Tuesday, February 12, 2008

A Relatively Short Primary Did Nothing for Dems in 2004

I can remember changing my mind on my vote in 2004 from John Edwards to John Kerry. It was after I watched a couple of the Iowa Caucuses on C-Span, and I listened to some of the post-caucus spin that said, "We need to get the primaries decided early so that we can move quickly to beat George W. Bush." I was convinced at that point that ending them sooner rather than later would increase our chances of beating Dubya.

So, you can understand why I might not be anywhere close to panicking about dire predictions of long, divisive primary seasons in 2008. After 2004, wrapping this one up quickly doesn't seem any more preferable than stretching it out as long as we can. Might a brokered convention--which is growing more remote unless Clinton takes at least Texas and Ohio on March 4--also keep the Republican sludge hounds strategists a little off balance? Might it also lower media expectations, since they are the ones wringing their hands about the prospect of party disarray?


  1. Yes, it isn't over until it's over. Maybe by August we will understand why we are voting for whom. Right now it just seems to be taking sides based on labels selected and dissected by the media.

  2. It may be an advantage to have a late decision. With the media cycle as constant as it is now, it's easy for a campaign to become stale much sooner than ever before.