Is "party unity" everything it's cracked up to be?

[RememberTheCoup]

Other than voting for the Democratic candidate in the GE, is there really such a great strategic reason for Democrats to line up behind a single candidate in a show of unity early on? I won't go into the theory that having multiple candidates in the race for as long as possible means that attacks are spread out among them rather than focused on a single person. I think that is a valid theory but it has been addressed before in this forum.

Instead, I'm trying to look at it from the perspective of swing voters and disgruntled Republicans. Suppose we had a Democratic president who was so awful that even a lot of Democrats (especially moderates and centrists) felt they couldn't support him. Suppose these Democrats were looking over to see who the Republicans were running. If it were someone like, say, John McCain (whom I personally don't consider to be much different from any other Republican, but a lot of Democrats apparently think he's borderline acceptable), a great show of Republican unity might actually make some Dems less likely to vote for him. They might get suspicious wondering why even the far right wing elements in the party were so eager to get him into office. But if a lot of Republicans expressed disappointment in having him as their nominee, these disgruntled Dems, swing voters, and moderate Republicans might feel a little more at ease.

Just a theory I have, and it may be totally off the mark. I've given up trying to get inside the mind of the average swing voter; I'm no good at it. All I can do is try to imagine how I would think and feel under similar circumstances. Thoughts?

[Monte Carlo]

1. In this election, I'd say yes.

The Democrats, unlike the Republicans, still actually bother with the primary process. George W. Bush had a road cleared for him to become the Republican nominee; Bill Clinton's campaign had to work very hard to pull off its surprise victory. Voluntary unity, as opposed to the involuntary unity the GOP insists upon, can be hard to come by, but when it happens, it's a very big sign of the future.

A lot of people want to vote for the candidate that they think can win, not ones that they think are going to lose; they want their votes to be effective. They might start considering how the Democratic Party rates its own candidates in making their decision.

[The Traveler]

2. Makes sense

I myself think you are right on the money.

And perhaps even more significantly, the party has to put together a comprehensive platform. One of the purposes of a robust primary season, it seems to me, is to collect and evaluate ideas as well as hone the candidates. For this reason, I think spirited debate at this point is useful. It also has the side effect of giving the contenders a lot of free exposure, never a bad thing. So ... am unconvinced this front loaded schedule has turned out to be a good thing. I think it bites that Dean and Clark are out of the running this early. (Full disclosure: I'm a Clark supporter.) At least Dennis is still in.

[BL_Zebub]

3. If your question is "would you vote for McCain over Kerry?"

Then the answer is YES. I don't agree with McCain on a whole lot of things, but at least I know he's not tied to the same fascists that back Bush. Kerry is.

My hatred for these globalist fascist shitbags transcends party lines. I would vote for McCain or even Buchanan in a heartbeat and argue my legitmate political differences with them once the imperialism bullshit is removed for good.

[OKNancy]

8. They are social conservatives

gay rights - out the window
pro-choice judges- gone
prayer in schools - ??? probably
----
Never ever vote for a Republican

[Avalux]

4. Absolutely

On edit:

In the primary, I agree that a variety of choices for as long as possible is a good thing. But once the GE rolls around, we have to stick together. I have problems with Kerry and Edwards but I fully intend to support and vote for whoever gets the nomination. The repugs love it when we fight amongst ourselves, they expect it from us and are waiting for us to implode. Well, it's time to prove them wrong. There's power in numbers and as a unified group, the Democrats will dethrone King George. That's the ultimate goal and we must not forget it.

[King of New Orleans]

5. As long as the campaign process in positive and productive

Then there's no reason they couldn't go on all the way thru. Most voters have been pleased by this year's primary process. Usually people get turned off to the mudslinging and want it over with. Not so this year. If the candidate's were at each other's throats then yes, it would be important to start pushing for unity.

[library_max]

6. It helps us unify in our own support for our own candidate.

People are naturally passionate in their support for their preferred candidate in the primaries. The supporters of the candidates who don't win need some time to get over their disappointment. Also, as the contest goes on, the attacks tend to escalate and people often take extreme positions that are rather difficult to back down from. We've all seen threads on DU about "Here's why I'll never vote for" this or that candidate. The longer the contest goes on, the more people paint themselves into this kind of rhetorical corner, and some percentage of those will stay mad and refuse to support the nominee right through the election.

There's also what I call the Dukakis effect. The more grueling and competitive the primaries, the greater the pressure on each candidate to be all things to all voters and jump through hoops and pass litmus tests. Whereas a candidate whose nomination is pretty much assured can turn his attention entirely to the other party's nominee and the general election. He can afford to take stands like Clinton's Sister Soulja moment, which appeal to swing voters because they show that the candidate isn't completely captive to traditional party constituencies.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. yes it is

i may love kucinich but will go with any dem. all of them are better than bush

[OKNancy]

9. VERY very important

It's the enthusiasm that is so important. If Dems get behind their candidate and talk them up and "get in line" then the swing voter will see the positive energy.

So often I heard about Gore, "oh, he's okay, and I guess I'll vote for him, ho hum". That's not the way to get the swing voter or the fence sitter.

( I saw this in the Clark campaign. Admit it, some on DU were warming up to him because we BELIEVED in him so much and were so excited )