How will the primaries work when there are no incumbents?

[Sparkly]

I can't remember a time when both parties had a wide-open primary with no incumbent.

How does this work, since it seems each party would want to select their candidate based on who they're running against?

Do we fight to have the later primary? Will they pull a fast one to make theirs come later?

Do we just hope they get an early and obvious "front runner?" Would the DNC also manipulate a choice before the primaries rather than have a wide-open, ten-candidate campaign? Are there "pro's" to that approach or only "con's?"

[Jack_DeLeon]

1. Every person for themselves, its a free for all....

hopefully we will end up with a "real" candidate this time.

[lessthanjake]

2. 1968

was the last time we had two primaries without a president or a vice president on either side. But thats only mostly true since LBJ did run in one primary where he won then he dropped out.

The last time it was really 100% true was in 1952 with stevenson and eisenhower. But Eisenhower really wasnt going to be beaten.

So your really have to go way back to find a real 100% wide open primary thoroughout on both sides.

[Sparkly]

5. Thank you

I didn't think it'd happened in recent history.

How do you think it'll work?

[lessthanjake]

9. Heres what i think will happen

Largely our nomination process will go the same as it did this time. However if one republican candidate pulls ahead and there is a candidate of ours that would do particularly well against that one then that dem candidate may get a boost. For instance if Bill Frist got ahead then Phil Bredesen may get a boost on our side. My reasoning is this. Frist is from tennessee and so is bredese (hes the governor). However Bredesen is HIGHLY popular there and would most likely beat frist. So someone that can beat frist in his own home state has an advantage over him.

[Radical Activist]

3. '88

Bush was VP, but there was still a lot of competition for the Republican nomination. The Democrats had a big crowd run as well. It should be a lot of fun and very entertaining to watch.

[Vickers]

4. Do you think Tricky Dick will still be VP in 2008?

I sure don't.

[Sparkly]

6. I see what you're saying

Yes, that's a prediction of mine, too. The most likely scenario is for the GOP to replace the Dick along the way with whoever it is they'd most like to run in 2008.

That spares the Annointed Candidate from a REAL primary process, ensuring he's a neo-con BushCo insider.

[Vickers]

7. "spares the Annointed Candidate from a REAL primary process"

Man, I didn't even think of it in that way...WOW!

I was only looking at it from a "the incumbent has a better chance at winning" angle, and not from the "hey look, another way to subvert the election process angle."

I always feel so dumb reading DU. :(

[Sparkly]

8. You already know all the facts

It's only a matter of putting them into a Big Picture, and actually what you brought up is far more important than what I was asking in the first place.

The "insiders" in the Bush* cabinet recycled from Reagan/Poppy; the ever-narrowing circle of loyal "insiders" maintained for the second term... It really begs a lot of questions, doesn't it?

Like, what are they protecting?

What are they creating?

How far back does this "inner circle" REALLY go?

:tinfoilhat: