Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Drawn out nomination gives Democrats HUGE advantage.
This extended nomination process, while exhausting, gives the democrats a huge advantage come the general. Here's why:
As the campaigns travel from state to state they are doing an enormous amount of work that will provide a solid foundation for the general election.
They are:
1) Registering thousands of new Democrats in every state.
2) Training hundreds of local organizers and activists. (From trainting young students to build events all the way to updating long time activists on contemporary data management)
and perhaps most powerfully:
3) Updating the state parties' voter files with correct addresses, cell phone numbers, new addresses and removing old and bad numbers/address
A lot of hoopla has been made about the Dems wasting money or delaying their "closing of the ranks."
But to an organizer, the real wealth is in the data, and because of this contest, the Dems' are light-years ahead.
Comments (4)
Hadn't thought about it that way. Thanks for sharing this.
March 11, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
In general I agree, which is the main reason I slightly lean towards having revotes in FL & MI since those states need to have this process occur in them perhaps more than any others with the exception of Ohio.
However, I think the maximum advantage can only be achieved if McCain and the Dems do agree to public financing in the Fall. If the general election campaign is donor financed, I'm a bit worried that even with an expanded donor base on the Dem side, that many of the new small donors brought into the process won't have a lot of cash to donate towards the general in the middle of the Bush recession.
Personally, I'm going to set aside a substantial chunk of my stimulus package check in case I need to donate to Obama for the general. If Obama takes public funds, or if Hillary is the nominee, then maybe I'll get an iPod Touch instead.
March 11, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are advantages and disadvantages to it; as always, it's all about how you frame it.
If the Democratic primary is portrayed as a battle between a dozen or so people who are all better qualified than the Republican, it will only help them if it goes right to the convention. The more people hear about how much the Republican candidate(s) lack in comparison, the better.
On the other hand, it's possible that a protracted fight will benefit the Republican by focusing attention on the Democrats' flaws and obscuring the Republicans'.
Just look at John McCain. Since February 1st, he's been fingered in a serious lobbying scandal with a woman who openly talked in Washington about how much influence she had with him; he's blown up at a reporter who tried to call him out for lying about being Kerry's VP in 2004; several major Republicans vowed they would never vote for him; he's possibly broken the law by exceeding his allowable campaign expenses and thumbed his nose at his own financing law; and he voted against a ban on torture that he supported in the Republicans' debates and supported the tax cuts he became popular for opposing years ago.
Not to mention that his man in Washington called the state caucus vote for him with 13% remaining, depriving his main opponent of a sweep in the day's contests. McCain only shrugged when he was asked about it. Plus he got endorsed by W. Bush, the least popular president of all time.
Did I miss anything? I was following the Republican primary and McCain looked to me like a fly in search of a windshield - completely disregarding who was going to end up as the Democratic nominee.
Unfortunately, he's been able to get up off the floor and get a second wind, precisely because of the Democrats' extended primary this time out. It hasn't helped that people arguing the merits of Obama or Clinton have a habit of insisting that the one they prefer is the only one capable of winning a state or two against Johnny McAwesome, but Clinton more or less gave McCain a blank slate by saying that - in spite of everything - McCain has passed the threshold to be Commander in Chief. It won't be easy for Obama to bring up any of McCain's sins after that, and almost impossible for Clinton to do so.
I'm not trying to turn the thread into a Clinton-bashing fest, but I'd like to point out that the longer a nomination battle goes on, the more likely this sort of thing is to happen.
So as I said, there are advantages and disadvantages. The Democrats would be in fine shape if both Obama and Clinton were pummeling McCain right now, but as it is, they're both risking being in serious trouble down the line.
March 11, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trouble is, negative campaigning is a negative sum game. Both parties will go down in the polls, both because they take hits, and because they hit back. Meanwhile McCain looks and smiles. Moreover, negative campaigning makes the supporters of the other side bitter, and thus harder to rally before the general.
March 11, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment