Labor day to election day. I keep dreaming...

[cali]

15. Of course I don't want a return to smoke filled rooms

and nothing whatsoever in my OP indicated that I did. That's a strawman. I don't know what should be done to make the process more democratic, but I don't think tsunami tuesday is a good idea at all. I do like the idea of holding the primaries later rather than earlier though. And you're right, organization is big piece of a successful campaign. Still, with tsunami tuesday, media buys are just as important.

[KharmaTrain]

23. The Best Of Options...

I brought up the smoked-filled rooms as some here may not realize that's how that's how nominees were chosen as recently as the 50s. And I know you wouldn't want to return to that system. But now there are those that say why should a small state like Iowa and New Hamsphire determine a presidential candidate. I lived in Iowa during the '88 campaign and saw how the system worked and actually I find it to be a great way for citizens to meet candidates, learn issues and become involved. It's not just showing up at a polling place, grabbing a donut and going home...it's truly citizen politics. Maybe that could be a model for a nationally reformed system.

I will say I do like the large primary days as, in the long run, it would be cheaper, not more expensive for candidates...they'd have to pick and choose which markets and areas to campaign heavily in. It'd force the candidates into the field in more states than they do now. It would require them to speak out on more issues than they do now as they focus on the issues of local interest or of one particular bloc...a larger campaign forces them to discuss more issues. And, in the end, it would get more people involved in the process. I'm in Illinois...and for the most part, by the time the primaries get here, the presidential candidate has long been determined. This year there could actually be a nomination at stake with my vote. To me, that's not such a bad thing.

Cheers...

[Buns_of_Fire]

31. On the other hand, "smoke-filled rooms" brought us the FDRs and Trumans...

...while primaries brought us the current Shitstain-in-Chief.

[KharmaTrain]

32. Shitstain Bought His Nomination

The Repugnicans had zero choice in 2000...that nomination had long been granted to junior and he rolled up record cash numbers in '99. Most of his campaign chairs were state party leaders or bosses. The nomination was his to lose...and he was sent a scare by McCain, but once the whip was cracked, the fix was in.

Also, those rooms got us Warren Harding...the Rudy Ghouliani of the Roaring 20's. :rofl:

[natrat]

14. the system is fucked-hrc and obama are gross sleazebags

it ought to be interesting to watch and see what our masters have in store for us --probably mit romney/jeb ticket-oh joy

[cali]

18. well, I don't agree with you about your characterization

either Clinton of Obama. They're both flawed, but so are all the others. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. And no, Jeb Bush will not be on a repuke ticket this year. Furthermore, the odds favor the dems in the GE.

[ThomWV]

16. I think it is almost certain that neither of them will get the nomination

Simply because they are both inexperienced duds.

[cali]

19. that's not analysis. You can't simply project how you feel

onto millions of voters- and it's fairly clear that millions of voters don't agree with you.

[flashl]

21. Whats experience got to do with it? Look to Penn Ave.

[balantz]

22. Maybe besides financing reform and honest debates

there should be a block of time for evenly laid out primaries with a lottery so the states voting schedule is chosen randomly.

[JNelson6563]

24. I disagree

I keep thinking back to 2004. All the noise was about Dean (I'm talkin' real world here, not DU). It was the silent masses who thought Kerry the "most electable". They had no interest in meet-ups, arguing on behalf of their choice or even donating during the primaries. They just silently showed up at the polls/caucuses and voted their choice.

I note the same thing happening again here in my state. I was just at a dinner where there were folks from more than 14 counties last weekend. There hasn't been a lot of activity on behalf of any candidate but hands-down the one I heard was the choice of most was Edwards. The reasons given were legion and, unlike the tubes, in the real world nobody was ready to throw down over it. They simply stated their views and were ready to move on in the discussion. All were congenial and polite, nobody ripped any of the candidates and all were willing to support whoever the nominee was but nonetheless, they overwhelmingly chose the guy few are talking about in the corporate media. Just like 2004.

Just throwin' that real world slice into the discussion for what it's worth.

Julie

[balantz]

26. Thanks for that

[cali]

30. Unless you take into account the radical change in the calendar

you're not dealing with the real world. In 2004, NY's primary was in March. This year all the delegate rich states will vote on Feb 5, for the first time. Both Obama and Clinton have built campaigns that give them a shot at taking those votes. None of the others have had the resources to do that. Sure an upset could happen. It's just not likely.

[JNelson6563]

34. Making the call based on resources, as you seem to be,

then comparison to 04 is still reasonable. You may recall Kerry had to borrow millions against his house to stay in the game. If the outcome coincided with resources only then Dean would've been our nominee.

Julie

[cali]

35. I'm actually talking about the nexus between a compressed

schedule and resources- not merely resources. In other words, neither Clinton nor Obama needs to come in first or second in the four early primaries to remain viable. And there are two candidates sharing the lead in the early states. That's another difference from '04. One may get knocked out early, but not both.

[JNelson6563]

40. Probably what we can agree on is this:

Just about anything is possible. It will be interesting in any case, what happens. :toast:

Then we can have a far better discussion of comparison between 04 and 08.

Julie

[toadzilla]

33. thank you. I think you're right.

[glowing]

28. I just don't believe it.. they wouldn't hype it so damned much if they

were a shoo-in... Undecided is a large margin.. and then who knows who is actually going to show up... I don't think its inevitable... and if the nubmers are there for a split 2 or 3 way.. they will stay in the race.

[MethuenProgressive]

29. Bill Richardson

www.2013IsTooLate.com
Maybe this is why the MSM ignores Bill - they love having a war to televise.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. 40% of the votes need for nomination are made by "super delegates" who aren't voted on.

Read the whole article. "Some animals are more equal than others." - Orwell

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678 /

WASHINGTON - It’s called the Democratic Party, but one aspect of the party’s nominating process is at odds with grass-roots democracy.

Voters don’t choose the 842 unpledged “super-delegates” who comprise nearly 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.

“There was a belief that they would not want candidates who were dramatically out of sync with the rest of the party — particularly if these were people who were going to have to run on the same ticket with them,” says Northeastern University political scientist William Mayer, who has written extensively on the nomination process.

There were, Mayer says, two motives in giving elected officials a big voice in the nomination.

“One was not to get (ideologically) extreme candidates; the other was to avoid the Jimmy Carter phenomenon — where you had a guy who was not very experienced and not very well regarded by most of his fellow governors, but nevertheless managed to win the party’s nomination,” Mayer said.

[Blue_In_AK]

38. You're probably right

but I hope you're wrong.

[brazos121200]

39. Back in 1968 when there were only about

six or seven primaries Eugene McCarthy or Bobby Kennedy won all of the primaries, but Hubert Humphrey got the nomination. I never thought that was fair or representative of the will of the Democratic voters. So in 1972 the system was changed to where the smoke filled rooms had far less influence than before and McGovern was nominated, and he carried one state in the general election. Probably the only fair way to nominate an candidate would be a national primary held on one day where all Democrats get to choose. It should probably be held around April or May to give the candidates more time to campaign for the nomination but before the conventions which are held in July and August. This would still probably favor the well financed candidates but at least it would avoid giving a few small states so much influence in choosing the eventual nominee.

[Snotcicles]

41. It's not almost certain, there is just a lot of talk trying to sway it that way, in other words

DESOS, Different Election Same Old Sh*t.

[IsItJustMe]

42. I think quit of few folks realize the power and influence of our Corporate msm. The fix seems to

be in as far as our media is concerned.

[Blackhatjack]

43. Yet another version of the 'Inevitability argument' which has been shot down before....

Once again for the blatantly disingenuous posters pushing the 'inevitability argument.'

Any candidate who wins the nomination is going to have the coffers of the National Democratic Party open up to support their candidacy --and this will not change no matter which candidate wins the Nomination.

There will be more than enough money to support the Democratic Nominee in the General Election.

To argue that Edwards is effectively eliminated because he won't have 'enough dough to blitz the airwaves after the 4 early primaries' is not based on reality or past experience.

Whoever wins Iowa will get an immediate surge of campaign contributions heading into New Hampshire 5 days later. You can only run so many TV ads in 5 days, and in less than 1 month after that before Super Tuesday.

Voters have a history of rejecting the 'inevitable' candidate who makes this argument, and it is looking like that will occur again this election cycle.