April 7, 2008
Like many of you, I've been caught up in "March Madness" these last couple
weeks. As I've watched many of the games, I've gotten caught up in the spirit
of the competition, the stories of the underdogs and the thrilling importance of
every game in the tournament's do-or-die format.
It got me to thinking, wouldn't this whole presidential nominating process be
more exciting if it followed a similar format to the NCAA basketball
tournament? I think it's a pretty good idea. Instead of the "momentum
candidates" (i.e. the candidates with money and press coverage, like Hillary,
Obama and Romney) automatically cruising deep into the process, it would
allow for some early round knock-outs by spunky and inspired candidates like
Dodd, Richardson or Huckabee. It would also force the major candidates to take
more decisive and coherent positions early on in the campaign. Otherwise,
they risk losing to over-matched but potential over-achievers like Mike
Gravel or Sam Brownback (OK, I'm kidding about Gravel or Brownback, but
you get my point). There could be some upsets, but to win it all a candidate
would have to sustain a level of excellence and consistency throughout the
tournament/campaign.
If I was running the show, I'd set up four regions (Democrats, Republicans,
Viable 3rd Party, and Nutjobs), and I'd use primaries in traditionally
important states. Here's how my bracket would look for the 2008 election cycle:
Like many of you, I've been caught up in "March Madness" these last couple
weeks. As I've watched many of the games, I've gotten caught up in the spirit
of the competition, the stories of the underdogs and the thrilling importance of
every game in the tournament's do-or-die format.
It got me to thinking, wouldn't this whole presidential nominating process be
more exciting if it followed a similar format to the NCAA basketball
tournament? I think it's a pretty good idea. Instead of the "momentum
candidates" (i.e. the candidates with money and press coverage, like Hillary,
Obama and Romney) automatically cruising deep into the process, it would
allow for some early round knock-outs by spunky and inspired candidates like
Dodd, Richardson or Huckabee. It would also force the major candidates to take
more decisive and coherent positions early on in the campaign. Otherwise,
they risk losing to over-matched but potential over-achievers like Mike
Gravel or Sam Brownback (OK, I'm kidding about Gravel or Brownback, but
you get my point). There could be some upsets, but to win it all a candidate
would have to sustain a level of excellence and consistency throughout the
tournament/campaign.
If I was running the show, I'd set up four regions (Democrats, Republicans,
Viable 3rd Party, and Nutjobs), and I'd use primaries in traditionally
important states. Here's how my bracket would look for the 2008 election cycle:
| The Final Four (in Politics) - April 7, 2008 |
 |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |
| 1) Hillary Clinton |
Democratic Bracket
| 8) Mike Gravel |
| 1) Hillary Clinton |
| 4) Bill Richardson |
| 5) Joe Biden |
| 4) Bill Richardson |
| 3) John Edwards |
| 6) Dennis Kucinich |
| 8) Mike Gravel |
| 2) Barack Obama |
| 3) John Edwards |
| 2) Barack Obama |
| 1) Hillary Clinton |
| 2) Barack Obama |
Nut Job Bracket
| 2) Barack Obama |
| 1) Ralph Nader |
| 4) Constitution Party |
| 3) Green Party |
| 2) Libertarian Party |
| 1) Ralph Nader |
| 3) Green Party |
| 1) Ralph Nader |
| 2) Barack Obama |
| 1) Rudy Giuliani |
Republican Bracket
| 8) Tom Tancredo |
| 1) Rudy Giuliani |
| 4) John McCain |
| 5) Mike Huckabee |
| 4) Mike Huckabee |
| 3) Fred Thompson |
| 6) Sam Brownback |
| 7) Ron Paul |
| 2) Mitt Romney |
| 3) Fred Thompson |
| 2) Mitt Romney |
| 4) Mike Huckabee |
| 2) Mitt Romney |
Viable 3rd Party Bracket
| 2) Mitt Romney |
| 1) Brad Willard |
| 1) Brad Willard |
| 1) Brad Willard |
| 1) Brad Willard |
On the Democratic side, things would play out to form (as they oftentimes do)
until the regional final, where I see Obama upsetting Clinton. In the nut job
bracket, the green party would pull off a minor upset over the Libertarians, but
in the end Nader, like UCLA would emerge yet again for yet another Final Four
heartbreak. The Republican bracket would be a bit more open, with the top seed
Giuliani going out early, and Romney fighting out the Final Four against me. I
didn't even bother to seed any other candidates in my bracket, as there really
are no other viable 3rd party candidates. Here's how I see the Final Four playing
out:
until the regional final, where I see Obama upsetting Clinton. In the nut job
bracket, the green party would pull off a minor upset over the Libertarians, but
in the end Nader, like UCLA would emerge yet again for yet another Final Four
heartbreak. The Republican bracket would be a bit more open, with the top seed
Giuliani going out early, and Romney fighting out the Final Four against me. I
didn't even bother to seed any other candidates in my bracket, as there really
are no other viable 3rd party candidates. Here's how I see the Final Four playing
out:
| 1) Brad Willard |
| 2) Barack Obama |
| 1) Ralph Nader |
| 2) Mitt Romney |
| 2) Barack Obama |
| 1) Brad Willard |
| 1) Brad Willard |
2008 Presidential Winner
Clearly Obama would crush Nader, and in a shock upset (to the pundits, at
least), I would trounce Mitt Romney. Then, in my most dominant performance
to date, I would easily cruise past Obama to take the title and the presidency.
All in all, I think changing the presidential campaign to this type of format has
several advantages. First, people would get fired up because if your candidate
loses early, it's "one and done". Second, it would make for more compelling TV.
Finally, it would condense the campaign cycle down from 24 months to one
month, which I think all Americans would appreciate.
least), I would trounce Mitt Romney. Then, in my most dominant performance
to date, I would easily cruise past Obama to take the title and the presidency.
All in all, I think changing the presidential campaign to this type of format has
several advantages. First, people would get fired up because if your candidate
loses early, it's "one and done". Second, it would make for more compelling TV.
Finally, it would condense the campaign cycle down from 24 months to one
month, which I think all Americans would appreciate.