Do you think the primary is actually good for the Dems?

[a_bee]

I do.
The Demiocrats raise money and spread their messages of which health care package is better and why, and which way out of Iraq is better and why,
McCain is having trouble getting donations. Givers want to wait “until it matters”.
But during the general election all the Democratic donors will want to “confirm” their primary donation with a general election donation. All the ones backing the winner for sure, and all the regulars who voted for the loser, and all the new party members who want their prior donation to count.

As for divisive? This is the least divisive primary in the history of the country.
It may be too long, but it’s certainly not too muddy.

IMHO. How about your HO?

[XT]

Yes, I think it will be good for the Dems in the long run that the race is so close and that they are getting people interested in how it turns out. I think the interest generated in their primary will be good for them when it comes time for the general election…and will hurt the Republicans because they will have spent months pretty much out of the spotlight.

-XT

[Whack-a-Mole]

I think the following bit sums it up pretty well:

@Joe Andrew

“I am convinced that the primary process has devolved to the point that it’s now bad for the Democratic Party”

<snip>

“While I was hopeful that a long, contested primary season would invigorate our party, the polls show that the tone and temperature of the race is now hurting us,” Andrew wrote. “John McCain, without doing much of anything, is now competitive against both of our remaining candidates. We are doing his work for him and distracting Americans from the issues that really affect all of our lives.”

SOURCE: Time Magazine article on Joe Andrew, Democratic National Committee chairman from 1999-2001, appointed by Bill Clinton

[Mr.Moto]

I think Democrats need to ask themselves what a presidential primary is for.

If it is for following all sorts of rules so that delegates can be meticulously apportioned by all sorts of proportionality rules, and for punishing state delegations who don’t fall into line, then this process has been a huge success for the Democrats.

If the job of the primary is to pick a winner, it has been a failure.

[Driver8]

@Mr. Moto

If the job of the primary is to pick a winner, it has been a failure.

Isn’t that a little premature? Are you suggesting that the primary process will fail in this goal? I’m not sure how … it seems very unlikely at this point that the process will fail to pick a winner. Perhaps you could outline some of the scenarios you had envisioned where this process not only fails to pick Clinton or Obama, but anyone else at all!

[Eben]

@Driver8

Isn’t that a little premature? Are you suggesting that the primary process will fail in this goal? I’m not sure how … it seems very unlikely at this point that the process will fail to pick a winner. Perhaps you could outline some of the scenarios you had envisioned where this process not only fails to pick Clinton or Obama, but anyone else at all!

I know many people who are sick of the fighting of the Dems and look over at McCain thinking he’s not so bad in comparison. I don’t know how that will shake out nationaly, but it sure looks to me like McCain has gone from no real chance at the presidency to a pretty good chance simply because of the politics being played by the Dems.

[Sitnam]

I do also. Aside from the stupid coverage (Wright, sniper fire, etc.) that only cements minds already decided, the media coverage of the issues and possible solutions involves the masses. It helps democracy just to have the masses care, and it helps the democrats because they have the opportunity to be the ones doing the talking. McCain is sitting in the corner and has to fly to the Middle East to be heard.