There seems to be a consensus that the fact that the Republicans have wrapped up their nomination early helps them, and that a grueling fight to the Convention will hurt the eventual Democratic nominee.
I’m not so sure about that.
True, a long rest can help one plan, build foundations, and raise money. It can also, however, take one off one’s game, as it were, and make a campaign team sloppy and lazy. People who may, or may not, be good in a crisis get promoted, or at least not demoted; systems don’t get tested at full-on loads; the whole effort loses a certain intensity, and so on. Not to bring up a painful memory unnecessarily (oh, the horror, the horror), but the recent Event That Must Not Be Named by the Wild Card Giants offers some food for thought here.
A tough fight that yields a campaign organization that has proven its mettle in the field and is used to operating at full intensity — executives, staff, field, money, operations — when it takes on a Republican operation that has been sitting around for months, may be the just what the Democrats need to retake the White House.
We saw this happen in MA with Kerry Healey, who after having no primary competition ran a wretched general election campaign and was trounced by Deval Patrick, who had endured a fairly competitive primary.
and unfortunately what I expected here. I haven’t had a horse in the race, and I’m disgusted by what’s going to happen now. If there’s no possibility of a clear winner, somebody has to give it up for the welfare of the party and the country. The game just changed, and we’ll see how well those who use the word actually handle it.
There will be a clear winner when somebody gets a majority of delegates. That has to happen at some point. Having Obama and Clinton in the race still means more free media coverage for the Democrats. It also means they’ll develop field organizations in Ohio and Pennsylvania now as opposed to September. Who knows, the field org in Texas might help Rick Noriega beat John Cornyn.
<
p>Now, there could be downsides to it, if candidates campaign in ways that burn bridges. I, for one, am not happy that Barack Obama dissed mandates as a mechanism for universal coverage. For one, it shows he’s willing to dismiss the findings of non-partisan academics like Jonathan Gruber of MIT if it’s politically expedient. But the worst consequence could be that if he wins the Presidency and tries to get universal coverage, the Republicans will throw his own words back at him, probably trying to make ‘mandate’ as dirty a word as ‘amnesty.’ But Bob’s basic point about campaigns staying sharp is a good one. I think Bill Bradley was one reason Al Gore’s campaign didn’t do too well: basically, Bradley was an anemic competitor who couldn’t make Gore break a sweat after New Hampshire.
Exactly why is he enshrined in Springfield? 12.2 points, 3.2 boards, 3.4 assists per game. Players with similar careers: Jon McGlocklin, Clem Haskins, Keith Erickson, Howard Komives, Jim Barnett, Fred Carter, Jim McMillian, Walt Hazzard, Lucius Allen, Bingo Smith. I know, you’re all asking, “Who?” My point exactly. Definitely not Hall-of-Fame-worthy. It’s not like Ken Dryden, who was the absolute Man (unfortunately) before becoming a Rhodes scholar (in another sport). Ken Dryden deserves to be in his Hall of Fame; Bill Bradley? Not so much. đŸ˜‰
Maybe it’s not perfect, but I certainly think it’s relevant.
it’s a poor comparison because a) Kerry Healey was not exactly a strong nor experienced campaigner, b) she was an incumbent LG giving her notions of advantage, c) a Republican, and d) MA is a wierd political microcosm that is not terribly representative of retail politics throughout the country.
he’s clearly (c), basically (b) as of the party of the unpopular incumbent, but he’s not (a), and though there is truth to (d) general elections aren’t won in retail politics
<
p>Since when have the Republicans been sitting around in the last 28 years. Just a bit of history to throw in to this the only Dems who beat the Republicans at their game since the Reagan revolution are (Fill in blank). However if the BMG Editors endorsed the republican nominee then the BMG-KoD would be on them. đŸ™‚
is that we can start going after McCain now. The Republicans don’t have that luxury. They’ve been vilifying Hillary as the presumptive nominee, but do they have the funds to go after both Hillary and Obama? Attacking Democrats in general won’t be as effective.
<
p>That being said, it’s a moot point if we do their job for them.
It’s tougher to hit a moving target. Keep ’em guessing.
A tough primary doesn’t scare me.
itself that bothers me. It’s how the media is already spinning it. Republicans have their act together and have chosen. Democrats can’t seem to get their act together. It will be negative spin and daily pronouncements about the strength of one or another based upon minutiae. I predict that months of that will serve a purpose, just not what either Dem candidate wants.
but I don’t watch Faux News. Where have you heard the message that the Democrats “don’t have their act together”?
<
p>Furthermore, apart from Fox, I doubt that news editors are going to be giving equal time to the Republicans when there is a much more interesting horse race to cover on the Democratic side. As long as Clinton and Obama can keep it clean, I think this is an overall plus for them in terms of media coverage.
You gotta be kidding me. I can barely tolerate CNN. I did watch Olberman last night. I do believe there is going to be extreme pressure applied to not let this go to a brokered convention. There is discussion of a redo of Florida and Michigan (there’s precedent from 1996 in DE, I believe). The Pat Buchanan like talking heads who are so gleefully paraded as alternative viewpoints are going to going to go there, I promise you. BMG’ers might have a good grasp on the complexities involved and think this is a good thing, but the average Dem who watches the nightly news is not going to get it.
people have the time to spend, nor do they have the desire, to follow the complexities of the primary process. If the only source of information is the nightly news, and this applies to all whether Dem, Repub or whatever, then the media slant is the only thing they hear and see and may not represent the whole picture.
the Dems choose a candidate before the 11th hour, the points that you make about them staying sharp in a contested nomination process are well taken.
<
p>One way that McCain’s inevitability may hurt him is in Senate participation. He missed a key vote on the stimulus package 2 days ago (while in D.C) which would have helped both seniors and veterans.
<
p>He can’t continue to duck uncomfortable votes in the Senate if he no longer has a challenger. If he’s the “straight talker” that he claims to be, he shouldn’t shy away from the tough calls.
side is that both Dem candidates are going to miss very same votes.
In Wednesdays vote, McCain was the only U.S Senator who missed the vote. The package was backed by both Hillary & Barack, and they both voted yes. The measure needed 60 votes to pass, but lost 59-40.
<
p>It created a scenario that McCain will continue to face:
<
p>FWIW, in the 110th Congress, out of 450 votes, McCain missed 57% of them. The only one who missed more was Senator Johnson who suffered a brain hemmorhage.
…will hurt the eventual nominee of the party…unless they start beating each other up badly. I hope that both Clinton and Obama will keep things civil…if they veer off into attack mode on each other, it will only help the Republicans.
For years everybody has complained because the party nominee was pretty much decided by the first three or four primaries and everybody else’s vote ‘didn’t count’. Now we get a primary season where it looks like everybody’s vote IS going to count and now this is a disaster for the party?
<
p>FWIW, my take is we’ve got two strong candidates that 95% of the party will gladly get behind once the convention is over. The Republicans are the ones that are still divided, as was demonstrated by the reception McCain got at the CPAC meeting yesterday. Clinton and Obama get to tag team McCain for the rest of the spring, getting lots of free media in the process, while everyone stops paying attention to the Republicans for several months. Throw in the huge turnouts we’ve seen so far in the primaries and I think we’re still in great shape for November
I think a long contest is fine and will be exciting and strengthen our party if we dont fall into silly media traps.
<
p>However, if Obama gets more elected delegates but the the election is given to Hillary by the Superdelegates that will angry me, and I’m sure it will anger many other people as well.
<
p>That will make it very difficult for me to pull the lever for Hillary, and due to her continuous votes for the war and cluster bombs I will already have to hold my nose. I worry that without the kind of enthusiasm Obama brings to the table a lot of people will begin to feel apathetic.
makes you think that Barack has cornered the market on enthusiasm vs. the nation’s strongest desire ever to elect a Dem and get out the the mess that Bush has created? I don’t really care about the candidates, but this Barack media rah rah crap is really starting to annoy me. I have to hold my nose to vote for either, much the same as I did when I voted for Kerry. This time, I will not just hold my nose, but I will work my ass off to prevent McCain from going to the White House. I’m sure I’m not alone in this thinking, and I can’t stand Barack nor Clinton on many, many issues. So, just be aware that my enthusiasm has nothing to do with your rah rah guy nor the other rah rah person. Keeping a tally right now, your guy using the “enthusiasm” argument and threats that people will become apathetic and not care enough to do what has to be done to elect a Dem is enough to sway me in the opposite direction. Great campaign strategy if you ask me.