The more the merrier: Democratic candidates for 2016 Dan Pfeiffer

(CNN)This is something I don’t find myself saying very often: I agree with Karl Rove.

In a recent post on Medium, the former strategist for President George W. Bush made the case that the historically large size of the GOP primary wasn’t a disadvantage, rebutting some conventional wisdom that a 20-candidate field would be a net negative for the Grand Ole Party. There are so many candidates running that some have compared it to a clown car and not just because Donald Trump is thinking of running.

Dan Pfeiffer joins CNN as contributor

While the Democratic primary doesn’t resemble the clown car nature of the Republican field (in part because it’s not filled with clowns), it did get a little bigger this weekend, with former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley joining Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the race. And what Rove wrote about the Republicans is even more true of the Democrats. A competitive primary is not just not a disadvantage as Rove writes; it will actually be an advantage. A fight for the Democratic nomination is good for the party and will help us, not hurt us, next year in November.

 Dan Pfeiffer

First, competitive primaries make better general election candidates. As divisive, heated and long as the 2008 Democratic primary was, there is no question that Barack Obama was a much stronger nominee because of Clinton. He honed his skills as a candidate, sharpened his message and became a stronger debater. He learned how to take a punch and throw one right back. Most importantly, he faced political adversity time and again and learned how to handle it.

If Clinton is our nominee, which is at this point the overwhelmingly most likely scenario, she will be better prepared to take on Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or whoever else the Republicans nominate because Sanders and O’Malley made her that way.

Second, competitive primaries make better general election campaigns. In 2008, Obama won Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia in large part because we ran hard in those states in the primaries. The primary gave us the opportunity to build large grass-roots organizations with well-trained organizers and volunteers.

We were able to try out our get out the vote machinery in almost every state in the country months before the election. Iowa and New Hampshire may decide the presidency in 2016, and the Democratic nominee will be better positioned to win those states because of the organizations built and tested in the primaries.

Finally, competitive primaries make better political parties. Many of the issues that have driven the Democratic Party in recent decades — health care, the Bush tax cuts, the Bush wars — have been largely resolved during the Obama presidency. The party is grappling a bit with what comes next — with which issues and solutions are going to animate us as Democrats.

Unlike the Republicans, Democrats are not a collection of competing and often contradictory interests. We are unified, we know what we stand for and are confident in our ideals, but how do we apply those ideals to a new set of evolving challenges?

Historically, these questions have been answered in robust primary debates. If O’Malley and Sanders run good, idea-driven campaigns, there will be a robust debate about the future of the Democratic Party that will make us better in the 2016 general election and in years to come.

It’s clear that the Clinton campaign understands this. They are running very hard and building the sorts of campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire that are designed to win tough races. They are running like an underdog, not the biggest favorite in history.

There is an important caveat — one that Rove hints at in his column about the Republican side: Competitive, hard-fought primaries are good until they aren’t. There is a moment where they can go from competitive to irreparably divisive. The Obama-Clinton race came close to crossing that line a couple of times, but never did because both candidates worked hard to repair the breach.

There should be robust debate about ideas and issues, about who would make a better president and leader of the party. But when Democrats use Republican talking points to describe other Democrats, that crosses a line. If that happens, it will be incumbent on the whole party — from President Obama on down — to call foul. Fortunately, the risk of this primary getting out of hand is very small, given the individuals involved and the shared sense that winning this election is critical for the future of the issues that matter to Democrats.

Reporters, pundits and people who own television stations in places such as Iowa are rooting for a fight for the Democratic nomination, and Democrats should be, too. A competition, not a coronation, is what’s best for our chances in 2016.

View the original content and more from this author here: http://ift.tt/1KHPhmN

from democratic dojo http://ift.tt/1BCJeYi
via IFTTT