After a year of campaigning, more than a dozen nationally-televised debates, many more forums, millions of dollars in advertising, one very big caucus, and one very big primary, it’s tempting to look forward to the end of the Democrats’ nominating process. It’s grueling for the candidates and their staffs, but it’s not a walk in the park for the rest of us, either.
But consider a different perspective. Isn’t it possible that this primary fight is a good thing, both for the candidates and the party? Digby raised a good point last night:
It’s going to be a rough and tumble campaign and we’ll all have to stay mad each other for a while, but it’s good for Democrats to play hard in the playoffs in preparation for the series. They need to be tested and vetted beyond Iowa and New Hampshire. And hey, people like me might even have our primary votes matter this time out!
I recently went back and watched some of the early Democratic debates and I was impressed with just how far the field has come. Each of them are better, sharper, and quicker than they were last summer, and that’s in large part because they’ve been pushing each other so hard.
Not only that, as long as the leading Dems don’t take the race in an ugly direction, I think the contest boosts the party’s chances in November. I know some Dems disagree with me about this, but I look at the top three — Obama, Clinton, and Edwards — as extremely talented candidates. The more they’re on the campaign trail and in the public eye, the more a) they make the party look better; and b) they make the GOP candidates look worse.
There are certain advantages to the party deciding on a nominee early on, but it appears that’s not going to happen. This need not be a discouraging development.
After Iowa and New Hampshire, the race looks to me to be about even — Obama and Clinton both have big wins under their belt, lots of money, impressive campaign operations, and strong support. Which one is the more likely nominee? Beats me; take your pick.
Josh Marshall argued:
Both sides have now had transcendent moments. Both sides can plot credible paths to the nomination. And both campaigns have found arguments that appear to resonate with sizable constituencies. It’s game on. And as someone who likes politics and loves his country I can’t see any reason not to be pleased with that result.
If Dems were running against a Republican incumbent, this may be less encouraging. Dems would need to save their resources for a fight against a GOP machine. But that’s not the case this year — the Republicans’ race is at least as wide open as the Dems’. (And not having a clear Democratic nominee keeps the GOP guessing about where to focus their hatred.)
There’s just one catch — if one (or more) of the Dems goes very negative, all the benefits of a drawn out process disappear. Swopa argued today, “The challenge for both Clinton and Obama over the next few weeks will be to present themselves as the best possible standard-bearer for the Democratic party without treating each other like an enemy. Because if they do that, they’ll just be shooting themselves in the foot.”
Agreed. The party is putting its best foot (feet?) forward with a competitive contest with terrific candidates. As long as they don’t screw it up, the party will benefit in the long run.