Help explain to me why a race down to the DNC is bad

[apnu]

Presuming the Republicans have an early nominee (McCain), I've heard he would have a comfortable time hanging around TV promoting himself and dumping on Democrats. OK, but wouldn't he have to split is time talking about both HRC and BO?

Could be useful that the GOP has to spend time, money and energy on both candidates work in our favor?

Both Obama and Clinton are enjoying an enormous amount of time and attention in the media. In a way, the country is getting introduced to them now by way of this tight race. I think that if this thing goes all the way to the DNC, either one, whoever wins, will enjoy quite a bit of work already done.

Heck, I can even see the MSM spending more time on Dems than Repubs because of this race.

Having said all that, why would a actual vote (instead of a coronation) at the DNC a bad thing?

(on another note, if you think my logic is flawed, please point that out.)

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. I see no flaw in it at all,

however, I do wish it was more than a contest between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, to make it more interesting to me.

[texanwitch]

2. It isn't bad.

I don't like the way Clinton has been forced on us.

I didn't like the way Kerry was forced on us 4 years ago.

I want this race to go all the way to the convention.

[apnu]

6. I agree with you on those points (nt)

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. Depends ... spending resources in the primary generally means less

in the general (but that may be different this cycle). Worse is the tone ... to have only a couple of months to go from tear down to party hug may not be enough, but again, the electorate is ready.

[Bucky]

9. Under current rules, candidates have to raise money separately for the pre & post convention races

The two funding sources are generally different and don't affect each other that much. Forcing the two campaigns to go after donors now does more to build up donor networks for the fall than it does to drain out finite donors from the fall contest warchests.

The heated race now is much much to our advantage. And geeze, it's only February still. Don't panic until April at the soonest.

[Fredda Weinberg]

13. I always take the long view, but disagree on the funding sources;

yes, the limits are reset, but you're still calling on the donor universe in the primary when we could ... oh, never mind ... this cycle is unique.

[scheming daemons]

4. It's enormously positive for this to continue on to the DNC....

A. Democrats will get 80% of the election-related news coverage between now and August.

B. Democratic ground games in crucial states like PA, TX, OH, VA, etc will be ramped up and in full gear while the equivalent GOP organizations will be non-existent.

C. GOP will either have to split their attacks over two candidates (decreasing the cost-effectiveness) or keep their powder dry and let the Dems gain more momentum in the consciousness of America

D. The "Youth vote" that Obama is bringing in and engaging in the process will continue to be engaged, and they will take that enthusiasm into the convention and beyond.

E. The television ratings for the Democratic convention will be triple that of the GOP convention. 4 days of free advertising in front of millions.


People... the old rules don't apply. Howard Dean is a freaking genius. Having this race go all the way through to Denver is an enormous FREE P.R. boon for the Democrats.

[apnu]

5. and as a bonus, your avatar rules

Tux Rocks!!!!

[K Gardner]

8. Yes, but #D will evaporate and the indies will fall away if Hill steals this at the convention

by strongarming superdelegates or by seating delegates from MI and FL (a tactic which her supporters here wholly support, much to their own shame). If this goes to the convention, the Clintons plan to use every dirty and underhanded trick in the book to win. With the country clamoring for change and an end to this type of lowlife political hackery, the people Obama is bringing out in droves will NOT vote for her. That is only common sense. And Howard Dean is either an idiot or a genius, depending on the outcome you want to see in November :-)

[Bucky]

10. does "Hill steals" mean the same thing to you as "wins over more delegates"?

I'm certain that, hard as things get, Obama would ultimately endorse Clinton big time (as she would if he won).

[K Gardner]

11. No.. it means trying to seat MI and FL delegates, against the rules and renigging on her pledge.

[OzarkDem]

7. With Dean in charge, its fine

I trust him to stay neutral and handle it fairly.

[smalll]

12. It's bad.

Because if it goes to the Convention, the awful Florida and Michigan Question will have to be addressed: seat the delegates or not? Could make for some terrible symbolism: Florida possibly "disenfranchised" again with echoes of 2000, but this time it will be a Dem vs. Dem fight over counting votes. Also, refusing to seat delegates has bad overtones from the '64 Mississippi delegate fight (the "regular" Democrats versus the Freedom Democrats slate.)

To complicate things, Florida and Michigan are separate questions: In Florida, all candidates were on the ballot (or at least the two that count were.) But in Michigan, only Hillary and da Kooch were on the ballot. There is more reason, therefore, to seat the Florida delegates than to seat the Michigan delegates.

And all this will naturally lead to the superdelegates seizing the initiative, in a BEST case scenario, by which the bulk of the super-Ds will move as a group to Hillary or Obama to finally bring closure to this contest. In a less fortunate scenario, it will end up being a super-D by super-D horse-trading operation: a smoke filled room for the 21st century. That won't give anyone the warm fuzzies.

Finally, I think at the end, the best choice will be to have BOTH Hillary and Obama on the ticket. Especially if Hillary is slightly ahead or gains some kind of favor or mini-momentum, a Hillary/Obama pairing, with age before beauty (experience before inspiration) would be a no-brainer. So, if it IS in the end going to be both of them on the ticket, the sooner they come together on this, the better!

[stevenleser]

15. Its bad for all those reasons and one more succinct one...

Just look at the level of vitriol in General Discussion Primaries NOW and imagine the volume turned up if it gets to the convention and is still largely undecided. One group would come away very angry and disinterested in supporting the nominee.

[smalll]

18. Yep.

By the Convention, the whole Party may be like us here in GDP. Now I love this mosh-pit as much as anyone, but I'm just about getting prospective mosh-fatigue. The fight is not over today, it won't be over in a month: what will months of this stuff do to our psyches?

[TexasObserver]

14. It's bad because there's no time to heal the wounds.

When it gets down to two like this, it always gets ugly. The longer it goes on, the greater the gaping wound in the Body Politic of the Party widens. Also, it spends money that could better go to consolidating the party vote and launching preemptives on the Pukes.

You don't want the super D's deciding. You don't want to have the Michigan and Florida bloodlettings on the floor of the convention.

You want to have time to vet the VP nominee options, time to get them on board, time to launch.

[OHdem10]

16. It makes the Democratic Party look weak and indecisive

Democratic Party already is viewed as having to have a committee
meeting to reach a decision==---Consensus. Takes Dems roo long
to accomplish anything and it is like herding cats.

Not being able to come up with a candidate confirms this notion
and the Media play it up .

This morning WaPO. Dems in a muddle. MSNBC E Buiemiller, WAPs
describing the fight that will ensue---"This is your Mothers Democratic
Party".

[MonkeyFunk]

17. Because all the time, resources and energy

that could be used to fight the Republicans will instead be used fighting ourselves.