Comments on: Why It’s Nuts for Dems to Want a Primary Fight

By: gdewar

gdewar — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:54:31 +0000

If it is going to end up being a “Contested primary” like the Battle of the Titans we had in 2006 (please note sarcasm here), with two no names trading petty attacks and blowing bullshit out of proportion, count me out.

If someone is going to run for Governor in the Democratic primary who actually wants the job and will provide another vision for saving this state from its death spiral into Hell, fine. If anything, it would at least ensure that Brown builds a campaign infrastructure that can deal with the billion dollar boy and girl in the fall.

However, if we get some yahoo nutjob or some wannabe who wants “more name ID” for another race, fuggedaboutit. I’m tired of Democrats inventing new ways to lose, and I’m tired of my home state being an international example of epic FAIL, and I’d like my state back, please. KTHXBAI.

By: thetruthsquad

thetruthsquad — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:03:26 +0000

And the Obama/Clinton primary fight was bad for Democrats too, right?

As today’s LA Times poll points out, nearly 65 percent of Dems want a primary.

Jerry Brown is yesterday’s news. And Meg Whitman will eat him for lunch. That’s why Democrats want a primary. Nuts? Nope. Smart? Yes.

By: tonyseton

tonyseton — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:46:20 +0000

I get queasy when people who lack the ability to govern climb into a race atop their own bankroll and ego. I wonder if our species has evolved to a point where democracy is, in fact, viable. The proof recently, both statewide and nationally, is thin gruel.

By: Ave7

Ave7 — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:40:28 +0000

I get queasy any time someone argues that less democracy is better than more democracy. It feels like an assault on the basic purpose of an election. (It is within the power of the major parties to cancel the primaries and simply select their candidates at closed conventions, but would that strengthen our democracy?)

You reached back to 1990 for a rationale, conveniently skipping twenty years of California history. Did expensive, competitive primaries hurt Feinstein or Boxer in 1992? Or did Jerry Brown’s spirited presidential campaign that same year hobble Gov. Clinton’s ascendancy? Two years later Jerry’s sister Kathleen came out of a tough primary far ahead of Pete Wilson (before committing political suicide).

Four years later, if Democrats had applied your EM+EP=CTF formula (early money+early polling= clear the field), Al Checchi would have been the nominee and Dan Lungren would have been the Governor.

Far from being the key to victory, this rush to unify behind a candidate in lieu of an actual election has created some of the Democratic Party’s most spectacular failures, from Walter Mondale to Phil Angelidis.

Perhaps there is some truth to the idea that a competitive primary produces a stronger, better vetted, more focused nominee. Still-Senator McCain might grudgingly agree.