Should Hillary want a primary fight?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

If Obama and the Democratic party remains unpopular, another bitter primary battle would be to her advantage, would it not? During the 2008 primary she was seen as the "moderate" candidate, even though her and Obama's positions were nearly identical. If she's attacked from the left again this time around, it could help build that image, which might be necessary if the country remains in an anti-liberal mood.

[Progressive]

Absolutely. I support her and I want her to have primary challengers. She needs to engage voters in a campaign style blitz across all states.

[The Mikado]

There's the practical concern that a highly competitive GOP primary will keep all the attention on their candidates through April/May 2016. Of course, the Clintons have a supernatural ability to attract cameras.

[The_Doctor]

Yes. The Clintons would be well served by a primary rather than a coronation. Just see how well the Gore coronation worked for him, compared to the Bush v. McCain fight? Bush would have probably lost in 2000 if not for the primary fight, which helped sharpen his campaign and endear him more strongly to the conservative base.

Will they get the primary fight? Probably not.

[RR1997]

If Obama and the Democratic party remains unpopular, another bitter primary battle would be to her advantage, would it not? During the 2008 primary she was seen as the "moderate" candidate, even though her and Obama's positions were nearly identical. If she's attacked from the left again this time around, it could help build that image, which might be necessary if the country remains in an anti-liberal mood.

^

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

If Obama and the Democratic party remains unpopular, another bitter primary battle would be to her advantage, would it not? During the 2008 primary she was seen as the "moderate" candidate, even though her and Obama's positions were nearly identical. If she's attacked from the left again this time around, it could help build that image, which might be necessary if the country remains in an anti-liberal mood.

I'd quibble with the notion that the country is in an anti-liberal mood. Republicans won due to a combination of low voter turnout and people being frustrated at personally experiencing a slow economic recovery. That said I think that she should want a primary challenge, I don't know what she's thinking but a lot of her most diehard supporters have a really arrogant and entitled attitude that I find off-putting. I think they need to face a vigerous primary fight to get warmed up for the general election. Having a candidate seriously threaten Hillary if that is even possible to channel liberal frustration will light a fire under her and her campaign team's ass and make them realize that nothing is guaranteed in politics.

[Xing]

Definitely. She'll want to start making her case to voters long before the general election begins, and a primary will likely increase Democratic enthusiasm and turnout. I don't think Obama would've pulled off narrow victories in Indiana and North Carolina in 2008 if not for the primaries in those states actually holding some significance.

[IceSpear]

I remember reading that Hillary's team actually didn't mind if Bernie Sanders ran, since:

a) He'd run a positive campaign
b) It would give her practice in the debates
c) It would make her look more moderate by comparison

I'm sure it's the same for O'Malley, who will basically only run to try to be Hillary's VP and/or as the fallback option in case she doesn't run, dies, or implodes from scandal. Webb on the other hand would probably go scorched earth on Hillary, assuming he has enough resources to do so. It's not like he has many chances to stay relevant after this.

[IceSpear]

Yes. The Clintons would be well served by a primary rather than a coronation. Just see how well the Gore coronation worked for him, compared to the Bush v. McCain fight? Bush would have probably lost in 2000 if not for the primary fight, which helped sharpen his campaign and endear him more strongly to the conservative base.

Will they get the primary fight? Probably not.

Gore didn't get a coronation, he got challenged by Bill Bradley. A Bradley-esque performance is probably the best performance a Dem could hope for against Hillary, provided it comes down to a one on one battle.

Also, it didn't work out too bad for him considering he was supposed to lose in a landslide and almost won.

[Mister Mets]

I don't think so.

A primary gives incentives to take positions that upset undecided voters.

If she runs against no-hopers (O'Malley, Webb, Sanders) and they beat low expectations, it's a bad news cycle. I doubt it helps her in the General if it's understood identity politics plays a significant role in her frontrunner status.

Republicans will still regard her as the primary target, so she already has the disadvantages that come with running unopposed.

[Nichlemn]

I doubt primaries are good for any candidate, despite what pundits say. The proof is in revealed preference: has there ever been a case where a politician tried to get themselves a primary challenger for its supposed "benefits"?  Could you imagine Clinton being virtually unopposed and thinking "Oh no, I don't have a primary challenge, I better go plead with someone to run against me?" I don't think so.

 It's pretty much just a waste of resources from the perspective of the candidate, which also runs a risk of loss. If you want a moderate image, just run on a moderate image. That's a lot easier to do when you don't run the risk of losing to a "true believer".

[The_Doctor]

Yes. The Clintons would be well served by a primary rather than a coronation. Just see how well the Gore coronation worked for him, compared to the Bush v. McCain fight? Bush would have probably lost in 2000 if not for the primary fight, which helped sharpen his campaign and endear him more strongly to the conservative base.

Will they get the primary fight? Probably not.

Gore didn't get a coronation, he got challenged by Bill Bradley. A Bradley-esque performance is probably the best performance a Dem could hope for against Hillary, provided it comes down to a one on one battle.

Also, it didn't work out too bad for him considering he was supposed to lose in a landslide and almost won.

It turned into a coronation in January 2000, pretty soon after New Hampshire. Bill Bradley didn't win a single state and all the attention turned to McCain v. Bush. I would say that it was a coronation or very close to it ...

Gore arguably would have won the election had he been sharpened by a more intense battle between him and Bradley. Bradley could have exploited the same vulnerabilities that George W. Bush later did and Gore could have aired out these issues. I paid attention to the 2000 election and it never seemed that Bradley gained enough traction to ever make these vulnerabilities a serious issue that resonated enough with voters to allow the Gore campaign to fashion a credible way to respond to these issues.