An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Sabato’s Crystal Ball: NOT ALWAYS EASIER THE SECOND TIME
“It’s always easier the second time around,” goes the lyrics of the old song. But while that may be true in love and romance, it is certainly not the case in presidential politics.
And that is not good news for Republican John McCain and Democrat John Edwards (or for that matter, Democrats Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich) who are making second tries for the White House in 2008 after failing to win their party’s nomination on their first attempts.
8 Responses to “Sabato’s Crystal Ball: NOT ALWAYS EASIER THE SECOND TIME”
I believe if the candidate is strong enough, this is not necessarily true. What I said in 2000 and 2004 was that Hillary Clinton could afford to “burn” (expend, not merely lose) a campaign in order to gain more nation-wide exposure. (She chose to seat herself firmly in the Senate and “represent” New York, a logical decision given that historically, candidates for the Presidency are Vice Presidents, Senators, and governors.)
Hey, Holly and other editors. Here’s another story I’m first to report [undeserved gloating grin] and don’t get credit for [scowl] that you editors should pursue and and then pounce.
CIA destroyed tapes of “harsh interrogations”
Go for it.
DLS, I spotted that one 3 hours ago and sent it to other TMV bloggers to post on. I’ve been out getting a massage.
I’ll look for the CIA story tomorrow on here.
Good deal on the massage. I hope it was good quality and decently long. (Standard max time I’m used to for a routine is 90 minutes.) There have been days where I’ve gone from one massage place to another. Ahhh. And it beats doing the bar crawl instead. *hiccup* Damn drunks, stepping on my fingers…
Mine are LEGAL massages!
To be clear here, I didn’t suspect otherwise.
What I’ve seen typically are choices of 30, 60, or 90 minutes. You have to check the prices if you want to know which is the best value (time) for money.
And no, money or cost-benefit analysis is not my normal criterion for choosing the time. The more, the better, I say.
To answer the main issue of this thread: Most will be tarnished and seen as losers if they’ve lost before. The strongest don’t necessarily suffer and it just depends on the situation — If Obama won’t be Hillary Clinton’s VP, Edwards might be a suitable choice for VP (once again) for many Democrats.
(On both sides I wonder if one of the lower-finishers, who isn’t as charismatic and didn’t excite many, but is highly qualified might be chosen as VP, such as Biden or Richardson among the Dems, instead.)