tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post7053791309350760895..comments2024-03-26T05:22:08.256-04:00Comments on Frontloading HQ: Now It Was the Calendar that Brought Clinton Down?Josh Putnamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-82100111224181425642008-06-10T12:00:00.000-04:002008-06-10T12:00:00.000-04:00Here's the link from Rob to the Macon Telegraph le...<A HREF="http://www.macon.com/209/story/371395.html" REL="nofollow">Here's the link from Rob to the Macon Telegraph letter.</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-342281447812264082008-06-07T11:39:00.000-04:002008-06-07T11:39:00.000-04:00For the original source seehttp://www.macon.com/20...For the original source see<BR/><BR/>http://www.macon.com/209<BR/>/story/371395.html<BR/><BR/>It is the second letter "Walk the talk"<BR/><BR/>I will be very interested in reading your post.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379192575044761972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-62916030874833041102008-06-07T10:03:00.000-04:002008-06-07T10:03:00.000-04:00You'd definitely need to develop some sort of name...You'd definitely need to develop some sort of name recognition scale. Some combination of experience and media mentions would probably suffice, or at least be the best way to arrive at an operationalization of the concept. <BR/><BR/>The idea of late entrants, like Jerry Brown (in 1976 and 1992) or Al Gore (in 1988) is an interesting one. On the one hand, they'd have a lot of catching up to do. However, if there was any kind of backlash against the leading vote getter to that point, momentum could build behind a challenger. The downside would be that if the race was competitive on the other side, a successful late entrant would hurt the chances of that party getting anyone into the general election.<BR/><BR/>The other question concerns incumbents. Would they be included in the mix, or does this system apply only when both parties nominations are being contested? It would certainly increase turnout on the incumbent party's side if their partisans knew they had to turn out to get their candidate into the general election. That would probably be one of the positive side effects of this system. But you would have a scenario where an unpopular incumbent would potentially face a situation where he or she doesn't even make it into the general election. Perot edging out Bush I would have been an interesting possibility.<BR/><BR/>Alright, I probably need to shift this into its own post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-88947377686781750252008-06-07T09:15:00.000-04:002008-06-07T09:15:00.000-04:00The other thing you need to consider is who has th...The other thing you need to consider is who has the name recognition and money up front. There would be no stepping stones like IA & NH or stalking horses like Eugene McCarthy. There would be incentive for the party operatives to anoint a candidate ahead of time -- a task not usually difficult for the Republicans but a real challenge for the Democrats. <BR/><BR/>A system like this one would have doomed the McGovern (can you say Muskie) and Carter (maybe Jerry Brown?) campaigns. One of the most interesting outcomes would be 1968. Bobby Kennedy might not have been assassinated and run in November against Nixon. Of course that would eliminate Muskie in 1972.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379192575044761972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-11558613234452983672008-06-07T08:21:00.000-04:002008-06-07T08:21:00.000-04:00Well, I think, like you said, it would be Clinton ...Well, I think, like you said, it would be Clinton and Obama this year. The really interesting part would be to apply the system to past primary season campaigns. There are things you'd have to control for and to be fair, you'd have to project how withdrawn candidates had done in all or most of the primaries after they had dropped out. Otherwise, you end up with the same two people that emerged anyway. The top vote getters are the ones who survived the longest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-5329926421238452912008-06-07T07:12:00.000-04:002008-06-07T07:12:00.000-04:00Oh Oh! I'm afraid I have unleashed a monster!Oh Oh! I'm afraid I have unleashed a monster!Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379192575044761972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-26824393958942827522008-06-06T21:10:00.000-04:002008-06-06T21:10:00.000-04:00That sounds like an awesome idea! Louisiana polit...That sounds like an awesome idea! Louisiana politics gone national. It'll never happen in a million years, but I'd love to see it in action once, just to see how it would come out. <BR/><BR/>Now I'm off on a "what if" brainstorm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-89763476805752966252008-06-06T17:50:00.000-04:002008-06-06T17:50:00.000-04:00Great report at fivethirtyeight! As I have indicat...Great report at fivethirtyeight! As I have indicated before I am adamantly against a national primary. There was a letter in the Macon Telegraph this morning suggesting that Obama and McCain should pledge to support a constitutional amendment to have a national primary where the top two candidates would be the final candidates. There would not be separate Democrat or Republican primaries, and independents would also be allowed to run. Since it appears to be germane to your post, I am posting my proposed letter in response:<BR/><BR/>I certainly would agree with Roy Wetherington's desire for a modified primary process, but be careful what you ask for. I am against a national primary because that will force candidates to fight it out on television and not to interact with the people. This year Obama won because he related to people in Iowa and caucus states. McCain was able to win in New Hampshire and South Carolina where he could relate to real people. If we had national primaries, it would be just about money and name recognition. Hillary Clinton would most likely have won a Democratic National Primary, and John McCain would have lost to either Rudy Guiliani or Mitt Romney. If we would have had a nonpartisan primary as Wetherington suggests, it is entirely possible that Clinton and Obama would have come out as the top two vote-getters. The Democrats might enjoy a fall election featuring Obama and Clinton, but I suspect that Republicans would feel cheated. The likelihood of an independent becoming one of the two finalists is remote. Michael Bloomberg might be able to do it. Ross Perot was another. What they both have to bring to the table is lots of money. I understand that the Republicans are floating a regional primary system that has potential. I hope they are able to reform the process. It will require a constitutional amendment, as the early states are not going to be willing to give up the power that the current system affords them.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379192575044761972noreply@blogger.com