I just could not get into watching or commenting on that IPOD train wreck. In these types of situations – issues weigh more than personalities so they tend sink to the bottom and everyone comments on the oily film on the surface.

Anyway – through the entire brew ha ha the issue that sank was “Fusion.”

anoni at FSP sums it up in my view:

I realize “fusion” is the darling of the political hobbyists…

but I still can figure out the rational (or benefit) for a candidate to run a fusion campaign with IPOD.

What does IPOD stand for besides being ANTI Republican and Democrat? Nothing.

some cross endorsements make sense:


But even those are unlikely to affect Election Day outcomes.

I agree with the first point. IPOD style fusion doesn’t make a heck of a lot of sense. As for the second…

First of all don’t limit possible fusion combinations to what you think of as affinity groups. A Dem/Libertarian or a Rep/Green could have a real impact.

The classic “fusion” candidate along these lines was Rudy Guliani when he ran for Mayor of NYC as a Republican AND a Liberal Party candidate. He was offering something to each group and his message resonated with both groups. Capital “L” liberals did not like the cronyism and the built in malaise of the city’s Democratic party and he was clearly Republican enough to suit NYC’s cliff dwellers.

That’s when fusion can make a difference.