Long divisive primaries don’t hurt, they help
Nate Silver’s 538 has the tonic you need to untwist your panties.
The notion that divisive primaries are detrimental makes intuitive sense: Candidates attack one another, dividing the party and alienating supporters, but divisive primaries don’t make the incumbent party vulnerable; the causation runs the other way.
In a 1998 study of presidential elections, University of New Mexico political scientist Lonna Atkeson challenged the theory by suggesting that divisive primaries occur when the party is already divided. In other words, divisive primaries are the symptom, not the disease. We’re in the midst of an open primary, but take recent incumbent presidents as an example: Gerald Ford in 1976, Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George H.W. Bush in 1992 ran into trouble in the general election, but not because they were challenged in the primaries. They attracted challengers in the primaries because they were already in political trouble. Controlling for factors that account for this political trouble — the strength of the economy and the president’s popularity — Atkeson found that the effect of divisive primaries on how well the nominee does in the general election drops out. In other words, divisive primaries don’t make the incumbent party vulnerable; the causation runs the other way.
,,,there are good reasons for Sanders to stay in. For one, he’s still putting victories on the board, including in Indiana on Tuesday. It also appears that the Sanders campaign plans to go to the convention this summer with an agenda for the party platform, and it’ll have a strong case for why his ideas should carry some weight. And because the evidence isn’t clear that a competitive primary is a hindrance in the general election, it’s hard to defend the argument that Sanders should have stepped aside by now.
@Jason, ButTrump > Facts
Geez, I thought you knew that.
I get that Clinton people are nervous about the possibility that Trump could win, but the Democratic Party still has issues to hash out. I hope Sanders stays in EVEN AFTER the convention.
Perhaps the most ironic thing about Clintonista reasoning is the notion that they have done a lot for the Democratic Party.
Really? Where are all the would-be next generation of Democratic leaders that they nurtured? Perhaps you hadn’t noticed that there isn’t one, because they have kept the field cleared of would-be competitors for 16 years now. That punk Obama butted in when it wasn’t his turn but we couldn’t say anything because it made us sound racist (see Bill Clinton on South Carolina primary, 2008). This time we cleared out everyone so the only person who would object is some old hippie with hay in his toes and granola in his teeth, and she STILL almost lost.
If you think the Clintons have been good for the party, show me the progressive they helped become a national presence in the party. Good luck.
Stays in AFTER the convention? To do what? Attack Hillary and elect Trump? Do you want him on the ballot too?
You are going to have to demonstrate with something at least approaching evidence that criticizing Hillary elects Trump. You keep asserting it without any evidence but your fear.
“I get that Clinton people are nervous about the possibility that Trump could win”
You mean it’s just Clinton people that are nervous about that? You are making it sound like Trump doesn’t have a prayer and Clinton supporters are the nervous nellies.
I’m not going to rehash the entire GOP primary and all the prognostications regarding the outcome of the primary, but suffice to say, there was no way Trump was going to be the nominee. No way. No how.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
@J “I hope Sanders stays in EVEN AFTER the convention.”
Stays in what? The Democratic Party?
Yea… I hope so too.
The hair in my bowl of cereal is more likeable than either of these pathetic candidates. We’re eating a shit sandwich this year. Trump. Is. Just the fatter more disgusting turd. Which is saying something because Hills got beat by a black guy 8 years ago