And then this systematic breakdown of the article’s premise.
The White House seems to view the notion of a serious primary challenge as far-fetched, and you can see why. For one thing, there seems to be no perfect vehicle out there, no Edward M. Kennedy biding his time.
The closest approximation appears to be Howard Dean, the former presidential candidate and party chairman who criticized the president’s deal on taxes. But Mr. Dean hasn’t shown any interest to this point in running, and you might recall that his 2004 campaign, for all its passion and fund-raising prowess, yielded just two primary victories, in the District of Columbia and in his home state of Vermont.
In the end, he does lay out the ominous consequences in store for the president if this bogus trend turns into something more concrete. McCarthy in 1968 and Buchanan in 1992 weren’t victorious, Bai explains, but their primary challenges were enough to damage sitting presidents seeking re-election.
Such protests candidates don’t have to win more than a state or two to have an impact; they merely have to show up and sow division. It probably isn’t coincidental that none of the last four American presidents to face primaries while seeking re-election—Johnson, Gerald R. Ford, Carter and George H. W. Bush—survived to serve another term.
In other words, should the president’s progressive critics warm to the idea, it might not take a particularly credible primary challenge to weaken Mr. Obama’s chances for re-election. It might only take a challenge designed to do exactly that.
In other words: should this trend actually turn out to be a trend, and if it the trend turns to action, then the president might have to worry.
"And then this systematic breakdown of the article’s premise."
If Shafer ever undertakes to diagram a bogus trend story, I hope he uses this phrase -- it's the best indicator there is that you're looking at a BTS. (If it's a Style section BTS, of course, the second-best indicator is the anecdotal lede featuring one or more of the reporter's Park Slope-residing acquaintances.)
One other note -- it's not really clear that the 68/92 primary challenges hurt the incumbent. Just as likely, the challenges were themselves reflections of the incumbent's weakened standing with his own party -- and that that underlying weakness was a big contributor to the loss in the general.
#1 Posted by Greg Marx, CJR on Thu 9 Dec 2010 at 12:25 PM
Ok, one more note -- a shout-out to Politico's Ben Smith, who's been doing his part to beat back this silly meme. See his story with Jonathan Martin this morning:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46176.html
Compare that to Bai's piece: One looks at the powerful logic of the situation against a (non-trivial, non-vanity) primary, and writes a story reporting that logic. The other looks at the same logic, and tries to come up with reasons why it might not hold.
#2 Posted by Greg Marx, CJR on Thu 9 Dec 2010 at 06:15 PM