I think part of what this shows is that the competition between the two (and previously more) Democrats with fervent supporters has been good for the race, notwithstanding the disappointments that go along with the competition when one's candidate does not come out on top. The remaining two Dem candidates are better for having actually had to compete for the nomination rather than someone gliding into it. Probably the same on the Republican side -- McCain had to fight for that nomination tooth and nail.
It was the extra turnout factor that cost Mitt victories in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida. Republicans who follow politics closely are conservatives, who understand the nuances of economics and foreign policy. Unfortunately, there are a limited number of us. Normally, we have excellent prospects of winning, but when people who don't understand the issues start flooding the process, it's possible to wind up with a deeply flawed and highly corrupt nominee like McCain....sad, but true.
You should also consider where these states were positioned on the time-line of the last primary calender when looking at how much their participation increased.
It's not an entirely fair comparison in may regards. In 2004, the Michigan Dem contest was a closed caucus, not a primary; and Nevada and South Carolina didn't have the "early" positions they were awarded this year.
That said, there's no question that IA, NH, and the races overall have had higher turnout. I just question the accuracy of the conclusions drawn.
Guys make sure you check out the article "The Intoxication of Inspiration" on the blogzine SAVAGE POLITICS (not related to Mike Savage) at www.savagepolitics.com. It is awesome......everyone should read it before voting.
Marc Ambinder, an Atlantic associate editor, blogs about politics and Washington. He might also write the occasional post about aviation, national security, and cognitive neuroscience. Mostly politics, though.
| 
I think part of what this shows is that the competition between the two (and previously more) Democrats with fervent supporters has been good for the race, notwithstanding the disappointments that go along with the competition when one's candidate does not come out on top. The remaining two Dem candidates are better for having actually had to compete for the nomination rather than someone gliding into it. Probably the same on the Republican side -- McCain had to fight for that nomination tooth and nail.
Posted by Lisa | February 5, 2008 12:31 PM