Might be weird to Americans, but other countries like Canada actually limit their campaigns to 3 months total. I find it odd that you guys’ politicians have a relatively major election every 2 years and essentially don’t take a break from campaigning that entire time.
Yeah, that’s not useful in this analysis because the opponent has been campaigning for far longer. So while 3 months is a good campaigning time, it’s not better than 12 months.
And of course we campaign year round because of money.
What analysis? This comment chain isn’t even about the text of the article. I’m not saying one is better than another, it’s just a fact that other countries have shorter campaigns. 3 months is also not worse than 12 months so I’m not sure what your point is.
A long campaign isn’t an inherent feature of democracy, it’s just what the current American reality is. That doesn’t matter to this particular election, but I’m pointing out that the way y’all do it isn’t the only way in case there are people who genuinely don’t know that.
My god. You cannot keep your thinking straight, can you. I said 3 months is not enough time to counter the year long campaign of Trump. You said in Canada that everyone does it in 3 months. Which means, of course, that no one is competing with a year-long campaign in 3 months. How do you not see this?
You think that there’s no advantage to ground game for literally 4 times longer than your opponent can possibly work? And that’s IF the Ds nominee is selected quickly and they have a solid campaign strategy. More than likely the infighting and confusion is going to delay the creation of a coherent strategy so we’re talking about less than 90 days while Trump’s team has been working for the last year and now has the upper hand in narrative pacing because the Ds are in public disarray.
Might be weird to Americans, but other countries like Canada actually limit their campaigns to 3 months total. I find it odd that you guys’ politicians have a relatively major election every 2 years and essentially don’t take a break from campaigning that entire time.
Yeah, that’s not useful in this analysis because the opponent has been campaigning for far longer. So while 3 months is a good campaigning time, it’s not better than 12 months.
And of course we campaign year round because of money.
What analysis? This comment chain isn’t even about the text of the article. I’m not saying one is better than another, it’s just a fact that other countries have shorter campaigns. 3 months is also not worse than 12 months so I’m not sure what your point is.
A long campaign isn’t an inherent feature of democracy, it’s just what the current American reality is. That doesn’t matter to this particular election, but I’m pointing out that the way y’all do it isn’t the only way in case there are people who genuinely don’t know that.
How is 3 months of narrative development not worse than 12 months of narrative development? It’s a clearly disadvantaged position.
Campaign length =/= “narrative development,” but okay. People can still do interviews and events and whatever, but no ads or official campaign duties.
It’s so obvious you’ve never had to think about this before or how it could work, which is exactly why I made my first comment.
My god. You cannot keep your thinking straight, can you. I said 3 months is not enough time to counter the year long campaign of Trump. You said in Canada that everyone does it in 3 months. Which means, of course, that no one is competing with a year-long campaign in 3 months. How do you not see this?
You think that there’s no advantage to ground game for literally 4 times longer than your opponent can possibly work? And that’s IF the Ds nominee is selected quickly and they have a solid campaign strategy. More than likely the infighting and confusion is going to delay the creation of a coherent strategy so we’re talking about less than 90 days while Trump’s team has been working for the last year and now has the upper hand in narrative pacing because the Ds are in public disarray.