8 Comments
User's avatar
Joe From the Bronx's avatar

Yes, nations manage to have an election cycle even less than the reduced time Harris is having and in the long run it seems like a positive development. It is different when we are starting from scratch -- Harris was the likely choice -- but our campaign system is still too long.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

In the UK, political campaigns are limited to just six weeks. In the U. S., Donald J. Trump has been campaigning … NON-STOP … since 2015, if not before. He may need the attention, America does w.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Should read: “In the U.K., political campaigns are limited to just six weeks. In the U. S., Donald J. Trump has been campaigning … NON-STOP … since 2025, if not before. He may need the attention, America does not.”

Apologies.

Expand full comment
Victoria Brown's avatar

Saw today where many are

advocating 100 days for

campaigns. All in for Harris

and Walz. A very good pick

pickfor VP and one I think a

who will be active in his job.

Expand full comment
Zach's avatar

If Republicans win Comstock is the law of the land. If they refuse to change their policies on reproductive health care when it's hurting them in an election campaign, one can only imagine how emboldened they will be if they actually win that election. They have yet to deny their Christian Nationalist wing anything it wants.

Expand full comment
defineandredefine's avatar

"Mayyyyyybe campaigns don’t need to — and shouldn’t — take more than a year?"

That's just kooky talk. Can you imaging the effect on the economy if all those campaign consultants and staffers and pollsters didn't have a job for the full 18 months of the average federal election?

Expand full comment
blazintommyd's avatar

On Dobbs in general - so much for avoiding chaos (aside: they're actually Thelemite chaos Magicians)

Expand full comment
Joeff's avatar

When will we learn who’s on the en banc panel?

Expand full comment