tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post5855991973354671774..comments2024-03-26T05:22:08.256-04:00Comments on Frontloading HQ: Frontloading Under Fire: The Ohio Plan & the GOP in 2012Josh Putnamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-60066004344155778822008-04-08T10:07:00.000-04:002008-04-08T10:07:00.000-04:00Josh,That is an interesting concept I missed when ...Josh,<BR/><BR/>That is an interesting concept I missed when I responded earlier. It would probably overemphasize the effect of the early states, but it would change which states were battleground states, and it would give more attention to more states. You would be more conerned about momentum. I like the way we have it now, however.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379192575044761972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-11501509117597929192008-04-08T09:20:00.000-04:002008-04-08T09:20:00.000-04:00I'm not one to condone digs at other commenters on...I'm not one to condone digs at other commenters on the blog, but this dig actually raises an interesting idea. Joking aside then, what would the general election look like if it were conducted like the primaries? It would never work because states would have the same incentive to move to the earliest possible date in the process just as we've seen with primaries over time. <BR/><BR/>However, let's assume that the process began as a series of state to state contests scheduled from September (just after Labor Day or the conventions) to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. How would that affect the outcomes of past elections?<BR/><BR/>I was going to do "Age vs. Experience" today, but this is an interesting concept that may deserve its own post.Josh Putnamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-76637124210395388372008-04-08T08:14:00.000-04:002008-04-08T08:14:00.000-04:00Bill,The general election is very different than t...Bill,<BR/><BR/>The general election is very different than the nominating contests. In the general election we have two months to focus on two candidates (or three if there is a viable third party candidate). It is all about getting your message out via various media outlets. Public financing and the party organization provide the funds.<BR/><BR/>As dysfunctional as the primaries and caucuses are, it does help even out the playing field. With a national primary name recognition and money are what you need. A person who can develop a grassrooots campaign and is willing to campaign in public has a chance. This year, for instance, Guiliani had the name recognition and Romney had the money. McCain spent all his money early and he had name recognition but he also had high negatives among Republicans. He was able to capture the nomination because he got out and met people in town meetings unlike Guiliani who relied on his name recognition and 9/11 persona and because he presented a relatively consistent message unlike Romney who had a different message each week. <BR/><BR/>On the Democrat side, Obama was a very green candidate last Fall, and has evolved to be a much more seasoned candidate in the interim. He was able to raise large amounts of money and to develop strong grassroots campaigns across the country. Clinton ran a superior campaign in 2007, but she did not connect with her supporters until after she lost in Iowa and pulled off the upset in New Hampshire. The strengths and weaknesses of both Obama and Clinton have been exposed during the primary campaign.<BR/><BR/>Thus, McCain and Obama were able to bring their message to the public with a series of contests connecting to real people in the early contests. In a national primary, neither one would have had a chance and we would now be talking about who Guiliani (or Romney) and Clinton would choose as their running mates.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379192575044761972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-76547543878629409092008-04-08T02:46:00.000-04:002008-04-08T02:46:00.000-04:00It's really funny to take robert's argument and ap...It's really funny to take robert's argument and apply it to the national elections. Heck, why should all of America choose its president at the same time? <BR/> Just for laughs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-62361390391968334332008-04-07T15:37:00.000-04:002008-04-07T15:37:00.000-04:00Yeah, he may want to check it out. The MyDD updat...Yeah, he may want to check it out. The MyDD update is a bit off (not to mention it relies on only one poll). I don't like relying on one polling firm (though admittedly I do for some states to fill out the analysis).<BR/><BR/>Even the snapshot analysis I did with the most recent polls didn't have Clinton winning. That is strange.Josh Putnamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-87960863864250208532008-04-07T15:30:00.000-04:002008-04-07T15:30:00.000-04:00Here's that link from Rob.<A HREF="http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/" REL="nofollow">Here's that link from Rob.</A>Josh Putnamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-89235701805449719992008-04-07T15:09:00.000-04:002008-04-07T15:09:00.000-04:00Have you seen this article?http://www.salon.com/op...Have you seen this article?<BR/>http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/<BR/>2008/04/07/hillary/<BR/><BR/>He needs to read your analysis of the Electoral College.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379192575044761972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-54325874515360717862008-04-07T13:11:00.000-04:002008-04-07T13:11:00.000-04:00I wonder what people are thinking with a national ...I wonder what people are thinking with a national primary. I certainly have problems with the current system, but it is far superior to a national primary. This year, for example, Clinton would certainly have won a national primary on the Democrat side. McCain certainly would NOT be the Republican nominee. I suspect that it would have been Guiliani but it might have been Romney. A national primary would favor those with money and name recognition. It does nothing to provide the nation with the testing that our current system gives us. If we look back at the past 50 years, Goldwater, McGovern, Carter, Bush I, Dukakis, and Clinton would probably have never been nominated. I don't like it.<BR/><BR/>Also, with regard to front-loading, selection of a nominee early in the process seems to be advantageous. The Week quoted the New York Times that in nine of the last ten nomination contests, the party that selected its nominee first has won the election. It guess that one exception was in 1992.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379192575044761972noreply@blogger.com