Archduke Russell John wrote:

rickyp wrote:And isn't the primary system a lot more scrutiny than what convention nominated candidates used to receive?

I would also argue Barack Obama didn't get vetted nearly well enough.

Looking back, I agree that now it seems like he wasn't experienced enough. However at the time that didn't matter, what mattered was that the perception was that he could beat McCain and Hillary couldn't.

I think you are horrible wrong. Because even with a more debate heavy schedule, candidates are going to need to pay for advertising. That is just the nature of politics in the modern society

.

Herman Cain is leading polls right now, and he hasn't spent much money at all. Or advertised at all has he?

I don't necessarily discount the boots on the ground...etc. (Especially in caucuses versus elections) I just think that i've seen major electoral campaigns fought differently recently and they didn't depend so much on the old tactics.
We had a mayor in Calgary (the first Muslim mayor of a major city in NA) get elected as a complete outsider going from 2% support in the early polls to a majority based upon only Internet and debate appearances and interviews... Little "retail" component.
Had the new Premier of Alberta win her parties leadership in a similar fashion...
When you are concentrated in two smaller states I think the retail component may be as crucial as you say, and it may be partly because its "whats expected". But opening up a primary schedule where there are always 3 or 4 competing events might mean that there's room for innovation.
Again, how did Cain get to where he is without spending much or advertising at all?
Ron Paul and Obama do really well raising money on the Internet don't they? Could they also tap that medium to change campaigning?

rickyp wrote:Again, how did Cain get to where he is without spending much or advertising at all?

Performance in the debates and his 999 plan, which people see as at least thinking outside of the box. It may/may not be workable, but it's not boring.

Ron Paul and Obama do really well raising money on the Internet don't they? Could they also tap that medium to change campaigning?

Not in Iowa and NH. If you don't shake hands, hold babies and visit coffee shops, you don't exist.

I think most of the interest in Cain is that he is not a normal politician. That makes him stand out, and people are taking notice.

I see Cain and Romney splitting Iowa with Paul third. Romney takes NH, and Huntsman/Santorum/Gingrich/Bachmann drop out. Cain wins SC, and it is a two man race to the finish.

rickyp wrote:Herman Cain is leading polls right now, and he hasn't spent much money at all. Or advertised at all has he?

Sure but if you read anything about his campaign, he is being written off because he has no money and no campaign staff.

So let's talk about it another month or two after the latest fund raising reports are out

Doctor Fate wrote:Performance in the debates and his 999 plan, which people see as at least thinking outside of the box. It may/may not be workable, but it's not boring.

Now that I see what the 9-9-9 plan is, I can see why it's initially popular. It looks like a tax cut for everyone. Turns out it's a tax cut for the rich and a hike for most people, but it takes a bit of work to notice that a 9% flat income tax will exceed the current bill for a houseold on $50,000, and then they'll have to pay an extra 9% in Sales taxes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

And then there's the point that it's just step one in a three stage process to end up with 25% Sales tax. On top of existing State and local sales taxes, and perhaps that's not the highest it will get to.

If there was ever an incentive to either expand the government to regulate, or for people to work the grey/black economy, it's a high sales tax.

Still, he's fun to watch. Reminds me of Perot.

archduke

Sure but if you read anything about his campaign, he is being written off because he has no money and no campaign staff.

The point is, he's attracted the initial support and his current high level support without the traditional spend.
I think he's being written off because he's half baked.
He is appealing because he's usually direct, and he does have some interesting notions. But they aren't going to stand up to scrutiny very often.
If, however, he had the same direct approach and a developed cohesive set of policies he might have climbed to where he's at and be able to survive - all without having spent the money pundits say you need.
And I understand retail politics are vital in Iowa and New Hampshire partly because of the nature of the states. Small. Not media intensive. But if a candidate like Cain could achieve prominence without doing it the "traditional" way - there' every possibility he might be able to sustain support as well. If he also had substance.
And I know, that if this happened it would be a first time...
If there were four primary events at once - retail politics would mean less.... Perhaps money would mean less too, based upon Cain's current support. (Perry and the Donald took off without spending too).

But my point is still the same. Without Money he isn't going to be able to maintain. He will be swamped by those with money.

Unless, of course, his success attracts donors later on.

Reminds you of Perot? He's nothing like Perot. Cain is just another insider fraud. Yeah, add another type of tax. That's just what we need now. First 9-9-9, then 25-25-25.

On another note, I think it's safe to say that Huntsman's campaign is over.

Guapo wrote:Reminds you of Perot? He's nothing like Perot. Cain is just another insider fraud. Yeah, add another type of tax. That's just what we need now. First 9-9-9, then 25-25-25.

well, to be fair to Cain, he's talking about 0-25-25.

He reminds me of Perot as a self-funding, 'insurgent', appealing to the fiscal conservative, who seems just a little out of his depth when it comes to details. If he gets the nomination, I can't wait to see who the VP pick is. Perot's was an absolute hoot!

On another note, I think it's safe to say that Huntsman's campaign is over.

I don't think it's safe to say anything in the October before the primaries even start. It's not impossible that Romney could blow up completely, leaving the moderate needing a new candidate. It's just that at the moment, Romney is digging in there.

How about a 0-0-18? All in favor say I!

bbauska wrote:How about a 0-0-18? All in favor say I!

Too regressive without some kind of "prebate" for those under a certain income threshold. When you start adding State sales tax to 18% and then consider those on low or fixed incomes, or those unemployed, we're talking about 25% to every purchase. Not good and not "fair."

bbauska wrote:How about a 0-0-18? All in favor say I!

18% Sales tax and nothing else at Federal level?

If you don't like the retail sector, I guess it's a winner.

(oh, and on a pedantic point, those who agree would say 'Aye', as opposed to 'No')

I'd run on 20-20 myself. (no sales tax; flat 20% income tax rate for individuals and corporates with minimal deduction / exemption to protect the poor; maybe $10,000 per person.)