Horserace blogging on the Presidential election may be fun, but it is completely nonserious and not based on anything.

Let me put it plainly. The debates now do not matter to the contest. The coverage does not matter. The blogging does not matter. To some extent, the CAMPAIGNING does not matter.

Definitely a view with in depth understanding of how marketing or the sub-conscious mind works. All one as to do is watch how Madison Ave releases products and ideas and one will see that debates, coverage, blogging and campaigning do matter a great deal.

There are some reasons to believe that it could be different this year. The most important of these is the topsy turvy primary schedule. If Iowa and New Hampshire lose their "first" status or if the results and the Media aftermath are crowded with other primaries, it could have an effect. I think it won't. Iowa and New Hampshire will be first and the coverage they generate will create a domino effect in the contests that immediately follow. I believe, as has been almost always the case, Iowa and New Hampshire will decide who will be the nominees for President.

Very debatable IMO. Iowa and NH have always had the domino effect because the other primaries and caucuses were scheduled so much later afterward and the MSM dominated the public perceptions in the lull period between Iowa, NH and the others. Now that dynamic has changed in many ways. And to think those dynamics won't make a difference is mistaken.

We now have Nevada only 5 days after Iowa and only three days before NH. That alone puts Nevada in the same league as the other two. Add to that that nevada is a Western State and you have a new narrative that was not present in the past. It is now a midwest, eastern, western narrative.

And then one just week after NH you have a southern narrative thrown in with S. Carolina. That gives the MSM four distinctive different regions to muse about. Now of course if one candidate dominates in these four it could be over but it will not be over until then at the earliest.

But wait! Just one week after S. Carolina you have Super Duper Tuesday. Just one week after! And the MSM loves a horse race.

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado (caucuses), Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota (caucuses), Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah

That's 21 more primary/caucuses in one day - just one week after S. Carolina and they represent a diverse cross section of the country. Every region of the country is represented on Super Duper Tuesday.

And then within a week of that you have Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, and Virginia.

That is 29 primary/caucuses in less that a month! Over half the states!

So you have the MSM with the high probability of pushing a horse race - even if someone does dominate the first week and you have one other important dynamic and here it is:

With 29 primary/caucuses so close together and the fact that they were scheduled that way for the primary reason that each state could feel that they were important and that they could have a "real" say in who gets nominated the likelihood of the domino effect from Iowa and new Hampshire is going to be greatly diluted in the minds of each states voters.

Now we have the situation with the MSM exploiting the horse race narrative AND we have each state wanting to show it's importance and individuality. Not to mention a third dymamic that many of the 29 states have many more delegates to offer than do tiny Iowa and New Hampshire. So that too bolsters the importance and individuality and was not really in play in the past.

Could someone run away with this in the first week or two and the narrative will be 'It's Over'? Sure. But it won't be over before two weeks and if the polls in the 21-25 states are close then it won't be be over until it is over.

Think about it. And then get ready for a months worth of staying up late to see what the winning projections are.

If you, who still believe in the possibility of not funding the Iraq debacle before George Bush leaves office, tell us that our Presidential choices are limited to what's already on the table, then I have to concede I'm a hopeless dreamer.

It seems to me that the leading Democratic candidates all consider the actions of the Bush Administration as just another example of "politics as usual". I don't see anyone running on a platform of repudiating the disastrous precedents of the Bush Administration. Even if a Democrat is elected to the Presidency (as I think likely) there will be no mandate for serious change.