Tom Edsall had an interesting opinion piece in the NYT today, but I think his broader point gets the story backwards.
Hillary Clinton is the Democratic establishment’s anti-establishment candidate. She is simultaneously an insurgent, seeking to end a 220-year reign of men, and the heir apparent — dominant in cash ($14.4 million in the bank), in the polls and in the colossal reach of her machine.
Clinton’s most visible challenger, Barack Obama, is similarly an insurgent, but without the former first lady’s resources. He is seeking to capitalize on his ranking as an underdog, entering the fray as David battling the Clinton Goliath.
The head of the pack is a dangerous place for a Democrat to be. Democrats excel in cannibalizing their front-runners. Just ask those who were knocked out in the primary season (Lyndon Johnson, Ed Muskie and Howard Dean) or those who limped from the ring after 15 rounds (Walter Mondale and Al Gore).
Republicans, by contrast, honor hierarchy. For four decades the G.O.P. has nominated the early favorite. Unlike Democrats, Republican voters have a long history of rejecting rebels and underdogs.
At least as far as recent history is concerned, this analysis strikes me as flawed. Dems have shown no more interest in “cannibalizing” presidential front-runners than the GOP.
Edsall points to 2004 as an example, but he mislabels the actual frontrunner — it wasn’t Dean, it was Kerry. A year before a vote was cast, Time magazine ran the headline, “A Front Runner Already?” alongside Kerry’s picture.
Similarly, The New Republic ran a cover story that asked “Who Can Beat John Kerry?” When CNN reported on Kerry’s prostate surgery, Wolf Blitzer said, “[A] lot of people think he’s still the front-runner among all the Democratic candidates.” All of this was in 2003.
Indeed, in most of the recent cycles, the early Dem frontrunner ended up faring quite well.
In 2004, Kerry was the frontrunner and won the nomination fairly easily.
In 2000, Gore was the frontrunner and won the nomination extremely easily.
In 1996, Clinton faced no primary opposition.
In 1992, Mario Cuomo didn’t run, so there was no real frontrunner, but Clinton captured much of the early attention and won the nomination fairly easily.
In 1988, Gary Hart was the frontrunner, but a sex scandal knocked him out of contention.
In 1984, Mondale was the frontrunner and won the nomination after a relatively tough fight with Hart.
Then there are the Republicans.
In 2004, Bush faced no primary opposition.
In 2000, Bush was the frontrunner and won the nomination after a tough primary challenge from John McCain.
In 1996, Dole was the frontrunner and won the nomination after a tough primary challenge from Lamar Alexander and Pat Buchanan.
In 1992, Bush faced a tough primary challenge from Buchanan, but won the nomination.
In 1988, Bush faced a tough primary challenge from Bob Dole, but won the nomination.
In 1984, Reagan faced no primary opposition.
Did Dems “cannibalize their front-runners,” while Republicans “honored hierarchy”? Not really. Over the last six cycles, only one Dem frontrunner failed to win the nomination. In contrast, Bush was a sitting Vice President in 1988, but faced a series of challengers because the GOP had no interest in “honoring hierarchy,” and in 1992 he was a sitting president having to campaign against Pat Buchanan.
As Ezra put it:
The idea that Democratic primaries are somehow more contentious or unpredictable than their Republican counterparts is a myth that springs from the media’s belief that Republicans adore order while Democrats are still chaotic college kids. That it isn’t true and can’t be backed up by the facts doesn’t, I fear, much matter, but should be pointed out anyway.
For further analysis, Paul Waldman wrote a great analysis in February 2003 explaining how and why early frontrunners usually end up winning their party’s nomination. It contradicts Edsall’s thesis entirely, and it’s more persuasive.