Why Do You Have To Win A primary?

Kaus wonders: Why does a Democratic candidate have to win a primary somewhere, sometime to be viable? With the proportional allocation of delegates, it's possible to actually win the nomination without ever winning a primary. All you have to do is finish second in a lot of contests and accumulate delegates while the other candidates perform inconsistently. (That result wouldn't be undemocratic--sometimes Everybody's Second Choice is in fact the candidate who should win. Such a plodding-but-widely-acceptable candidate might also be the strongest opponent for Bush.)

Pendragon disagrees - but as Easter Lemming I am not buying his arguments. Superdelegates will gravitate toward a viable candidate even if it is not their favorite candidate. A second choice might be seen as more favored by Independents or possibly even Republicans but not a majority of the Democrats compared to a candidate. If one candidate always won but not clear victories doesn't that represent a problem and not an endorsement? And if more than one candidate wins different states, everybody's nice second choice starts looking better and better. This is how Edwards did so well in the Iowa caucuses, he was a lot of people's second choice.

His best argument might be his final argument - "There's also the electoral issue of how a guy running number two can keep up a second-place profile over dozens of contests. Logistically, not-winner-guy is going to fall off the map when it becomes obvious he can't seal the deal anywhere." It took a long time for Clinton to close the deal and Tsongas kept winning but not by large amounts. Clinton was a more electable candidate once his negatives were overcome. I don't think Tsongas would have won the White House even if he was more likely to win the nomination. I see similar problems for Kerry - can he win the party but not the White House?