With about seven months to go before voters choose the next president, Democrats are not only divided over which candidate should get the nomination, they’re divided about whether the fight for the nomination has gone on long enough. Great.
We’ve heard plenty of talk this week about the need to wrap things up relatively soon, but the pushback against this approach is coming from Hillary Clinton’s supporters, Ralph Nader, and today, the Washington Post editorial board.
The WaPo’s case is built around three main points:
* There are “millions of votes are yet to be cast,” and those voters should get “a chance” to express a preference;
* An “extended contest informs the electorate” and “battle-tests” the eventual nominee;
* Dems are gaining new voters for the fall with increased registration;
There may very well be compelling reasons to keep the Democratic competition going, but if these three are the best arguments, the pitch needs a little work.
Yes, there are 10 contests left, but that’s hardly a good reason to keep a nomination fight going. Primary contests are usually over by now; we rarely weep for those states that play a minimal role in picking the next nominee. Indeed, states have a choice about moving up their primaries/caucuses if this is a priority.
Sure, primary fights “inform the electorate,” but you know what else keeps people informed? A general-election fight. As for “battle testing,” Clinton and Obama have been campaigning since early 2007. Who really believes a 14-month campaign (so far) for the nomination is insufficient?
And I’m delighted Democratic registration is up, but this is hardly a good reason to keep the process going. Indeed, if we had a nominee, that candidate would also be organizing states and registering voters. (Noam Scheiber adds there’s ample reason to believe registration numbers would have “ended up in the same place” anyway.)
Then, of course, there are the arguments against keeping the race going. Off the top of my head…
* Dems can’t take advantage of their financial edge if the party’s candidates have to spend their money fighting each other.
* In order to bring the party back together after a tough fight, Dems are going to need time. A prolonged process won’t give them the time they need (McCain, meanwhile, is mending GOP fences right and further right).
* The ongoing fight is dragging down the favorability numbers of both candidates, and has given McCain a lead in national polls.
* This is a time to start defining McCain for the general election, but instead Democratic candidates are fighting each other.
* McCain’s many humiliating gaffes — which could undermine his chances in November — are getting lost in the shuffle because the Democratic race is sucking up all the media oxygen.
* The VP vetting process will have to be dramatically curtailed.
* State organizing that needs to be done isn’t getting done: “Democrat Donnie Fowler underscored the consequences of a fight that goes on into the summer. ‘Suffice it to say that every week that goes by without a nominee is another tick on the clock where the Democratic Party is not fully able to put campaign teams together in the 15 to 20 battleground states,’ he said. ‘In the past three elections, state directors have set up shop in May . . . and that’s after a two-months process of searching, hiring, and announcing them.'”
* The intra-party disputes are getting uglier — at the national and state levels.
* If this goes to the convention, McCain will have eight months for his general-election campaign, and Dems will have eight weeks.
Consider a thought experiment. If you’re a consultant/strategist at the RNC right now, are you worried that a prolonged Democratic process is going to help Dems with voter registration and battle testing, or are you doing the Happy Dance that the Clinton/Obama fight is going to continue for the foreseeable future?
It seems pretty obvious to me.