In 2008, Barack Obama wrapped up the delegates he needed to be the Democratic nominee at a shockingly early point in the campaign, which is something that Al Giordano and I never tired of pointing out. Our analyses of how the delegate system worked proved correct, as even a very strong finish by Hillary Clinton did nothing to improve her chances. She was finished before she knew what hit her. That didn’t keep her and her most ardent supporters from fighting, however. I found their detachment from reality irritating and their attacks on Obama to be dangerous fodder for any eventual Republican nominee to use against us.
On this latter point, I was wrong. It definitely helped, for example, to get the Jeremiah Wright controversy thoroughly aired during the primaries so that it was old news by the general election. Looking back, it’s very easy to see how much Obama improved as a debater over the course of the primary campaign, which benefited him greatly when he had to go toe-to-toe with John McCain. And, very importantly, Clinton’s refusal to give up forced Team Obama to organize in almost every state in the union, which probably put him over the top in both North Carolina and Indiana in November. Clinton’s interminable campaign didn’t just air the dirty laundry early and help Obama perform in debates, it probably led directly to him winning two states against McCain. The competitive primaries and caucuses also boosted Democratic voter registration and engagement all across the country. In retrospect, it’s hard to see any negatives, and certainly I can’t see any negatives that would outweigh the benefits for Obama and the party as a whole.
Maybe Brian Beutler is right that there has never been a failed Senate candidate who looked back and wished that they’d had a spirited primary to help lift them to victory, but there have been some successful ones who credit strong challengers for improving their chances in the general. And I think President Obama would acknowledge all the things I listed above. Anyone who is saying that Hillary Clinton needs a strong primary challenger to toughen up her calluses is only looking at part of the picture.
Beutler makes an important point that Clinton, like any Broadway star, needs an understudy in case she literally or figuratively breaks a leg. Choose your analogy about eggs and baskets, or whatever suits your fancy. But most people who want a challenge to Clinton actually want an alternative to Clinton. Then there’s another group that wants their particular interests to be aired in the campaign, either because they want to influence Clinton or because they think their issues are popular and will help Clinton win by improving the Democratic brand. Finally, there’s the group that thinks Clinton needs to work her way through the answers to tough questions about her record in a primary so that she doesn’t get ambushed in September.
All of these things matter. I’d argue that voter engagement, voter registration, and party building matter a lot, too.
What are the upsides of a waltz to the Philadelphia nominating stage with only nominal competition? Maybe she’ll have more money to play with in the general, but even that can be exaggerated.
On the whole, a real nomination fight would be a good thing, and not simply because Clinton needs an understudy.