TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 11:23 AM
November 20, 2008 | 10:57 AM
November 20, 2008 | 10:48 AM

November 20, 2008 | 12:03 PM
November 20, 2008 | 10:45 AM
November 19, 2008 | 11:20 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

November 20, 2008 | 11:06 AM
November 19, 2008 | 3:17 PM
November 19, 2008 | 2:17 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
06.02.2008
Should Democrats Fear a Long Race?

I've seen a few people suggest that it'll be a disaster for the Dems if the primary drags out until the convention in August. See, for instance, Ed Morrissey, who predicts a "coming meltdown" if, say, superdelegates hand Clinton the nomination, black voters revolt, McCain gets ample time to win over conservatives, and the Dem nominee has only a short window to raise funds and consolidate support. That's an extreme scenario, but I've heard other versions, too.

I'm not sure. One could, alternatively, imagine that the absence of a clear Democratic opponent would make it much harder for McCain to start attacking (back in 2004, the GOP was able to coalesce around the Kerry flip-flopping meme early on, which gave it time to sink in). Meanwhile, it seems that as long as the Democratic nomination is up in the air, dissatisfied conservatives are more likely to spend time airing their grievances with McCain than training their fire on his opponent.

Clinton and Obama would also have time to sharpen their message on the economy, in a debate waged largely on their terms—McCain's ability to change the subject here would be minimal. And they'll presumably get positive press so long as it's a horse race. Obviously there are wild cards (if the Clinton-Obama slugfest got much, much uglier, that would hurt; and Morrissey's right that it would be a fiasco-and-a-half if superdelegates unfairly swung the race, or if the Michigan/Florida controversy explodes), but on its own, a drawn-out Dem race isn't necessarily a problem for the party—and might even be a boon.

--Bradford Plumer

Posted: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 5:49 PM with 9 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

dbhuff said:

I think another thing is that the primary campaign continues in every state in the nation, precinct by precinct.  McCain won't be doing that...and yes, it will be targetted at the faithful but also indies, and those tv ads will also show up on Republican tvs...

Also, since in many ways viz. the GOP, BO and HRC are opposties, so any message spin from McCain will help one and hurt the other.  And if the one he helps is the nominee, then he can't reverse course.  

No, as long as the candidates are strong, a drawn out primary will help in the general.  Unless the superdelegates do something inane, like thwart the will of the people.  

The fly is MI/FL.  If we don't straighten out the MI and FL mess with a second election, and they become a potential deciding margin, then we are in trouble.  However, HRC supporters in those state parties will fight a do over...

February 6, 2008 1:30 PM

Rhubarbs said:

I think Morrissey is right to this extent: Not a long race, but a convention decided by enelected or improperly seated delegates is a disaster. A Hillary nomination imposed on the party by superdelegates would be a disaster, and plenty of Democrats would stay home.

A long race is not on its own a bad thing. It might even be an asset, as you suggest. But it's important to distinguish between the length of the race and the manner by which it is decided. A long race probably keeps the public engaged and interested in Democratic politics, and invested in the outcome. But if the outcome seems "unfair" to any significant portion of the Democratic coalition -- black voters, for example, or middle-aged white women -- then we're looking at a McCain landslide.  

February 6, 2008 1:33 PM

timcrim said:

Change of subject alert: What is the deal with Dick Morris? This is what he said in the NY Post:

"The prosaic won. And the doctrinaire ideological construct that [Hillary's] candidacy represents is likely to sweep the remaining contests and land her in the White House."

Sweep Louisana and Nebraska and Wisconsin and Virginia? Are you kidding me? How did this man become a professional?

www.nypost.com/.../note_to_pollsters_its_the_single_women___346464.htm

February 6, 2008 1:35 PM

virginiacentrist said:

Great points - as long as the Democratic race continues, the GOP will not have a target to fire at....though this increases the chance that they actually try to run on positive ideas rather than a smear campaign against one candidate.  Hmmm...double edged sword?

The prolonged race also gives Democrats free press throughout the spring. Most of the press is positive ("Obama wins!" or "Hillary wins!")- unless someone commits a huge gaffe.

If Hillary wins with the super delegates but loses pledged delegates, then that's a disaster for the party. Remember: Bill Clinton is a super delegate. The Obama campaign's talking points write themselves:

"Bill Clinton thinks his vote is 20,000 times more important than yours."

February 6, 2008 1:41 PM

Brad Plumer said:

dbhuff and Rhubarbs--You're right (as is Morrissey). The superdelegates and MI/FL are the wild cards. If the process goes awry, all bets are off.

Another possibility is that Clinton-Obama spend their time highlighting each other's massively unpopular positions (driver's licenses for immigrants, say) rather than having productive debates on health care, the economy, and so on. So far, I think the Dem debates have leaned toward the latter, but that could obviously change.

February 6, 2008 1:43 PM

BHLnyc said:

It's not that a winnerless summer would, in itself, be damaging. It's that the temptation to take the gloves off and strike a sucker punch to the other guy would be too great. (And I think we know who'd be most likely to strike first.) Imagine -- to borrow and twist a Romney line -- Bill Clinton roaming around the country with nothing to do for all those months. Do we really think he wouldn't revert to form and take some more nasty swipes at Obama, hoping to draw blood? It just seems inevitable that the absence of movement in the race over the summer, after the primaries are complete, would invite a return to "the fun part." And that's why a long race strikes me as a high risk proposition.

February 6, 2008 1:45 PM

redemption438 said:

The long race is a boon to Democrats, especially if Obama is the eventual nominee or Hillary's VP candidate. The money will keep rolling in, the campaigns will hit every state, and Obama spending time in these places will pay dividends in the general election. Voter rolls will increase and many of those people will turn out for the Democrats in November. Meanwhile half the Republicans will be moaning - wrongly - about how they got stuck with John McCain after a brief and somewhat random primary.

Contrast this with what would have happened if Hillary walked away with the early states and was already the nominee. The Obamania wouldn't have reached its fever pitch, and plenty of voters would have turned off from the election. McCain would have then beaten Clinton because the independents were never drawn into the Democrat primary. I think the long race increases the chance of either Clinton or Obama winning in November.

A wonderful side effect is that, if it does turn out this way, Americans will see the benefits of having a genuine 50-state primary season (you mean my state actually matters?!), and Republicans will shift to greater use of proportional delegates.

Maybe this is all too rose-tinted, but I hope the long race sets a precedent for the future in any case.

February 6, 2008 2:17 PM

Rhubarbs said:

BHLnye, taking the gloves off is not a "temptation" where the Clintons are concerned. That's "standard operating procedure." If simply making up false personal attacks, a la Swift Boat, is what they feel is required to beat Obama, they'll do it. If cutting deals with delegates, pledged or super, might get them the nomination despite a clear Obama lead among elected delegates, they'll give that a try. If seating the MI and FL delegations gives them the nomination, they'll push for that. If seating only Hillary-pledged delegates, not "uncommitted" or Edwards-pledged delegates is the only way to win, they'll try that too.

It may take a village, but the Clinton machine will be happy to destroy the village to get the nomination.

So it's not the length of the race that's potentially dangerous to Democrats. It's keeping Hillary in the race. The good of the party demands that she either be given the nomination in a hurry, or she be forced from the race decisively. Democratic voters' failure to do either is what poses the real danger to the party. The Clinton machine is like a grizzly bear: You can let it do what it wants. You can shoot it, and keep shooting until it's not moving anymore, and then reload and keep shooting some more. But whatever you do, you must not wound the bear, because a hurt grizzly may be the most dangerous force in all of nature.

February 6, 2008 2:26 PM

Bukharin said:

Can Hillary afford a long race?  Further on the monetary topic, if McCain wins the Republican nomination will the "Swift Boat" type groups support him?

February 6, 2008 7:12 PM