Republicans Have Little to Fear From a Divisive Primary

I find most comments on New York Times articles to be well-thought-out and pretty civil. But not in the political articles so much, such as this one. Here I see lots of posts which are not very related to the article at all, and seem instead to be simply an excuse for the writers to put in as many offensive, and not particularly relevant, words, like "offal." as possible. This type of writing seems to be connected to a very rightwing point of view, at least in these posts on this article, as these posters have made statements that make their point of view clear. No-one else posting here has used such language to try and make their points.

Doesn't apply to 2016, but there is Chotiner's Law: a president seeking re-election who faces a divisive primary loses the general election.

I disagree, and think the vicious primary does weaken the GOP and big time. These guys throw so much Red Meat to conservatives that trying to reposition or "etcha-sketch" your positions to the middle ground is no longer possible with today's media outlets.

From the literature I have seen (which includes a little of my own research), divisive nomination battles can sometimes produce problems for a party in the general election. If a party nominates a candidate who is seen as relatively extreme, moderates in that party may respond by defecting to the other party's candidate, particularly if party loyalties are not very strong. The 1964 Republican nomination and the 1972 Democratic nomination both illustrate that phenomenon. In addition, the activists who support losing candidates (at the nomination stage) may not feel much like supporting the ultimate nominee in the general election campaign.

I think the piece misses what the most damaging fallout from the contentious primary process to Romney's candidacy was: after swinging far right during the primaries, Romney attempted an abrupt shift to the center during the general election. As a result, he got railed over the coals by his opponent and the press and became a late night monologue comedy feeder. He lost credibility--already something in short supply for the anti-Affordable-Care-Act-creator of Romney Care who had already been characterized as a flip flopper throughout his career--and he was unable to recover from that.

I do believe that primaries hurt Mitt Romney's chances. He had to move so far right that he lost some votes in the general elections.

While I agree with the bulk of this article, parts of the negative campaign can linger. If a weakness is targeted and the other party picks up where the weakness is and keep hammering at the weakness then an election can be effected by both swing voters and turnout.

History has shown that when experiencing financial crises, right wing politics wins the day. The TBTF may have paid back their loans but make no mistake - the collateral damage that are the peoples and economies around the globe will suffer these consequences for at least a generation, perhaps longer.

Republican primary season is going to be the best new TV series for the next year or so. Jeb Bush is sucking up all the money, Ted Cruz is sucking up all the air, Rand Paul is sucking up the misguided young republicans. Huckabee and Santorum are arm wrestling over who can be more anti-abotion and anti-gay. Scott walker has the anti-union moguls simply salivating while shedding his assorted close political operatives to various investigations and indictments as if he were teflon. May you live in interesting times.

Hillary's supporters are looking really paranoid. Now threatening reporters about "Coded Sexism" to describe Hillary and will be looking for words such as Polarizing, Calculating, Ambitious, Out of Touch. Really? Americans don't threaten well and those words seem to define who Hillary really is very well. I plan to use them every time I make a post here at the NY Times and Wapo.

So often the Upshot column's "big truths" about politics ring hollow. Bringing data and analyses to shopworn political tactics is almost meaningless. The "truth" in politics is what the candidates themselves say and do, and we all know any resemblance to the actual truth in these actions and statements is like looking at your image in a fun-house mirror. You know it's you, but it barely looks like you seen in a regular mirror. If Ms. Clinton, in her yet-to-be-announced Presidential bid, wants her operatives to talk about letting the Republican Presidential candidates weaken themselves in their primary battles, so be it. It is part and parcel of how the game is played, truth be damned. It's all about imaging and messaging.

Is Coke (Ms. Clinton) really better than Pepsi (Jeb Bush)? Apparently over 50% of the people who have tried both think so because it outsells Pepsi. They are both fizzy, brown, sweetened water drinks with "secret" formulas. Seen from outer space by Martians, all this stuff is marginal at best, and inconsequential at worst. What American culture excels at is turning the trivial into life-and-death decisions. Let the advertising contests begin.

Despite the experts, I am convinced that Romney's mandatory pandering to right wing extremists during primary season was his downfall. As much as he tried, he was never able to convince moderates that he really didn't mean it.

The GOP represents the interests of the corporate establishment and the powerful . It is also a welcoming platform for mysogynists, nativists, racists, nullifiers, war mongers, religious fanatics, anti science zealots and those a few cards short of a full deck. Therefore, any GOP candidate for President, or any other elected office, will NEVER get my vote. The GOP primary process appeals to those who enjoy an ugly show.

The Offal Office under Hillary would likely suffer policy-plegia, owing to her dependance upon billionaire donors, few of whom are populists....completion of the New Deal & the Great Society--& fulfilling the promise of Obamism--requires Warren/Booker Administrations [2017-2025], pursuing proportional representation, campaign finance reform, tax equity, permanent registration, encrypted ballots & voter IDs, abrogation of Gerry & the Manders, severe penalties for vote suppression & strict sanction of investment banks--already slipping the bonds of Dodd-Frank, en route to another market implosion per 1837-2007 [forecast by Adam Smith lui-meme]...as a lagniappe, public majorities on corporate boards [Germany since 1955]...quod erat arguendo definitatur.

If Sides' and Vavreck's research truly showed that "a majority of voters actually thought Mr. Romney was closer to them ideologically than President Obama at the end of the campaign," then why didn't Romney win? In reality, Barack Obama won almost 5 million more votes, and 126 more electoral votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

The only real winners in a divisive primary are the advertising agencies that make the campaign ads and the media outlets that run them.

It's true

Republicans have little to fear from a divisive primary

What they need to fear is their horrificcandidates

It doesn't matter if Ted Cruz cruises through the Primary or wins a hard fought Primary. He is still Ted Cruz. And if Jeb has to win by running to the right of Ted Cruz then he's toast as well.

Iowa and South Carolina turn the Republicans into insane parodies of candidates, Regardless of how divisive the primary is at the time.

The fact of the matter is that America is so divided that the nominee of either party can be assured of 47% of the popular vote (the Electoral College is a different matter, of course). Even a 54/46% split would be considered a landslide. Republicans will come together behind whomever they nominate no matter how bitter and contentious the primary fight. The real travesty to American democracy is that the nominees of both parties will spend hundreds of millions, maybe billions, to win the winner-take-all electoral votes of about 10 swing states. Meanwhile, the voters in the sure states, whether red or blue, will be ignored. Candidates will pay attention to California, New York, and Texas only when they need their coffers refilled.

I can't help but wonder if this political calculus is valid considering the atmosphere created by the radical Republicans and now this sham of a budget that was approved by the Senate last night.

Throwing costly issues back at the states is not working out well now. The fact of the matter is that states cannot afford to properly care for all their citizens and continue to run their states on the taxes they collect.

The machine of government is far too big to take out of the hands of a federal style government, We are seeing this proven now as unemployment benefits and food for needy children are being defunded and the worst problem is closing down the ACA which is a benefit to all citizens, even Ted Cruz apparently.

For, of, and by the people needs to be first and foremost when it comes to governing and all our citizens need to be kept in the loop.

While I would broadly agree with this, particular the comments about the importance of the economy and the effects of tribalism, I'm not sure that a long divisive primary doesn't have all sorts of potential ill effects for the candidate finally nominated. Using the Obama/Clinton contest as a benchmark is a bit of a cop out since it wasn't hugely divisive and both candidates essentially hewed to the same benign policy positions. This cannot be said of the huge and diverse Republican field where all kinds of extreme positions are going to be aired ad nauseum and fixed in voters minds thus forming an ink blot picture of the candidate which is not going to be easily erased during the campaign. The Clinton ink blot already exists and is essentially fixed. Most voters aren't really familiar with most of the Republicans (outside of WI who knows who Walker is?). The amount of negation the Republican party represents right now is huge (on just about every issue they are in the minority at least as indicated by polls).

Voters (or, more accurately, those eligible to vote) don't like squabbling. After eight years of squabbling, I don't believe voters will be attracted to a candidate who has spent the year preceding the election squabbling. Voters prefer the candidate who stays above the fray. At least, the marginal voters who often determine the outcome. The committed voters, left and right, like the squabbling and the fray. I suspect that Nyhan's analysis is directed toward those voters, and that he believes the outcome of the next election will be determined by the turn-out of the committed voters, in particular those on the right (religious voters especially). If he's right, and I suspect he's right (rather than left), the more squabbling the better for the Republican nominee.

Primaries don't happen in a vacuum. The GOP control of the legislature is running a natural experiment that, if it is unsuccessful because it passes radical bills, will send a chill across the electorate. GOP has to be seen as a winning party with a winning strategy. Mitt Romney lost in part because his strategy in so many areas, like self deportation for illegal immigrants, didn't make a lot of sense.