Imagine if Obama v. Hillary had been Republican style
Hillary and Obama played primary policy brinksmanship up against a perceived line of electability and since they had the same general sense of the most liberal electable posture they ended up with essentialy identical centrist policy postures with the only difference being how they spun their identical positions to different demographics. (For instance, both plainly stated their support for the State department classifying the Iranian Quds force a terrorist organization then somehow spun the identical policy into a major illusory disagreement. Their disagreements on healthcare were almost ironic. And so on.)
The thing is, Democratic candidates worry about electability. We are used to being taken to task for policy and we expect to be punished decisively for any drift away from the center. Our view is there is no point getting the nomination if getting it means you'll lose the general election.
But the Republicans simply expect to be elected (and with some reason, given the history) and see the nomination as the real prize. They do not seem to have limits when it comes to pandering to the base.
Look at the process by which the Republican party worked itself into somehow making contraception the line in the sand. Can you imagine if Obama and Hillary had done that with the Iraq War? Obama and Hillary would have moved left of Kucinich. Abolishing the military altogether would have been on the table by Super Tuesday.
But that is not how we do things. As in all things, we are just the responsible party. Delayed gratification, forseeing consequences of actions... all that grown-up integrated-personality stuff.
= new reply since forum marked as read
