Why are Dem Candidates on the Campaign Trail Two Years in Advance?

[linazelle]

Seems like a waste to me. I'm in Chicago and even the Dem mayor (ignorant as he may be and is) said he wasn't going to watch the debate at all. These people are basically (a) fodder for the "liberal media" to tear apart and dissect for the benefit of the boy king and (b) squandering much-needed money and resources that will be critical to go up against Bush's big bux.

Anybody else thinking this way?

[LuminousX]

1. Gore and Clark

are thinking this way.

But the rest need to get in the thick and start making headway against Bush.

[Composed Thinker]

2. It's not really two years in advance

The primaries are in about 6 months, and then, once the candidates become more visible, the campaign officially begins.

[ParanoidPat]

3. I was under the impression that they were campaigning for....

....the primary? :shrug:
The question should be why is Bush* spending so much time fundraising when he has so much unfinished business?
Where's Osama? :(
Where's Saddam? :(
Where's My job? :(
What has he done with my country? :evilfrown:

[lkinsale]

4. Two years in advance? Isn't this 2003?

*counts on fingers*

Or is it still 2002? *perks up* Can I get a year back?

[fabius]

5. Give DU'ers something to talk about.

Also gives the public something to think about. The big difference in this campaign, (aside from the venality and criminality of the Republican side) is the actual diversity of views and the substantive debate going on. This DIDN'T happen in 2000. Or in 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, or 1980 for that matter.

Another good thing is that Dean has committed to go all the way to the convention floor, regardless. When is the last time we saw a contested convention? It should get a lot of press coverage and a lot of discussion of the issues. This is democracy in action.

McAuliffe's proposed "anointing and uniting" plan just serves the establishment and will turn off voters. Come on, let's see some real democracy!

[lfairban]

6. In order to become the nominee, they need to show they can raise funds.

Whoever has raised the most money by January 1, 2004 will probably become the nominee.

[jagguy]

7. dont know about the 2 year part

but it is certainly about 6 months ahead of schedule.

I guess you would have to say this was Mr Dean's doing. Its been a pretty effective gambit for getting him the name recognition that he lacked.

Time will tell if he's burned his rising star out. It certainly has not worked in the past.

But that was then, we'll see about now.

[ping_PONG]

8. campaign finance reform

It's all because of the new campaign finance rules about fund raising. In particular the matching funds thing and the ban on soft money. Normally it would be about now that things would get started.

It makes sense for these candidates to start early too, considering none of them can be considered to be the superstars of the party (I'm speaking of name recognition only here, before anyone gets too defensive. :)) and they really need to build up the name recognition.

I suspect that there had to be a sense of urgency too after last fall's elections, but I could just be projecting.

[newyawker99]

9. Hi ping_PONG!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[CWebster]

10. Because

it can't be soon enough to start working to oust *.

[charlie]

11. Also, compressed primaries

They're so front-loaded, there's little time to raise cash between them. If someone catches fire early, they could lose momentum if the coffers run dry. It's more important than ever to have a well-stocked warchest going in.