Primaries Are Good

James Fallows writes:

The main drawback is that it allows more time for sniping and bloodletting among the Democrats, which could leave the eventual nominee worse off. This is an asymmetrical risk: Hillary Clinton has already been as sniped-at as she can possibly be -- over, as we know, her 35 years of public service. Indeed, that's part of her argument: the oppo researchers won't come up with anything new. Obama has not yet been scarred or vetted in quite the same way. Maybe it would toughen him to go through a round of true negative campaigning. But maybe it would mainly wound him. And if he ends up as the nominee, he won’t be happy about a lot of footage of a former Democratic President putting him down, which Bill Clinton provided this week.

Clearly on some level this is true, but I think these kinds of fears tend to get overstated. As we've seen from how rapidly the CW on this primary has whipsawed, even if the nomination battle were to go all the way up to convention, the remaining months of general election would provide ample time for Republicans to make whatever attacks they have to make and generally air the laundry. Meanwhile, an extended primary means the eventually winner will have honed his or her message. Since the Democrats are all saying the same general kinds of things -- Bush has screwed everything up and I can fix it, especially terrorism, health care, and climate change -- having competing Democratic candidates out there stealing from each other (both Clinton and Obama seems to be moving toward coopting elements of Edwards' appeal) creates a Darwinian dynamic whereby the stronger message prevails.

It's true that really ugly negative campaigning could come around to damage the eventual nominee, especially if delivered by surrogates like Bill Clinton, but the basic dynamics of this thing don't really lead me to believe that ugly negative campaigning would be a very effective tactic. Both candidates are likable and well-liked, and there seems to be a lot of backlash potential when anyone gets really cutting.

Comments

If you want a longer nomination race, send twenty bucks to Edwards. The stronger Edwards is, the harder it is for Clinton to get up to 50% and close down the process.

Posted by Petey | January 9, 2008 1:08 PM

Besides, exactly which voters do we think would be converted by Bill Clinton's negative attacks (particularly if B. Clinton is out supporting Obama as the nominee)? I could see the Republicans trying it, I just don't see how it's supposed to be effective.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | January 9, 2008 1:18 PM

Hillary: "35 years of public service." I don't think so. Public spotlight yes, not public service. I was a public servant for 25 years, my wife wasn't. I don't disagree with Fallows main point but let's not fall for Hillary's puffing up of her resume.

Posted by carlos | January 9, 2008 1:18 PM

Hillary Clinton has already been as sniped-at as she can possibly be...oppo researchers won't come up with anything new.

I don't find this argument the least bit compelling in light of what happened to Bill Clinton. In 1996, he could have (and may have) argued that "I've been through Gennifer Flowers & Paula Jones. Clearly, there's no way a sex scandal can derail my Presidency." And it would have been eminently sensible to believe this.

But this premise that if you survive a certain kind of attack once, they can't use it to derail you again is obviously wrong.

In terms of digging up new oppo, HRC & Bill have been under Secret Service protection since the end of his Presidency. That's information that the Democratic candidates don't have access to, but that the Republicans will.

Posted by anonymous | January 9, 2008 1:23 PM

I had this argument a lot with people in 2004, who all insisted the best thing that could happen was for Edwards to concede the nomination to Kerry really early. I kept insisting this was crazy; for every day the Democratic primary went on, Bush's poll numbers got worse. It bought tons of free coverage to the Democrats and the Democratic message.

In a year like this, with two competing primaries, the party whose primary lasts longest gets tons of free airtime and the other gets ignored without the benefit of already being President. And because the Democratic race has remained, more or less, a civil affair, we don't have the kind of vitriol that a Republican could actually use. "Experience" is a bipartisan critique, but not one that you need a lot of cross-partisan guidance to use. Beyond that, the longer primary is doing wonders for Brand Democrat.

Posted by jhupp | January 9, 2008 1:26 PM

Question: Isn't Hillary now the first woman to win a presidential primary? After Obama won Iowa there was a robust round of slapping ourselves on the back for an African American winning a primary -- we've gotten past our race problem, we congratulated ourselves. Even though Jesse Jackson won 5 primaries in 1984.

So why are we not congraluting ourselves on "getting past our problem of voting for a woman for the White House"? I smell a double standard here.

Posted by think twice | January 9, 2008 1:27 PM

Leaving aside anonymous' entirely sensible point as to whether we have really heard all the dirt on Hillary, I think that this issue is 6 in one half a dozen on the other:

2004-- John Kerry is arguably not vetted enough in the primary, gets swift-boated in the general.

1988-- Mike Dukakis is attacked by Al Gore on prison furloughs in the primary, and attacked on the same issue in the general.

Doesn't matter either way. The best argument for primaries and challengers is simply that voters should have a right to decide the candidate, not that it will or will not produce a more electable nominee.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 9, 2008 1:41 PM

Hillary has been a public servant since her first senate term commenced. Her marriage to a former president is irrelevant, just as it would be if Laura Bush sought the nomination.

Posted by john o. | January 9, 2008 1:57 PM

For fifteen years conservative republicans have been targeting Hillary Clinton with lies, smears and misogynist riducule. Why just this morning on AM radio here in Los Angeles the five am hour was dedicated to sexist humor concerning all things Hillary capped by the offer of a 'Hillary Holiday Nutcracker' for caller number whatever.

There has never been a democratic candidate in my long life that has been so 'vetted' already by the republicans. Unless she is caught on tape with a dead female hooker there is nothing they can say that has not already been said. It's all just variations on the same tired theme.

And I for one, am sick of this shit and the simple minded acceptance of it by the new young crop of so called liberals who dominate the internets. I don't know if there is anything that can be done except to encourage people like Kos and MY and others to think about the source of their opinions regarding the Clintons. People really should think for themselves.

And yeah, Obama needs to be challenged now before it is too late. The republicans are not going to give up power, they are not going to support him in the general election no matter what.

Posted by ken | January 9, 2008 2:08 PM

True enough, but you have to admit that that Hillary nutcracker is pretty cool.

Posted by john o. | January 9, 2008 2:18 PM

Hybrid vigor baby! A good thing as long as Obama emerges victorious. Clinton is the only thing that could bring the GOP together. Obama is such a powerful candidate he actually steals some of their voters, as we've already seen. And if Hillary's up against McCain? Well you can kiss the independent vote goodbye. It would be a real "thumpin'."

Posted by John | January 9, 2008 2:19 PM

Actually, it would be nice if all the candidates had there records toughly vetted before the first nomination vote was cast...but that would be more work for the professional press, pundits and bloggers than calling a horse race.

Posted by S Brennan | January 9, 2008 2:26 PM

So why are we not congraluting ourselves on "getting past our problem of voting for a woman for the White House"? I smell a double standard here.

Is New Hampshire 95% male? Clinton won on the strength of women voters' support. Obama won on the strength of... white voters'.

Posted by phil | January 9, 2008 2:31 PM

Dilan Esper,

You every right hate Kerry as comment below evidently displays, but to give credence to outright lies as you do in the sentence calls into question not only credibility, but your judgment. I doubt whomever you support would want you using Republican Talking points to do it?

"2004-- John Kerry is arguably not vetted enough in the primary, gets swift-boated in the general."
Posted by Dilan Esper | January 9, 2008 1:41 PM

Posted by S Brennan | January 9, 2008 2:57 PM

I'm not sure ridiculed and made fun of is quite the same thing as vetted.

Posted by J.B. | January 9, 2008 3:03 PM

To deal with this topic in a more general sense: Alan Lichtman, in his Keys to the Presidency book, says spirited fights for the nomination among the out party are essentially irrelevant to election outcomes. In years when the terrain was favorable for change ('32, '52, '60, '92), long and sometimes nasty battles did nothing to hobble the challengers. You can make the argument above -- saying the fight "toughened up" the eventual candidate -- or you can just figure the prevailing dynamic in the electorate trumped atmospherics altogether. (Conversely, the pitched battles in '64, '72 and '84, while influential as to the future of the out party, meant little, as popular incumbents would certainly have been re-elected regardless)

Nomination fights in the incumbent party, on the other hand, are always harmful and, in fact, mostly lethal: '12, '52, '68, '76, '80 -- all incumbent losses (even where replacement nominees ultimately came along, in '52 and '68). The longer this GOP race continues, the better it is for whatever Dem prevails down the line.

Posted by demtom | January 9, 2008 3:45 PM

You every right hate Kerry as comment below evidently displays, but to give credence to outright lies as you do in the sentence calls into question not only credibility, but your judgment. I doubt whomever you support would want you using Republican Talking points to do it?

I am not sure what you are talking about. But to spell out my argument, John Kerry sailed through the primaries on an electability argument. None of his Democratic opponents brought up the fact that there were a substantial number of people in the country who couldn't stand the guy. Now the reasons they couldn't stand the guy-- having to do with stupid beliefs that Vietnam War protestors somehow lost the war-- were wrong. But they were nonetheless out there and had plenty of salience.

Another way of saying this is much as I respect Jane Fonda and think her critics are full of it, there's a serious argument against running her for elective office in anything other than a very liberal state or municipality. John Kerry isn't quite as divisive as Jane Fonda, but the Vietnam stuff was serious and foreseeable, and the swift boaters' lies and distortions nonetheless tapped into a real sentiment that is out there.

I might add that it was also foreseeable that John Kerry had denied himself the most effective means of fighting back because he was trying to explain his vote for the Iraq War. What you wanted John Kerry to be able to say was that he had the courage to stand up because, like Iraq, Vietnam was a terrible idea and his position turned out to be vindicated. Having voted to authorize the US invasion in Iraq, he couldn't make that argument.

Look, I don't take the position that primary electorates necessary should care about electability. There's something to be said for standing for your principles. But where they DO profess to care about electability, as they did in choosing Kerry over Dean, then the fact that the guy may be subject to attacks-- even unfair ones-- and that those attacks may stick and cost him votes is part of the inquiry. Anyone who says that (1) we should care about electability but (2) because the swift boaters were unfair and spewing Republican talking points, we shouln't take their potential attacks into account even if they are going to stick with some voters is being contradictory.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 9, 2008 3:52 PM

It took "35 years of public service" for Hillary Clinton to suddenly "find her voice" after the humiliating defeat in Iowa.

Now she is gearing up to use that newly-found voice, along with the megaphone of her pliant husband, to skewer her opponent Barack Obama with "sniping and bloodletting".

Posted by Justin X | January 9, 2008 4:02 PM

There is a reason why the Dems lose national elections--reading here explains that a lot.

Clinton is the only thing to bring the GOP together? Seriously? That line is a joke. Power brings the GOP together--how do you think they hold their caucus together in Congress?

The GOP bands together in national elections regardless of the smell. The Dems eat themselves for lunch and pout about it later.

Posted by jenn | January 9, 2008 4:31 PM

I'm rather sick of the electability argument in the comments threads of the "Hilary can't win", "Obama can't win", "Edwards can't win" variety. Unless there's some major crisis, we know that if one of them is the Democratic candidate, their percentage of the vote will all fall within three or at most four percentage points of each other. That is within the margin of error for a poll - it certainly is too little for anybody to have the information at the moment to say it is so or not so. Such things tend to blur into idiocy. Far better, at this point, to talk about issues than guessing who is going to gain that extra two percentage points on November 8th.

Posted by roger | January 9, 2008 4:36 PM

Just to correct my earlier post, Shirley Chisolm was the first African AMerican and the first woman to win a presidential primary (1972, in New Jersey). Littled noted in all the hubbub about Obama's "historic" candidacy.

Posted by think twice | January 9, 2008 5:52 PM

One of the problems I have with this "vetting" argument is: what happens when they search Obama's record - and don't find anything significant?

That's one advantage of NOT having "35 years of public service." You don't have time to be TOO corrupt.

Not that I think any politician, even Obama, is "clean". They'll find SOMETHING to bitch about - even if they have to make it out.

But what if it isn't enough? So why throw the election toward someone like Clinton who HAS KNOWN BAGGAGE that can be brought up again by people like the Swiftboaters on the basis that we DON'T KNOW how screwed up Obama is?

Doesn't make any sense to me.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 9, 2008 10:39 PM

As Don Rickles would say, "Let me put it to you another way..."

At every Clinton appearance, I could stand there with a sign that has the words "Marc Rich pardon" on it and be right.

What's the sign say for Obama? "Madrassa"? Please.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 9, 2008 10:41 PM

Well, don't forget that the neocons and their close allies have pretty much gained complete control of the media now, and will totally dominate the compaign of whichever Republican is nominated, except perhaps Huckabee.

Something tells me that they won't be making a big deal about the Marc Rich pardon...

Posted by RKU | January 9, 2008 11:44 PM

Good point, since they support Marc Rich and the Russian-Turkish-Israeli Mafia that he finances. In fact, they're making money from those operations.

See Sibel Edmonds for the details.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 10, 2008 7:34 AM