Watching the other candidates softening Mitt up so Obama will have an easier job finishing him off,

[pnwmom]

reminds me of why I'm so gad Obama has no serious opponent in the primary.

[Kennah]

1. I'm a little worried ...

... that the other candidates might expose the two dimensional man leading him to go out and purchase a third dimension to try and give himself some depth.

If they will just keep their mitts off of Mittens until the General, then the 2D man can enter the General in his full 2D glory.

[Mz Pip]

2. I agree

Carter was primaried and look how well that worked out for the Democrats. I may have issues with Obama but the thought of any of the GOP candidates winning in 2012 is appalling.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Obama was pimaried in 2008.

Worked out OK.

[loyalsister]

5. That was an open seat

It's a totally different situation when an incumbent is challenged.

[pnwmom]

6. That was because there was no incumbent and Bush's performance was abysmal.

Many Democrats are disappointed that Obama hasn't been more successful against the Rethugs, but if they don't support Obama they'll just help the other side.

[Drunken Irishman]

7. Every incumbent to face a 'serious' primary challenge going back 40 years has lost for a reason...

And when I say serious, I mean a candidate who forces the incumbent to campaign.

The advantage an incumbent should have is to sit back and allow the other party duke it out, all the while securing funds (that you're not using) to throw at the eventual winner in the general. When you're forced to fight off a primary challenge, you can't do that.

Both Bush and Clinton were able to build huge war chests and consolidated their base support heading into the general - while the opposition party bickered back and forth.

But...

George H.W. Bush had to run to the right to fight off Buchanan, who was never going to win the nomination, but had enough support that Bush had to do something to help ease the disunity in his own party. Buchanan forced some issues that crippled Bush in the general - namely the 'Read My Lips' attack, which was created by the Buchanan camp and subsequently used by Clinton. He also had to concede a speaking slot (primetime) to Buchanan at the GOP convention and it backfired BIG TIME because he was seen as a very extreme, hate-filled speech. Bush could never really recover and he lost.

You mentioned Carter and it's a big one because, even though Ted Kennedy eventually lost, Carter was so beat up entering the general that he could never find any solid footing. Who knows if Carter, or Bush, for that matter, would have won had they not been seriously primaried, but I do know they couldn't have done much worse than they eventually did.

Reagan used Kennedy's attacks to drum up potential Democratic support, which was supposedly white, working class rust-belt types.

Finally, Ford had to fight off Reagan in '76 and the fact he had a difficult time early uniting Republican support, he fell behind Carter by double-digits (20-plus) early and had to spend the remainder of the summer to crawl back into striking distance.

So, I agree. History, at least recently, suggests forcing a primary with the incumbent means defeat. Just look at the numbers. Ford, Carter and George H.W. Bush all faced primaries and all lost. Reagan, Clinton and Bush didn't and they won.

It's not a coincidence.

[loyalsister]

4. Same here

It would have been a distraction and as these guys are all bloodied up in negativity, Obama sits once again above the fray. They will have a hard time challenging his credibility when theirs has been destroyed by their own party.