This is the conventional wisdom but I’m not convinced it’s true. I’ve never seen any sort of an analysis of nomination races that demonstrates that a tough nomination race equals trouble in the general election. Ronald Reagan and George Bush threw lots of crap at each other in 1980 only to end up stomping a sitting President; Michael Dukakis’s nomination in 1988 was (relatively) peaceful after Gary Hart dropped out but he was resigned to the dustbin of history.
Nomination spending and compaigning has the effect of putting the candidates in the public eye. If everyone in the GOP surrenders to John McCain now, McCain will stop being news in about four days until either the GOP or DNC conventions (I don’t remember which comes first) while either Clinton or Obama will remain in the headlines - and, by definition, the one who emerges as the candidate will be the one who won and therefore has a positive story. Either it’ll be Captain Hope and his amazing comback or Billary and what will now be perceived as a comeback of her own. Since Clinton is now backing off the ultra-slime approach that cost her a lot of support, it’s unlikely the winner of the battle will come off as evil, so how would staying in the news be bad?
Very well put. I suspect the very well funded Obama camp is sitting in their chairs, legs crossed, thinking…hmmmmmm…how can we garner some of his support. I think any vitriol the Romney supporters have towards other candidates, would be placed on Clinton’s lap…just a hunch.
Most fervently agreed. In a rare show of solidarity to The 'Dope I will announce that if the Huckster wins the Republican nomination I will forgo my usual voting for a 3rd party candidate and vote unreservedly for either Hillary or Obama (or Mickey Mouse if the Dems throw up the cute little guy as their nominee).
I so avow and affirm…and may Og have mercy on our (purported) souls…
Gary Hart had only a minimal effect on the Dems’ primary season in 1988 - Dukakis’ main rivals were Gore, Gephardt, and Jesse Jackson (who, as we all know, won SC that year :)). It was a pretty serious contest for a couple of months.
But the larger point holds. Carter won the 1976 election despite not clinching the nomination until the first week of June. Same with Clinton in 1992, only I think it was late April before he finally got a commanding lead. Kerry in 2004 wrapped up the nomination early; he’s still in the Senate.
McCain has the GOP nomination lock, stock and barrel.
HRC would just be the second coming of the same ol’cavalry - Blegh.
I don’t see her as any more capable than Obama. At very least Obama would be much more tolerable when speaking in public. I shudder the thought of her in the oval office.
In each of the seven elections between 1964 and 1988 inclusive, the party which was more united at the time of its convention won the election. This is part of the reason why conventions became tightly scripted infomercials.
The evidence that a protracted primary fight harms the eventual nominee is less convincing. It’s good for an incumbent president to avoid a primary challenge (challenges to Ford, Carter, and Bush 41 were signs of weakness), but when there is no incumbent, a primary fight is almost inevitable and not necessarily a bad sign.
I think in a lot of states this will help Obama. I think it frees independents to vote for Obama that may have voted for McCain. I will be quite happy if in the end it is Obama vs. McCain. That would make it the best choices I have ever had in an election. I will vote for Obama, only to help swing the Supreme Court back to the left a bit. It has gone too far to the right. I like and respect both Obama & McCain. It has been a long time since I could actually say that about either nominee. So hopefully Obama pulls off his upset.
How exactly did McCain pull this off? Does he have great campaign managers or…? His campaign was broke and having to let go of staff and he was the lag behind in all the polls just a few weeks ago.
