Primaries – Right v. Left

[rbnyc]

We keep hearing in the news how some Republican leaders are concerned that a candidate will emerge from the primaries who is too far to the right for the mainstream public. Republican strategists recognize their primary process as one that moves candidates to the right in order to appease/please their base. Strategists see the candidates responding to people on the ground and know their people on the ground are uncompromising.

When I have volunteered for Dennis Kucinich during past primaries, my job was to go speak to local groups to get their endorsement. As I’ve said many times, most groups said that Dennis was most closely aligned with their own values, but they were afraid to support him because they anticipated the mainstream would perceive him as too far left, or just too weird in general. Democratic strategists didn’t really have to worry about a candidate emerging that might not be mainstream enough because, in general, our people on the ground self-edit during the primary process.

I always thought the main purpose of having a primary was for the base to have a chance to communicate its values to the candidates and for a candidate most closely aligned with the values of the base to emerge.

In any case, there is a clear distinction between their people on the ground, who seem wholly unconcerned how radical and totally fucking bonkers their primary candidates are, and our people on the ground who are ever-cautioning each other to be pragmatic.

Let me just add a couple things: I do not think primarying President Obama is a good idea. Also, I do see that regardless of how well we feel President Obama has represented our values, he did emerge from our last presidential primaries as the candidate of change, which may represent an exception to what I’ve said above.

[dtexdem]

1. If somebody primaries Obama, the Dem Party needs to worry that ...

someone will emerge from the primaries who is too far to the right for the mainstream public: Obama.

;-)

[rbnyc]

2. LOL nt