In the latest Clinton thread there are comments that attacks by Bernie and his supporters substantially weakened Clinton (people remember the bad things he said about her and consequently voted against her…).
My theory is the opposite: that when a politician have a tough primary campaign it forces him to substantially improve his campaign apparatus, his ability to respond to attacks, to change his message…–and thus improves his prospects in the general election.
What is the historical evidence?
It depends …
A good candidate is usually strengthen by tough Primaries. Reagan was an example way back when. I think Obama is another example. He unseated the favorite and I think it strengthen him against McCain.
A weak candidate though can be hurt. I think Hillary is a good example where she was hurt by the primary. But she was a bad candidate to start with. Low charisma. (And this doesn’t mean she wouldn’t have made a good President, it means she was bad at the job of running for President)
Isn’t this is a self-fulfilling prophecy? The losing candidates after tough primaries will always be considered the weak ones. In Clinton beat Obama in 2008, she likely would have smoked McCain similarly.
I would say it depends on the tough campaign. In what ways was it tough? Were there a number of personal attacks that diminished the eventual winner, and provided cannon fodder for the other side? Or was it just a disagreement on policy? Did the primary loser back the winner? Etc
There was no shortage of people and polls that showed HRC was a weak candidate.
Her Trustworthiness and likability were both below 50% like Trump. Both were weak candidates to some degree, but Trump had charisma for a lot of Republican Voters and then pulled enough Not-Clinton Voters in enough states to beat her in the electoral college.
Someone like Obama, Reagan or Bill Clinton would have smoked Trump. Loads of charisma.
I’m not sure she would have smoked McCain, but it probably hinged on the RNC not selecting Palin as the VP. I think McCain with a different VP probably would have beat HRC.
I will note that Rubio was considered to have a lot of charisma at the time. Trump, though was speaking the anti-Obama racist backlash that a lot of voters would have thought but didn’t say out loud.\
And I think you forget just how unpopular the Republicans were in 2008. Even if McCain had selected Liebermann as he initially wanted, I think Hillary wins big. And then the narrative of her being a weak candidate disappears. Hell, John Edwards could have probably beaten McCain handedly (and thankfully that bullet was dodged).
In 2004, John Kerry was close to beating Bush. Less than 40k votes in Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico would have done it. But he’s seen as a weak candidate, which wouldn’t have been the case had he won. Hell, Al Gore probably did win in 2000 but he’s seen as a weak candidate because of 5 SCOTUS justices.
From my perspective I thought Bush was very beatable in 2004. I did think Kerry was weak and did not like having to vote for Kerry/Edwards but as the alternative was Bush/Cheney I felt I had no choice.
If you don’t think Gore was a bad candidate, you weren’t following that election. I was extremely sad that Gore beat Bradley and Rove/Cheney undermined McCain in 2000. We went from 2 good candidates for a rare change to two terrible ones.
I think the main difference was that it wasn’t just a tough primary, it was the whole ‘DNC rigged it!!!’
It also surely depends on what kinds of campaigns the primary candidates ran. If I’m in a primary, and run on “My opponent sucks!”, then should my opponent win the primary, the other party can just re-run my ads (sometimes literally). On the other hand, if my campaign is positive, touting my own experience or past results or whatever, then my ads become merely irrelevant once I lose the primary, and my opponent has experience in campaigning that might carry over to the general.
Bradley would have gotten smoked by W. I’m not sure why people think a guy that gets beaten soundly in a primary would win in a general (Gore is the only non-incumbant since the current system started in 1972 to have swept every primary or caucus). Dubya was a boob, but he ran a fantastic campaign. Remember Compassionate Conservatism?
I don’t know the general evidence. But I think a tough primary battle between DeSantis and Trump would damage DeSantis when he out-Trumps DJT.
Take abortion. If DeSantis can stick with the Florida 15 week limit, he could probably sell that as moderate in the 2024 general (abortions after 15 weeks are rare). But if he bans most Florida abortions to prove he’s a real winger, and thereby gets the nomination, that will help the Democrats in November 2024 (and could even help Charlie Crist this November).