"A Good Fight"...Can a Clinton v. Obama slugfest actually benefit Dems in '08?

[WilliamPitt]

A Good Fight
By Peter Beinart
Thursday, January 31, 2008; Page A21

The tone of the Obama-Clinton race has pundits worried. "The concern is this bitter campaign could end up hurting whoever the nominee is," CNN's Jack Cafferty warned last week. The contest, Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal, is "tearing the party apart." On MSNBC, Newsweek's Howard Fineman dubbed it a "civil war."

Huh? For starters, the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama isn't all that nasty. To be sure, it has had its low moments: Clinton surrogates raising Obama's past drug use, for instance. But by recent historical standards, it's nothing out of the ordinary. In 1992, Jerry Brown accused Bill Clinton of funneling business to Hillary's law firm. In 2000, supporters of President Bush accused rivals of spreading rumors that he had used cocaine. That same year, Al Gore insinuated that Bill Bradley's health-care plan was racist, and Bradley bashed Gore for holding a fundraiser at a Buddhist temple. For better or worse, this is what American presidential politics is like.

What's more, bitter primary contests don't necessarily hurt candidates in the general election. In a 1998 study, the University of New Mexico's Lonna Rae Atkeson found that when you control for other factors, divisive presidential primaries have a "marginal or even nonexistent effect in understanding general election outcomes." To be sure, when an incumbent president faces a tough primary challenge, it's usually a sign that he's in trouble. Think of Gerald Ford in 1976, Jimmy Carter in 1980 or George H.W. Bush in 1992. But it's important to distinguish cause from effect. Ford, Carter and Bush were all politically weak, which is why they ultimately lost. Their primary challengers didn't cause that weakness; the weakness caused those challengers to run.

But when there's no incumbent, a tough primary challenge doesn't tell you anything about a candidate's chances in November. Yes, nasty contests can leave the losers' supporters embittered and less likely to turn out in the general election. (They can also expose vulnerabilities that are later exploited by the other side.) But heated primary battles also mobilize voters, some of whom stay mobilized even if their party nominates someone else. Many of the people who got involved in Democratic politics because of Howard Dean in 2004, for instance, worked to elect John Kerry in the fall.

It's quite possible, therefore, that Obama and Clinton would actually be stronger general-election candidates than if their path through the primaries had been a cakewalk. Both are bringing new voters into the Democratic Party in droves. In Iowa, for instance, a key general election swing state, 62 percent of Hillary Clinton's supporters and 68 percent of Obama's had never attended a caucus before. Some of those new voters will be alienated if their candidate loses, of course, but it's a good bet that most of them will be like the Deaniacs and stick with the party's nominee come fall.

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003210.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Peter Beinart, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes a monthly column for The Post. His book, "The Good Fight: Why Liberals -- and Only Liberals -- Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again," has just come out in paperback.

[bklyncowgirl]

1. I think having a good fight for the primary prepares a candidate for the general election.

It would be lovely if American politics were a high minded debate over issues practiced by only the best and most noble of statesmen. It would be wonderful if the media focused only on presenting the candidates positions on the issues to a well informed and interested voting public.

Unfortunately we live in the real world where politics is a contact sport and many people vote on their emotional reaction to a candidate. That's why a drawn out primary season is not necessarily a bad thing for the Democrats.

First, it gets the dirt out there, exposes it to light and more importantly, turns it into old news by the time the general election rolls around. Also, if the dirt is truly serious, it give voters a chance to vote an unsatisfactory candidate off the proverbial island.

Second, it gives candidates a chance that they have the toughness to take hits and keep on firing back. No one wants a candidate with a glass jaw.

Third, it gets the Democratic Party's message out there. Clinton and Obama are not that far apart on the issue and both a passionate and articulate spokespersons for the mainstream Democratic Party platform.

I honestly think that if Howard Dean had won New Hampshire and he, Clark and Edwards had battled Kerry hard in 2004 that the Democrats would have had a stronger candidate--even if Kerry were the eventual nominee.

[H2O Man]

2. A contest

can be beneficial if the focus is debating important issues that appeal to our good sides. When it involves harsh tactics that appeal to people's bad sides. The best example would be 1968, when even the Happy Warrior, Hubert Humphrey, was unable to unite the party behind him, because of bitterness. That bitterness included grudges HHH held towards other liberal democrats, and those that other liberals held against him.

[robbedvoter]

4. Unfortunalety, the MSM picked a side already and it's exacerbating the nastines

amplifying the POV of one side only. Otherwise, nothing very unusual in the tone of this fight. But it is the MSM trying to turn our strength - diversity - into chaos (race gender - made into talking points rather than social issues)

[robbedvoter]

3. Not a bad point! All primaries have been hard fought. Some had been "fixed"

faster by the MSM - see 2004 coronation in Kerry's living room.
But I recall the fight before that and the diversity of candidates we had - we had 3 anti-war candidates - believe or not! Anyone remembers that?