Continuing the primary season is a good thing for the Democrats

[featherman]

While it is clear that Obama will be the nominee I see no reason for Clinton to drop out. The Democratic race is dominating the news cycles providing enormous amounts of free publicity. This thrilling race between two political heavyweights has energized the electorate in a way that has been rarely seen.

Voter registration: The massive new registration of Democrats and the increase of Dem-leaning Independents all bode well for the GE. In two examples of this, Pennsylvania now has a majority Democratic registration for the first time in history and more Indiana voters voted in the Democratic primary than voted for Kerry in 2004. Carrying through this excitement to WV, KY, OR, SD, and MT should continue the trend.

Money: the small donor money machine that has been built up by both candidates through the primary season is unprecedented. Continuing through the GE this will give Dems an decisive advantage in this critical area as the GOP continues to struggle. The ultimate in "people power" in our system.

Timing: "a week is a lifetime in politics" is not entirely accurate as an adage but something to remember as we worry about "losing time" on the GE campaign. The fact is we are campaigning on a national stage right now as our presumptive nominee continues to introduce himself to the electorate. Obama's win over such a formidible opponent as Hillary Clinton in the face of long odds will add considerably more prestige to the win than the relatively quick and easy victory that Kerry enjoyed. The nomination process will be over in month or so which leaves most of June plus July, August, September, and October for Obama v. McCain. Plenty of time for the party to heal and unify against the GOP.

The MSM: John McCain is a terrible candidate and worse campaigner. His only advantage is that his main base is the MSM.** How long they will be able to prop him up as he makes error after error, misstatement after misstatement once the spotlight shines on him will be interesting. If our candidate can move the MSM away from 90% pro-GOP (2000 and 2004) to say only 75-80% pro-GOP this year it could make an enormous difference and even the playing field a bit.

It's a Dem year: the prospects of any party controlling the White House to try retain it under the current conditions verges on the impossible. We all know the litany: the economy, the war, the deficit, corruption, illegality and on and on. The man now in the White House with the lowest approval rates in modern history isn't just George Bush, individual person; he's the face of and the leader of Republican Party. The GOP as a brand name is so damaged that rgistration and party identification has been bleeding support while the Democratic Party has been on the upswing reversing a nearly 30 year trend.

So I'm pretty content to let this play out.

**footnote: This needs to be a constant theme. Already there are a couple of books and articles out about this and much coverage in progressive blogs. I think the MSM can be shamed into being less in the tank for McCain and giving him such a free ride if we all continue an unrelenting criticism about this. Russert said last night that NBC has had a constant email barrage on this point and that "they will address these (McCain's issues) in the future". So it is beginning to sink in.

[SoonerPride]

1. The reason she stays in (I can dream)

Looks like sure losses for Obama in W Va and Kentucky, so if she dropped out now it would look really bad for the nominee to lose running unopposed and would provide cannon fodder for repukes.

So, maybe, just maybe, she stays in to HELP Barack and bows out after 5/20.

Maybe.

[niyad]

2. thank you

[Oleladylib]

3. Thanks..I agree and "chatted" about it here.

[niyad]

4. k & r

[LSparkle]

5. As long as she attacks McLAME and doesn't go neg on Obama ...

TWO Dems attacking Bomb Bomb is better than one ... As long as she
can get the TV time, let her go for it. But no negative campaigning
against our presumptive nominee -- that would be destructive.

[crankychatter]

6. it's a statistical fact that it is NOT good

Obama beat McCain handily in every national poll until Clinton went Berserker... period

Obama has a proven ability, given campaign time, to turn polls around and win

Denying the nominee precious campaign time by taking this into Summer will give McCain a clear advantage

It is the Obama campaign that is bringing in the new registrations that can turn the tide in November... IT'S NOT THE RACE ITSELF

There is no valid argument to continue this

it could cost the general election and that is a provable, statistical fact

um, did you have something? really?

[featherman]

7. Thank you for your opinion. We disagree.

However it is hardly a "proven, statistical fact" that long primary fights have cost the Dems in general elections.

Kennedy, Carter (1976), and Clinton (1992) all won after long, heavily contested primaries.

Incumbents Johnson (1964) and Clinton (1996) won after quick and easy primaries.

Stevenson (1956), Mondale, Gore and Kerry all lost after quick and easy primary contests.

If you are referring to Stevenson in 1952, Humphrey in 1968 or Carter in 1980 as the losing victims of heavily contested primaries I believe that proves another theme much more. Each of these was a candidate of the same party as the White House occupant and trying to succeed him but each fell victim to the terrible approval ratings of his predecessor (Truman, Johnson, Carter himself)

The chaos of the party in 1972 and McGovern's loss against the incumbent Nixon was hardly a result of difficult primary fight. McGovern had a relatively easy march through the primaries against weak opponents like Scoop Jackson and Shirley Chisholm.

So I am not quite sure to what "statistic" you are referring. But thanks for your comments and interest.

[redqueen]

10. Carter doesn't count... and neither does Bill in 92.

Carter was running against an incumbent who'd suffered a longer, and more hotly-contested primary battle.

Bill was the presumed nominee LONG before June.

[featherman]

11. Carter was running against Gerry Ford and in the wake of the biggest

scandal since Teapot Dome (Nixon/Watergate) which had destroyed GOP chances to succeed to the White House that year. Whether the GOP primary had been easy or bruising had nothing to do with Carter's win which was an ironclad lock in that political climate.

It is true that Clinton nailed down the presumptive nominee title in early April with his win in New York but Jerry Brown fought on, often quite acrimoniously, and there were a lot of doubts about Clinton as a GE candidate and much hand wringing by the party up until the convention. Not a lot different actually.

[redqueen]

12. You can't seriously be comparing Brown's attacks with Clinton's.

The M$M was not giving Brown's campaign the kind of assistance they are giving Hillary's.

[featherman]

13. True... it was a far different degree but the post I was answering posited that

it was a "provable statistic" that long, difficult primary fights inevitably lead to GE losses. History disagrees.

[redqueen]

14. History does not disagree. IMO.

As with victories in this nightmare of a primary, it depends on where you put the goalposts.

[featherman]

15. Examples?

[crankychatter]

17. THIS fight is hurting us... those National Polls are all the documentation you need - n/t

.

[AlinPA]

8. I don't see how continued negative campaigning and pushing the Ayers-Wright stuff

can help. Good points about the new voters, though.

Her going for the "nuclear option" will fracture the party and a hell of a lot of Democrats will be turned off. Still not sure she is not trying to really hurt Obama so she can run in 2012.

[TwilightGardener]

9. It needs to end now. We're at the law of diminishing returns for both the nominee and the party.

[featherman]

16. To me 2008 is another "pendulum" election where one party has controlled

the White House for two terms or more and is about to be turned out. Historical examples of these losses:

Stevenson 1952
Nixon 1960
Humphrey 1968
Ford 1976
Bush 1992
Gore 2000

Only George Bush in 1988 was able to pull off this type of succession in recent history and he was the Vice President of a very popular (for reasons I cannot fathom) Ronald Reagan running against a pretty mediocre opponent.

You could add Truman in 1948 but he was actually a then popular incumbent who had been the VP of a dyed-in-office virtual saint (FDR) much like Johnson was in 1964.

[gbrenna]

18. Continuing this primary hurt the Democratic Party

If Hillary Clinton cost the party the election...the Democrats should run a candidate against her in the primary. She is not fit to be a Senator if she allows McCain to win because of personal ambition and a refusal to face facts...she lost.