April 19, 2003
Been thinking a lot about what it will take for the Democrats (for lack of a better alternative) to retake the White House. The Primaries are less then a year away. 8+ men (and probably just one woman) all competing with each other for the nomination over a span over a year. Its an archaic process and one that needs changing. Too much time is spent on the internal competition and not enough focusing on the opposition. It presents a picture of an un-unified party and draws attention to the flaws of the candidates. And the odd week by week progression through states is just bizarre, its designed to give jobs to obscure strategists, not help out the process. Anyway here are some thoughts on a better process, no idea what it would take to implement any of them.
- A one day nation wide primary. Just get it over with. Skip all the state strategy BS and pick a candidate. Early. Maybe a full year before the presidential election. Once there is one candidate they need run an intense and focused campaign, and they'll have plenty of time to do it.
- Prenuptial agreements. If someone wants the parties nomination, they should be required to play by some rules. No negative campaigning against other party candidates. No sore loser tantrums, if they lose they need to support the winning candidate 100% That includes campaigning hard for the nominee in the losers stronghold. Maybe it even includes using remaining campaign funds to support the winning candidate.
- Coordinated attacks on the opposing party. Before the primary the party should be planning certain unified points of opposition with the other party. Each candidate can push their take, but together they all should be coordinated as part of a larger strategy.
Again this is all said while being relatively ignorant of the actual structure of the Democratic party system, but still they can do better and we all know it.
Anyone but Bush in 2004!Posted by Abe at April 19, 2003 07:46 PM