Maxistentialism

There’s some interesting discussion today of what exactly a protracted Republican primary would mean for the 2012 election. I know everyone was waiting for me to weigh in, so here goes:

On its own, a long primary fight is neither “good” nor “bad” for a party; as with all things, context is key.
The conventional wisdom is that a long, dirty primary weakens all candidates involved, and gives the party less time to coalesce around a winner in the general election.
But in 2008 when Democrats had two excellent candidates, they became more and more enthusiastic, which effect carried over into the general election. By October, Democrats were 4% more enthusiastic about voting than they were in 2004, while Republicans were 17% less enthusiastic about voting than they were in 2004.
A long Democratic primary in 2008 gave Obama a chance to earn the voters’ respect, build online tools that were crucial in the general election, and develop critical networks of people on the ground in key states that otherwise wouldn’t get a lot of Democratic attention.
Even more important: Coming out of the gate, Hillary Clinton was a well-financed, well-managed, well-known candidate. But the more voters were exposed to her (and the more desperate she got), the less they liked what they saw. Barack Obama was a terrible candiate - he has a ridiculous name and his ears are large. But the more voters were exposed to the guy, the more they began to fall for him. Every day the Democratic primary dragged on, Obama was able to show America how smart and cool he was.
None of the viable Republican candidates share this characteristic with Obama.
- The more exposure Romney gets, the more voters are turned off by his corporatism and empty eyes. After Romney’s 1.5 victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, Republican enthusiasm declined 10%.
- When Newt Gingrich gets media attention, he almost always outs himself as an idiot. Although this strategy actually worked for George W. Bush (who cast himself as a simple everyman), it’s an actual problem for Gingrich, who is trying to brand himself as the “big ideas” candidate. To quote Ezra Klein: “[Gingrich’s] ideas on the big issues are standard-issue conservatism, and they’re mixed in with occasional flights of fancy (illuminate highways using orbiting mirrors that reflect moonlight), pure plays to resentment and fear (execute 19-year-olds who are stupidly trying to smuggle two ounces of pot from Mexico), and a lot of small, specific ideas, like the Louisiana port reconstruction.”
In summary: A long primary is good or bad for a party depending on how candidates use it, but it doesn’t look like Republicans stand to gain as much as Obama did in 2008 because they simply aren’t as good as Obama.
Also the more we’re exposed to them, the sadder they make us.

P.S. If you’re wondering whether Obama still has it, check out the polling after his State of the Union: +8% job approval across the board, +16% favorability, +32% strong leader, +18% good plans for the economy, +18% creating new jobs, +24% good for the middle class, +20% bridging partisan divide, +20% cares about voters like me, and the kicker, +28% “makes me hopeful when I hear him speak.” Those numbers are bananas.