« saturday morning cat blogging | Main | when consultants don't act like consultants »
May 27, 2007
early bird gets the..presidency?
I have been trying to wrap my head around why the run for the white house is starting so early. Americans have a short attention span and with our ability to use the news networks/internet to completely crush a promising bid to nothing in 24 hours (e.g. Howard Dean) makes it a scary proposition. Viral character assassination works. I keep thinking, what can go wrong 18 months out? A lot. Who will we really end up with for choices? Will any of the people put forth right now even make it?
And then I caught a clip from Al Gore on the Larry King show about how he feels it’s too early to run. And then it hit me. Maybe this is the only way we are going to get the American public to accept a female and African American as viable candidates. We need time to get them used to seeing their faces and learning about them.
Despite my thoughts that we live in an enlightened time, my recent trip to San Antonio reminded me that isn’t the case. No real story to tell, but let’s just say that the conversations on politics and social issues with my co-workers were different from what I’m used to.
Who's the bellweather that came up with this concept to start the race earlier, anyway? Does anyone else feel like we’re being manipulated?
Posted by jennj at May 27, 2007 09:28 AM
Clue-ments:
I think two things happened.
First, McCain, and some of the other Republicans decided they had to get some credibility. That sparked some obvious campaigning moves (McCain didn't wan't a surge, so that he could say, "the war is lost, because I said we needed to add 20,000 troops, and you defeatist types prevented it; then Bush took the idea, and ran with it, which hit McCain twice; it isn't working, and it's Bush's baby, which he endorsed).
Secondly, on the Democratic side, Edwards was running early. He did it because he needed money. He's not poor, but campaigns cost more than anyone short of a Scaife, a Buffet, or a Gates can pay for out of pocket.
So he had to declare, or pay for the effort purely on private funds. Which put people who were thinking about running in a bind. If Edwards was allowed to run, alone, he gets to set the terms of the debate. The terms he was setting weren't things Clinton, or Obama, wanted to be dealing with, after months of him talking about them without any opposition.
So they had to get into it, as a defensive move.
Posted by: Terry Karney at May 29, 2007 08:43 PM
Terry - So I wonder if Edwards inadvertantly did what I'm proposing? A secondary effect to his need to campaign early.
But then why are primaries being pushed up? Do they have to go hand and hand?
Posted by: cf at May 30, 2007 08:19 AM
I hadn't thought about the primaries.
That probably has something to do with it.
Back in the day (three years ago) the late primaries were a joke, the selection had been made.
Since that was the case, the candidates didn't spend much time in places like Calif., and so those states didn't get to have their concerns heard.
The early states weren't willing to push their primaries back (which might do a positive good, by making candidates deal with them longer, or start the campaigns later), so Calif, et al., moved theirs up.
I'll bet the need to cover more ground is part of what's driving the longer campaigns.
Posted by: Terry Karney at May 30, 2007 12:50 PM