smb
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2011
- Messages
- 949
- Reaction score
- 273
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Conventional wisdom states that a quick nomination win by Romney is good for both the Republicans and Romney and bad for the Democrats and Obama. This could not be further from the truth. If recent elections have told us anything it is that hard primary fights for a non-encumbant are good for the resulting party and candidate. Hard fought primaries for an incumbent candidate are usually fatal. I believe there are several reasons for this.
1. Hard fought primaries air all the dirty laundry for a candidate.
The examples of this are many but I will just name a few. W's service in a champagne squadron during Vietnam. Obama's conection to Bill Ayers. Reagan's abortion reversal.
The opposite is equally true for candidates that win quick nominations, Al Gore being the prime example.
2. Hard fought primaries prepare proper innoculations against a candidates weak spots. Most notably being Reagans intelligence (or lack thereof) and Obama's inexperience.
3. Hard fought primaries make a better candidate overall. This is simply because practice makes perfect. Think of the primaries as the minor leagues. The better the competition the better your skills have to become to move onto the next level. The worse your competetion is the less you have to hone your skills and if you do get called up you do not have the proper skills to compete.
4. The reported disadvantages of party disunity are way over blown. Case and point Obama and the fictitious PUMA's. People stay at home with parties by and large unless a candidate with a particular charisma comes along. This is almost never the case.
So with all this being said...I think Republicans should be cheering for a long drawn out primary and Democrats should wish for a quick finish for Romney in South Carolina.
1. Hard fought primaries air all the dirty laundry for a candidate.
The examples of this are many but I will just name a few. W's service in a champagne squadron during Vietnam. Obama's conection to Bill Ayers. Reagan's abortion reversal.
The opposite is equally true for candidates that win quick nominations, Al Gore being the prime example.
2. Hard fought primaries prepare proper innoculations against a candidates weak spots. Most notably being Reagans intelligence (or lack thereof) and Obama's inexperience.
3. Hard fought primaries make a better candidate overall. This is simply because practice makes perfect. Think of the primaries as the minor leagues. The better the competition the better your skills have to become to move onto the next level. The worse your competetion is the less you have to hone your skills and if you do get called up you do not have the proper skills to compete.
4. The reported disadvantages of party disunity are way over blown. Case and point Obama and the fictitious PUMA's. People stay at home with parties by and large unless a candidate with a particular charisma comes along. This is almost never the case.
So with all this being said...I think Republicans should be cheering for a long drawn out primary and Democrats should wish for a quick finish for Romney in South Carolina.