One thing that Republicans have figured out about the electoral process is the role that primaries play. Rather than treating primaries as intra-party bloodbaths they use them as auditions for the general election. The candidate who convinces the primary electorate that he will best carry the Republican banner in the general election gets the nomination.
It's true that Republicans don't always follow this rule, which Ronald Reagan summarized as the 11th Commandment: "Thou Shalt Not Attack Another Republican". For instance, I remember commenting during the 1996 Republican primary debate that I loved to hear the sound of Republicans eating their own. Of course, things didn't work out so well for them that year.
-->
This year, the Republican frontrunner, Rudolph Giuliani, is carrying on the Republican tradition, today being quoted in the NY Times saying:
"And let's make sure we pick someone who can beat the Democrats. That's what it's all about," Giuliani said. "We have our differences, but they're small. Us Republicans have differences between and among ourselves. But they're small compared to the vast differences we have with the Democrats."
Democrats, on the other hand, often seem to want to use the primary to fight their own intra-party battles. That doesn't help the eventual nominee's chances in the eventual general election. While the Republicans spend nine months "on message" against the Democrats, the Democrats have spend nine months with a conflicting array of attacks -- against the Democrats.
That does not mean that the Democrats cannot compare and contrast their records. It does mean that such comparisons should always be kept in the context of the main battle -- the fight against Republican neo-conservatism. The comparison should be in the form of presenting the candidate's own record, not tearing down his opponent's. "I've done more than anyone on the stage to take on the neo-conservative menace to this country" is far more inspiring to me than "My opponent has questionable motives and is a danger to the country". To paraphrase Giuliani, we may have differences, but they're small compared to the vast differences we have with the Republicans. Who suck.
I know that this goes against much of what the blogroots stands for -- reform of the Democratic Party without a great deal of concern about the Republicans. I know that kind of thinking is leading to pressure for the candidates to "sharpen their attacks" on their primary opponents.
To me, that's the wrong response. If a candidate wants to get ahead, they should sharpen their attacks on the Republicans. I want to see the battle you're planning to take to the enemy. Show me how and why you're the best person to be debating the Republican candidate next fall. Attacks on other Democrats don't inspire me and I suspect they don't inspire most of the electorate either.
This is not about sacrificing your campaign to the greater good of the general election. This is about how to convince me to vote for you in the primary. It's possible you may be able to slam another candidate enough to induce me not to vote for him -- but in doing so, it's virtually impossible you'll inspire me to vote for you. Dick Gephardt may have done in Howard Dean's chances in 2004, but he hardly benefited from it himself, nor did the Democrats as a whole.
Rudy Giuliani would make a bad President. His campaign may yet implode under the weight of his personal history. But, for the time being, he's showing he knows how to run a campaign that will benefit himself in both the primary and the general election. Democrats should take note.