Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Correlation is not Causation

Researchers in the 1950s found that children who had nightlights in their rooms tended to have bad night vision when they grew up. So for decades standard parenting advices warned against purchasing your children nightlights. But then upon reexamination, they discovered that parents who had bad night vision had trouble seeing checking on their children in the dark – so they bought nightlights. And of course parents with bad eyes tend to have children with bad eyes.

Two clocks striking midnight ten seconds apart every day – the first does not cause the other. An incumbent who has so angered his base that he is primaried would be in trouble in general election regardless of the primary challenge. So yes, Jimmy Carter was primaried and lost the general election, and the same happened to Jerry Ford. But does anyone think that had Carter not been primaried he would have beaten Reagan, or that Ford could have been elected after pardoning Nixon? Or even that George Bush Sr. could have beaten Clinton if only he had not been challenged by Buchannan.

Primary challenges are a very different animal than third party candidates. Third party candidates can and do act as spoilers taking votes away from what would otherwise have been a less of two evils. So although there were plenty of other reasons Al Gore lost in 2000, had Ralph Nader not been on the ballot, Gore would have won. That is a provable mathematical fact.

The “primarying Obama will get us President Bachman” argument is the same type of chicken game as the Republicans are playing with the debt ceiling. Threaten the apocalypse and then settle for complete surrender. We are not going to have President Bachman. The policies the Republicans are pushing are anathema to average Americans, and polling proves that. Regardless of whether Obama is the nominee, we will win if we can make a clear contrast to the voters. In fact, we would be better able to make that contrast with a different nominee.

Primarying Obama will be good for the Party and the Eventual Nominee
Without a primary challenge, the news cycle for the next fifteen months will be the many Republican candidates tearing down the Democrats and the administration. Given the Administration’s above it all approach to anything even slightly partisan, expect no effective response. But image a primary challenger out there 24/seven attacking the Republicans and putting forward a coherent Progressive vision. In the 2004 election, while Kerry, Dean, Edwards and the others were all out there bashing Bush, his ratings went into free fall. Bush only recovered when Kerry locked up the nomination and disappeared from public consciousness until the Convention – by which time it was too late.

Primaries build organizations and parties. Had Obama won in New Hampshire and eliminated Clinton and all the others with the first primary he would never have built the nationwide grassroots organization that propelled him to victory. He had to campaign in states that Democrats had written off in the general for years and found surprising strength – with the result that they put the resources into places like North Carolina and Indiana and turned them blue. It was also a time when he found some of the problems in his message and tried to fix them. My opinion is that his campaign advisors assume a level of grassroots activism that they can simply call forth and which is not in fact there. If that is true, we are much better off if we discover that now.

But the most important result of this primary challenge will be the building of a nationwide progressive grassroots movement that will continue on after 2012 regardless of the outcome. If that movement does not nominate its choice in 2012, so be it. But consider what 2013 would look like if Obama where not primaried and lost anyway, we would not have built the infrastructure we’d need to oppose the ruling tea party conservatives. In 2016, our standard bearer would start out as the prohibitive favorite. Remember that the conservative movement we are still fighting came together out of Ronald Reagan’s challenge to Ford in 1976.


  1. Excellent post. This comment "Primary challenges are a very different animal than third party candidates. Third party candidates can and do act as spoilers taking votes away from what would otherwise have been a less of two evils." is something I strongly agree with.

  2. Just because you claim to be a Dem Insider with decades of experience, doesn't mean you are. (I myself am Angelina Jolie. Brad and the kids say Hi)
    I arrived here after reading a post about you in BloggingBlue which accepts your self-definition. I do not. You could just be a guy who thought of a cute way to pump up some pageviews in a fat hurry. Kudos. Now that we have that outta the way -

    Your argument to "primary" Obama (who I do not and never have liked and I am not a conservative), knowing full well such an effort will be a sham, seems excessively crappy, deceitful and manipulative to me. Because from the outset the intent of the party will have been that Obama DOES get the nomination. Probably you will see this plan a way to fire up the populace and then have the "challenger" tearfully pass on the newly motivated crowds to Obama for the "good of the nation". The kind of thinking you show here is really the one thing that makes me think you DO work in politics.

    It's kind of a shitty plan really. So in order to win we know Obama needs to resurrect the Yes We Can once again. But knowing Obama CAN'T sell the YesWeCan Snake Oil anymore you propose getting some other salesman to essentially seduce the people by proxy?
    And while all this showmanship is going on, and on, and on - into 2016, the conservative bulldozer keeps rolling along un-checked. 100 very fast days of Scott Walker here in WI kind of put this plan of yours into some scary perspective. Where exactly will we BE in 2016 after farting around with both Wimpy Obama and your Miss Congeniality time-waster primary candidate? Maybe the Democrats have one choice, that being to make REAL effort or just lay down and openly give up.
    Will there be enough a a nation left for your Democratic President of 2016? I say no - we'll all be in the Thunderdome fighting for scraps of bread by then.
    The Center Does Not Hold
    Things Fall Apart
    How many disjointed phrases would you like me to misquote here? How about The Fat Lady Is Singing? Right now and very loudly.

    If Obama has betrayed his base and his previously expressed ideals so much that he loses - that's life. For all of us.
    Hiring some Male Escort to "do" America while Obama watches and then eventually takes over again is a really poor substitute for a real relationship between a committed, visionary candidate and his base.

    And I doubt the History books (should any still be allowed under our 30 thousand year Republican dictatorship) will be fooled. If Obama has acted like a sock puppet, that's gonna stay painfully apparent.
    Bringing in MORE sock puppets to distract from the Obamaian sock-puppetry? meh.

  3. imagine a candidate to vote for instead of against? for many, obama was that in 2008, but not again. great idea, but i don't think there's an established democrat with the stones to primary obama.