So it seems like everyone and his mother has commented on this post of Drum's dealing with whether or not tough primary fights are harmful for a party's general election chances. He says, hey the 1968 primary was a mess, but the Democrats still barely lost. So it didn't hurt them that badly, right?
Well, yeah, but they still lost. And they still lost even though George Wallace was draining loads of votes that would've tended Nixon's way. And you are making an inference from an N of 1 - and N of 1 that existed in an entirely different political environment that didn't feature today's primary system or (especially important) today's campaign finance laws.
Basically, it's a really bad analogy for 2008 - or at least it is if the goal is to find the lesson he takes from it. And there's a strong argument to be made for the idea that a divise primary is harmful to the party. Though of course looking across a wide set of elections that effect isn't as strong as, say, the impact of the economy.
Posted by armand at March 6, 2008 09:29 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics