Yes, they have come out in droves, groups that do not generally tend to vote. They have come out largely to stop the Clinton machine. And if they fail, I fear many of them may never vote again.

It's a shame he isn't up for re-election this year, but having his prostitution mess thrown in the face of the electoriate this fall might help with the House races, especially the4th Congressional District. This is a district that was though to be solidly Republican, but it turns out it is really more concerned with Conservative values than with being affilited with the Republican party. The race is being called highly competetive already, with Demoracts stand a very good chance of picking up the open seat. This kind of moral based scandle may be just the ticket to put Paul Carmouche over the top.

Ever since it became fairly obvious which way the wind was blowing in the primary, I've been an advocate of letting the fight go the distance, because I think Hillary is an excellent sparring partner for Obama, who has certainly benefitted from the seasoning she's given him.

There's been a lot of talk that Mark Penn's departure or demotion (depending on who you talk to) is going to result in Hillary's campaign taking a more positive tone, promoting her strengths without trying to cut Obama off at the knees. If that's the case, then a long campaign is even better for Obama and for the party, because it keeps the Democrats front and center, pushes McCain to page A5 (where he's been since winning the nomination), and keeps newly registered voters and contributions rolling in for the Dems, all without crippling the eventual nominee.

Since both Obama and HRC are also getting record donations, and Democratic fundraising has far outstripped Republican efforts, I think the Trojan Horse Republican theory is vastly overstated.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

...that when a Republican or independent changes stripe to vote for Obama, his supporters say, "Look, Obama brought us a new Democrat." When one changes stripe to vote for Hillary, they say "that voter only changed stripe to vote for the weaker candidate and thus hurt the Democrats--it REALLY menas they think Obama is stronger." That way, they get to take the same evidence (a voter changing parties) and interpret it so it's ALWAYS a vote for Obama, even if the voter votes for someone else.

John762, to be convincing, you'd need to show at least SOME evidence that this was happening, and that the candidate being thus supported was the one who was "trailing."

How many times has every state in the country had a chance to

see a Presidential candidate? How many times has every

state had a chance to have a vote in the primary that counted?

By the time the convention comes around, the Democratic

party will have campaigned in every state....John

McCain will still be plugging along and will be uanable to

achieve this. What is wrong with this? A base is being built

for the candidate that wins and it will save the candidate from

having to spend money to visit every state and he/she can

concentrate all efforts on McCain. It's a win win.

John762,

"(Changing parties to cause this type of mischief is a felony in some states indecently, but then again respect for the law has never really held the repubs back before)."

John, this has been going on from BOTH parties for a VERY long time. Nothing new here.

The long nominating process means that both candidates have developed a strong roster of experienced staff and volunteers in all 50 states. They will make possible Howard Dean's 50 state strategy. The GOTV particularly by the Obama campaign will pay rich dividends for all Democrats in the fall. If the campaigns combine their intelligence they will have a very accurate measure of the Democratic support. Even if the campaigns don't merge many of the volunteers and staff will be able to help other Democratic campaigns. McCain on the other hand will be going into the fall campaign with staff and volunteers who have essentially sat on their hands for 6 months.

The newly registered Democrats are repubs trying to prolong the Democratic primary by voting for the candidate trailing in the race.

They will not be voting for a Democrat in the General Election.

(Changing parties to cause this type of mischief is a felony in some states indecently, but then again respect for the law has never really held the repubs back before).

I wrote a few years ago that it's in states' interests to host hard-fought primaries.

The candidates raised, what, sixty million dollars in February? Think of all the local businesses that goes to! Normally, only Iowa and New Hampshire get this sort of economic stimulus.

I've maintained for a while that the primary race is good since it lets the Dem candidates have some control over the media narrative that defines who they are, rather than letting the right-wing attack machine do it, as it will during the GE. And the longer the primaries, the less the impact will be when the right-wing attack machine does kick in.

However this only remains a positive as long as the Dem candidates run in a way that is uplifting to both candidates and to the electorate (I'm lookin at you Hillary).