The Washington Post

Short-term gain may mean long-term political pain

Reporter

If Mitt Romney cruises to victory in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday as expected, the former Massachusetts governor will be on a glide path to the Republican presidential nomination — a path that could end as soon as the South Carolina primary on Jan. 21.

If Romney wins the Palmetto State, after winning in Iowa and New Hampshire, it’s hard to imagine anyone in the GOP field — with the exception of Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) — hanging on much beyond the end of January.

Chris Cillizza writes “The Fix,” a politics blog for the Washington Post. He also covers the White House. View Archive

That would help Republicans’ chances of beating President Obama in November, as Romney and the GOP would be able to focus their time and money on the Democratic incumbent rather than waste it on an intraparty skirmish. Or so the conventional wisdom goes.

But a look back at recent presidential nomination fights suggests that the conventional wisdom may be wrong — and that the best thing for Romney and the party’s chances in the fall may be a protracted fight for the nod.

“An extended primary would actually help Romney,” said Mark McKinnon, an unaligned GOP strategist. “It keeps the attention on Republicans, he looks stronger and a longer spring training means he’ll be in better shape for the regular season.”

Take the past two presidential primary fights.

In 2008, Sen. John McCain’s victory over Romney in the Florida primary at the end of January effectively ended the nomination fight. (Romney dropped out shortly thereafter and although former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee remained in the race, McCain was widely regarded as the nominee.)

The Democratic primary fight between then-Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), on the other hand, stretched into June — an extended battle that had Democrats nervous and Republicans gleeful about what it meant for the general election.

And we know how that one turned out.

The 2004 presidential race teaches a similar lesson. After scoring wins in the Iowa caucuses (Jan. 19) and the New Hampshire primary (Jan. 27), Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) secured the Democratic nomination.

At the time, party strategists were thrilled with the outcome — the most electable candidate (in their view) had won a quick and resounding nomination fight and was ready to take on President George W. Bush. The reality was something very different as Bush and his political team quickly pounced, defining Kerry as a wishy-washy flip-flopper before the Democratic nominee was able to get out of the general-election gate.

Look further back in history and you find more evidence that longer is better than shorter when it comes to primary fights. Then-Vice President Al Gore swept to the Democratic presidential nomination in 2000 only to lose to Bush. (Bush’s 2000 campaign is something of an outlier to the theory, as he effectively ended it by beating McCain in South Carolina on Feb. 19 but went on to win the general election anyway.) Former senator Robert J. Dole (Kan.) had the nomination in hand by mid-March 1996 but was outspent by far in the spring and summer and went on to lose to President Bill Clinton in the fall.

Phil Musser, who helped Romney during his 2008 campaign and was intimately involved in the presidential effort of former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty this time around, said that no matter what happens, Romney won’t repeat Dole’s mistakes.

“Between the [Republican National Committee], the outside groups and the very extensive Romney finance network, we’ll have the money needed to compete, so we won’t be in a handcuffed situation like 1996,” he said.

Regardless of whether Romney could handle a short primary season, a longer one is likely to help more. Although more primaries mean more money spent and more time expended on a fight within one party, it also means scads of news media attention — the press would much rather cover an active race than one in which the ultimate vote won’t come for nine months or more — and the chance to run a series of real campaigns in states that will be competitive in the general election.

In practical terms, Romney and his team don’t care when they win the nomination — as long as they do win it. But a look at recent presidential history suggests that a quick victory may provide short-term gain in exchange for long-term political pain.

“It’s like sitting your starters in football,” Matt Bennett, who was a Clinton administration official, said of a short primary. “The rest may feel good and prevent injury, but it doesn’t steel you for the championship.” (Ask the 2009 Colts or John Kerry).

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Comments
Show Comments
The Democrats debated Thursday night. Get caught up on the race.
The Post's Chris Cillizza on the Democratic debate...
On Clinton: She poked a series of holes in Sanders's health-care proposal and broadly cast him as someone who talks a big game but simply can't hope to achieve his goals.

On Sanders: If the challenge was to show that he could be a candidate for people other than those who already love him, he didn't make much progress toward that goal. But he did come across as more well-versed on foreign policy than in debates past.
The PBS debate in 3 minutes
Quoted
We are in vigorous agreement here.
Hillary Clinton, during the PBS Democratic debate, a night in which she and Sanders shared many of the same positions on issues
South Carolina polling averages
Donald Trump leads in the polls as he faces rivals Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz heading into the S.C. GOP primary on Feb. 20.
South Carolina polling averages
The S.C. Democratic primary is Feb. 27. Clinton has a significant lead in the state, whose primary falls one week after the party's Nevada caucuses.
62% 33%
Fact Checker
Trump’s claim that his border wall would cost $8 billion
The billionaire's claim is highly dubious. Based on the costs of the Israeli security barrier (which is mostly fence) and the cost of the relatively simple fence already along the U.S.-Mexico border, an $8 billion price tag is simply not credible.
Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio
Upcoming debates
Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

March 3: GOP debate

on Fox News, in Detroit, Mich.

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands
Most Read

politics

Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Close video player
Now Playing

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.