Keeping the General in View (Swampland 4)

Linda,

I was working from the Real Clear Politics averages of a basket of national polls (Marist, Qinnipiac, Rasmussen etc). As an average it makes a reasonable stab at washing out the biases of individual polls as well as the effects of different sampling techniqiues and differnent definitions of "likely voter".

I think you interpreted me as being overly optimistic about the Dem's chances in the general. I'm not. In fact, I was saying that they need to avoid hubris. Particularly the sort of hubris that implies that it doesn't matter what we do to each other in the primary because the nominee will win the general election. I'm happy to stick with with my conclusions. Which are :

The Democratic base is staying fairly loyal regardless of which prospective nominee you ask them about, but the GOP base is not.

Nevertheless, a moderate(ish) GOP nominee with security credentials would still have a real shot at holding the middle ground and winning the general election.

The GOP can blow their chances in the general election by nominating the wrong person.

The Dems will have a fighting chance in the general election by nominating any one of their front runners.

So, the biggest factor and highest priority for the GOP is to pick the right nominee. By contrast, the biggest factor and highest priority for the Dems is to position their nominee, whoever they are, to compete effectively for the middle ground in the general election. Importantly, this means that the Dems need to avoid delivering a nominee into the general election arena who is too damaged by the primary process to compete.

So, the sort of thing we've seen over the past few days, which makes all candidates come off as vicious, small and immature is exactly what the Dems don't need. Which is why I'm happy to pile on and say that both David Geffen and the HRC operatives who started all this have been both dumb and disloyal to their party.