THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal

CHECK US OUT AT: http://delawareliberal.wordpress.com/

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

 

A Spivack/Berg Primary Would Be Good For the Party

The notion that primaries are bad is something akin to gospel in the Delaware Democratic Party.

Kos takes on this sacred cow in a post about Hacket/Brown in Ohio, and (surprise) I agree with him 100%.

(In the 2004 election cycle) competitive Republican primaries in Oklahoma, Alaska, South Carolina, and Florida allowed those Republicans to use the momentum boost and media coverage to eventually win their seats. Democrats cleared their primary fields up and down the map for all the good it did (absolutely none).

This obsession with clearing fields really is counterproductive, generating a great deal of hostility and ill-will. And really, what better place to work on message and build the campaign machinery than in a primary? The primary election, at worse, becomes a test run to make sure the machine is firing on all cylinders. And the money used on media and whatnot during a primary is not wasted money -- it's a way to build up early name recognition to the electorate. It worked wonders for Republicans in 2004.

Now, insurgent candidates don't have a god-given right to respect or support. But if they want to run, then the party should stay the frack out of it. There is no legitimate justification for the price the party pays in meddling in such affairs.


Word!

Comments:
Another advantage is the fact that the winner of the primary goes into the election having won SOMETHING.

Which is more than you can say about either Berg or Spivack.
 
Berg come to the Oil Valentine from Venezualia yesterday and barely shook anyone's hand....part pf politics is getting around the crowd.

I remeber going to the Arden Fair when I was in High School and meeting Tom Carper. No politician had ever reached out to me and, well, I never forgot that small gesture.

Berg needs to figure out that a run means doing a bit of PR work!!!
 
Primaries are divisive. You run the risk of the supporters of the losing candidate going to the other side in the general out of spite.

Having them both in the general will mean a split vote, but you will have two candidates hammering on Castle.
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

Archives

November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   May 2007  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]