Primaries may be messy, but they make candidates stronger

The only bad news in this isn’t really news at all: Iowa has never been a good indicator of the eventual Republican nominee. For candidates like Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee, the shine from their caucus successes faded fast, but for the political media, the predictable unpredictability of Iowa is good for business. The weird outcome creates an opportunity to carry on with two conventional — but meaningless — narratives of the campaign season: who is or isn’t “electable’’ and why no one can “break out of the pack.’’

These stories are easy to write or air, but the themes run counter to the way campaigns actually work. The very point of a primary system is to elect the strongest and therefore most “electable’’ nominee. Despite evidence that this works quite well in practice, the press often views primaries as random nominee generators driven by the whims of some vaguely defined “base.’’

Tough primary campaigns strengthened Ronald Reagan in the run-up to the 1980 elections and helped George H. W. Bush put media-driven questions about the “wimp factor’’ to rest in 1988. Tough primaries don’t weaken candidates or leave them “bloodied’’ or “scarred.’’ To the contrary, they left Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and John McCain stronger then when the campaign first began. Most important, presidential primaries vet candidates more effectively than any other process, which is why choosing a running mate who has campaigned for the presidency is always the safest choice.