Delayed Decision Disaster for Dems Republicans? - [Liberrocky]

They say it will be a disaster for the Dems if they do not have a candidate selected by the convention.

As with most things they say, it is probably wrong.

I have been thinking a lot about this since the Mav got his Presumptive Nominee Merit Badge and I think that not having a nominee by the convention would actually help the Dems, 'specially if the nominee is BHO.

I see three main reasons:
1 The American voter is easily taken in by whatever is new and shiny and being that the election is only 10 weeks after the convention BHO would still have that new nominee smell.
2 In 10 weeks there is less chance for the nominee to make a career ending gaffe and blunder.
3 The Republicans would only get 10 weeks to focus attacks on the nominee.
Let's say (god forbid) Obama is the nominee that means there are only 10 weeks to hammer him on his liberal record, his support for partial birth abortion, his ties to Rezko, his lack of experience, and his pathological desire to lose in Iraq.

We would all prefer HRC to be the nominee but if it is to be Obama then it is best for us to have him become the presumptive as soon as possible. Right now he is riding a wave of popular support and is fresh like a Summers Eve, but he will become stale as time goes on and his momentum will wane in line with the Feiler Faster Thesis.

It is also important to remember that Obama is not all powerful, he lost when he ran for congress in 2000 and only won his senate seat because the other candidates, who were leading him in the polls, had scandals erupt during the campaign (Thanks Seven of Nine)*

*Yet another reason to hate Star Trek.

Update
To all you grammar Nazis out there who spotted a superfluous apostrophe in this post, thanks! I need all the help I can get being that I write most of my posts through a sleep-aid induced stupor that would kill a hollywood heartthrob.**

**Too Soon?

posted by xgenghisx at 01:24 AM

| Access Comments