I thought that's why they had presedential primaries and party Conventions....

here's an interesting peice on the whole process.

quote:
June 08, 2003

Democratic Primary Analyses
People often say our politics are radically different from what they used to be. When I read Andrew Cline, I often think maybe things haven't changed, it's just that the science of analyzing political campaigns has advanced massively in recent decades.

For example, Cline has a political article you political junkies really should read: The Press-Politics of the Presidential Primary Process. He comes to a lot of interesting conclusions. For example, he suggests that it is the press that decides who the winner will be, well in advance of the primaries and almost entirely without regard to the issues or even the strategy put together by the candidates' campaign staff.

Some of you may be rolling your eyes and saying, "well duh!" But Cline's analysis goes deeper than you might think.

Indeed, it'll probably make you think. I, for example, spent most of my time thinking about how most of the negative aspects of what Cline discusses can be laid at the feet of campaign "reform" laws of the 1970s. More on that in a bit.

Cline's analysis suggests that the press usually picks the winner of most Presidential primary campaigns. Not due to a sinister cabal, or intentional manipulation. Rather, they do it quite unintentionally, quite unconsciously, and voters quite unintentionally and quite unconsciously let them. Most amusingly, the candidates themselves are close to helpless in the matter, and campaign strategizing has far less effect than many people think.

An even more interesting point is Cline's assertion that the candidate leading in the national polls going into the Iowa primary is almost certainly going to be the eventual nominee. Irrespective of how he does in Iowa and New Hampshire, which are often reported as the "harbinger" states. He references sources which say this has been the case for both parties in every election since at least 1980.

Cline also notes that it is the most effective fundraiser, not the candidate with the most money, who is most likely to win. This makes perfect sense. The donations limits and other requirements put in place in the 1970s massively shifted the advantage to candidates with the most entrenched Old-Boy networks, by raising the bar for mavericks. It also made the votes of party delegates at conventions virtual foregone conclusions.

Perversely, this is what led to the latest "reforms," which put even sharper limits on political donations. This can only further strengthen the old-boy networks. The candidates with the biggest rolodexes, the best connections with "independent" political organizations, and the largest pre-existing networks of loyalists will be the ones most able to compete financially. The ability to fund a credible campaign will be limited to those with the most extensive networks of cronies who can raise cash. They'll also be the candidates who start earliest. The cure is truly worse than the disease.

I should note that my views on the campaign finance "reform" laws are not Cline's, although I'll bet he'd have a hard time refuting them: I've never seen anyone even attempt to do so rationally.

Anyway: Cline's also got some more up-to-date analysis on his blog. It looks like Lieberman, Kerry, and Gephardt are in awfully good shape to win the nomination. Although Bush is highly likely to get my vote next November, of the three front-running Democrats, I could see myself voting for two of them. The other I wouldn't vote for simply because I dislike him, not because I think he's a lunatic. Which, to end on a more positive note, suggests to me that all the handwringing about "left-wing extremism" within the Democratic party probably doesn't mean much. No more than the carping about "right wing extremism" in the Republican party in the last couple of election cycles did, anyway.

http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/001502.html