Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Does a long nomination fight hurt the party?
By Brad Smith Posted in Archived — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Does a long nomination fight hurt the party? Conventional wisdom says yes, but I have my doubts.
So does Jim Geraghty. Geraghty seems mainly to like the idea of having votes that matter in later primary states, but he also quotes reader "Patrick" who says:
" whomever would end up with the nomination in that scenario, while not universally loved by definition, would be respected. Too often, the sense of a lack of grass roots control over the party sinks in, but not with a drawn out process like that. Nobody (except the Paulists, who can't be pleased) will be able to say their guy didn't have a fair shot, and that goes a long way in Republican circles. The sense of "Well, it was fair" will help the party coalesce in this view, and provide strong momentum heading out of the convention."
I'll add another angle below the fold. Let's suppose that the Democratic nomination wraps up early, say 2/5, while the GOP battles it out, at least til Ohio on March 4 and maybe beyond. Who will be in the headlines every day? Republicans. So long as our guys don't get too personal (i.e., so long as they don't behave like most RedState diarists) this could be a very good thing indeed. The winner will come out with a great deal of momentum from having defeated worthy opponents. And being in the headlines matters a great deal. Look what has happened to Rudy's support as he simply sits out early primaries - out of sight, out of mind. Moreover, the presumptive Democratic nominee will not be able to focus his or her fire on a candidate. Not the worst thing in the world. Finally, in many states where they can do so, independents will vote in the GOP primary rather than a meaningless Democratic primary. It is good to get people voting in our primaries. Such acts can be habit forming.
The downsides of a long, drawn out fight are two. One is that the candidates burn up too much cash; and in particular, once the exhausted victor finally claims the mantle, the Dem nominee comes out blasting, rested and flush with cash. The other danger is that our candidates damage themselves too much with a nasty campaign that also leaves their supporters embittered (which is why many RedState diarists would do well to mute their criticism and focus more on positives). But it's not clear to me that the negatives outweigh the positives.
Of course, it is also possible that the Democratic fight drags on, which would create yet another dynamic.
Truth be told, I don't expect the fight to go on too long. But I don't know that it would be bad if it did.
Agreed Jaded
by pennpatriot
I think a healthy debate is good for the GOP as well. I actually can't wait until the Pennsylvania Primary on April 25th. Usually, it doesn't mean anything this presidential election year many are predicting that PA could be a major player in determining the nominee.
No
by simpson316
Healthy debate (as long as we can keep it that way) is always good. As long as we dominate the airwaves (the Dem race will be locked up in the next couple of weeks) we should see some serious changes in the polls between now and November.
The key is HEALTHY debate...
by digitaldean
Agree simpson316, that healthy debate is always good.
The important thing that is needed is to have our discourse just about the candidate's positions, not a commentary about the ancestry of a candidate's supporters.
As long as the GOP puts forth substantive debate on issues, it can only help in November.
All good points, but what worries me
by Dan McLaughlin
is the precedent of 1995, when Dole was still working on the nomination and Clinton buried him with attack ads before Dole could tap into his general election money.
Also, past statewide races (e.g., WI-SEN in 2004) suggest that it's hard for a late-nominated candidate to beat one with high name recognition. But the POTUS race is different that way, and late here would still be pretty early.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
The Bob Dole Problem
by Brad Smith
Dole's problem was that he accepted tax money to run his campaign, which then required him to agree to limit his spending. So when he wrapped up the nomination in the spring, he was out of money until the GOP convention in late summer, after which he could spend more taxpayers' money. That won't be the case if Romney or Rudy is the GOP nominee. It probably will be a problem McCain wins the nomination - he has indicated he'll take the government money. I don't know what Fred and Huckabee are planning.
Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website
Actually I have heard that this is just unsubstaniated rumor
by PopulistConservative
He has applied so that he could take the money, but as far as I know that there hasn't been any recent indications that he would do so.
several months ago, where they researched the past history of a heavily-contested primary season. I thought it was Neil, but I can't find it in his blog. Anyone remember it?
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Brokered Convention?
by ElCapitan
It is going to be very interesting; I am finding it hard to believe that any of these candidates will be able to win a MAJORITY of delegates. It looks like Giuliani's strategy is working pretty well so far!
The "GOP Brokered Convention" contract shot up nearly 50% of it's previous value in one day and now stands at 31%!
Has anybody read if KOS is gloating about his plan for sabatoge? (I highly doubt this tipped the scales to Mitt, 9% is a healthy win for him -even in his home state.)
Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan
The MSM and Dems can't focus on one particular GOP candidate
by spainishirish
and this is positive. On the other hand, the Dems may not know who their nominee is very soon, either, so we won't know which candidate to tear down yet.
The press loves a good conflict,
by Charles Bird
which means there will plenty of media attention if we have a long, drawn out nomination process. It will the suck the air out of the Democratic nominee's campaign because the focus will be on the GOP.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left -- Ecclesiastes 10:2
I think the biggest problem
by Menlo
I think the biggest problem with the "long nomination fight" is not the primaries this year but all of 2007 leading up to them. There was constant campaigning and debating and news coverage. People, reporters, and the media had over a year to do all kinds of nitpicking and searching for potential flaws, personal problems, and inconsistencies. Then we had each of these problems rambled off a hundred times over in the form of tired cliches that are still being played today. People had time to meditate on each flaw one-by-one. And I think that may have been harmful.
In general, I do not think a long nomination would be as big a problem if there were not so many people running, none of whom can get anything close to a majority in a single state. I think each state should have a runoff in the Presidential primaries until someone gets a majority.
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
I was wondering the same thing.
by bloochCan't wait to hear from
by bloochI'm ashamed!
by jdmbamd2It does depend where you are
by Riskytrue dat
by kyle8*Many people [that don't
by ThreeNineNineTrollese
by bloochwhile i think it is great to know a 2nd language
by uglyandproud7Seriously.
by wennejunkMan, but you guys *bristle* so...
by Moe LaneAs far as I know
by ThreeNineNineUpdate: T. Boone Pickens in WSJ today....
by kowalskiI wonder if the D-koz is 'pre-aproved'. n/t
by Jim TomasikI just don't think many
by ThreeNineNineKissy face? How about
by swift93
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
to feel like they have a say. The bulk of us have agreed to support the candidate whomever they may be in opposition to the Democrat...but we will fight tooth and nail for our candidate of choice.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion