What is Electability?

Steven Benen made the following point in a post this morning:

Most primary voters, understandably, want to consider whether a candidate can win before backing him or her. It makes sense — if you want your party to win the White House, there’s no real point in backing a candidate who’s likely to lose.

I’ve lost count of how many times, just in the last week or so, in which I’ve heard that Clinton (and/or Obama and/or Edwards) “can’t win.” In many circles, John McCain is some kind of folk hero who can’t possibly lose in a match-up against one of the Dems’ top-tier candidates.

Now would be a good time for Dems to stop thinking this way, and the polls help prove the point. We may be at an early stage, but Americans are already largely familiar with the top three Dems and the top two Republicans — and the Dems are shaping up quite well. Indeed, McCain, already considered the likely front-runner in the general election by the media establishment, trails all of the top Dems in both polls.

My point isn’t that these early national polls have reliable predictive value; my point is that the Dems’ top-tier is plenty competitive and can absolutely win a national race.

I agree to a point. I think Steve is absolutely right that McCain's electability has been greatly overstated. His shameless base-pandering and unflinching support for the Iraq debacle have significantly diminished his appeal to indepenents and moderate Democrats. Any one of the "top-tier" Democratic candidates would have a good shot at beating McCain under current conditions.

That said, I don't think that Democratic voters should stop considering "electability" as a factor in choosing their nominee. While polls right now show little difference between hypothetical matchups involving Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, the ultimate outcome of the general election may well hinge on which one of these candidates prevails in the primaries. General elections are long, grueling auditions. Some candidates will rise to the occasion and win voters over while others will flounder under the pressure. In other words, electability matters--a lot.

The problem is that most people--including political pundits--focus on the wrong factors when gaging a candidate's electability. In 2004, John Kerry was swept to victory in the primaries based almost solely on his perceived electability. People looked at his experience, his personal history, and his record of carefully-calibrated moderate positions on issues, and saw a candidate who Republicans would have a hard time painting as an inexperienced, liberal wimp.

Though counterfactual hypotheticals are always problematic, I suspect the voters were both right and wrong regarding Kerry's electability. I suspect that Kerry did better than Howard Dean would have, but worse that John Edwards could have had he led the ticket. Experience and issue-positions are important to a degree, but I think that ultimately charisma and personal likability are far more important indicators of electablity.

In a post over at TAPPED, Sam Rosenfeld quotes author Paul Waldman as saying:

[W]hat Aristotle understood and every smart politician since understands is that the most powerful political persuasion comes not through logos (facts and reason) but through ethos (the character of the speaker), with a healthy portion of pathos (emotion) mixed in.

I agree completely, and I think this is particularly true in presidential elections. Among the people whose votes are realistically up for grabs (i.e., not the folks who automatically vote Republican or Democratic), I think that perceived character counts for a lot more than experience or a candidates' positions on various issues. I realize I'm generalizing, but in my experience, these swing voters tend to hold rather idiosyncratic views on specific issues and don't follow politics very closely. They tune in very late in the game, watch a presential debate or two, watch some commercials and newscasts, and then vote for the candidate they have the most favorable impression of. Remember the bounce in the polls that Kerry received following the first presidential debate? That was this phenomenon in action. Kerry had been caricatured viciously for months prior to that appearence, but many voters' impressions of him didn't really solidify until that night. By merely looking competent and moderately articulate, Kerry was able to win over a number of voters. But not as many as Bill Clinton would have under similar circumstances.

I don't mean to suggest that Democratic voters should choose a candidate based solely on charisma. Obvious electability is just one factor to consider among many. But to the extent voters wish to factor electability into their decision-making calculus, they should focus more on how a candidate comes across on television and less on his/her experience and the supposed "moderacy" of his/her positions.

At some point this summer, the Democratic candidates will begin participating in a series of debates. When you're watching these debates, imagine that you're someone who doesn't pay much attention to politics and who is trying to come to a decision based solely on the perceived character of the various speakers. Or better yet, watch some of the debate with a friend or family member who doesn't have any strong Republican or Democratic leanings. See how they react. The candidate who makes the most favorable impression on this sort of voter is the most electable.

UPDATE: I should clarify my point here. I think there are generally three assessments a primary voter needs to make when choosing a candidate to support: 1) What does this person stand for, what does he/she believe? 2) How good a leader will this person be? 3) How good a spokesman will this person be?

The first question is all about the issues. You obviously want to support someone who agrees with you about the issues that matter the most to you. The second question is about judgment and competence. You want to know that the person you're supporting will react sensibly when faced with difficult decisions and perform his/her duties competently. The third question asks whether or not the candidate will be able to sell his ideas, his decisions, and himself (or herself) to the American people (and later to Congress and the rest of the world).

It is with respect to this final question that electability comes into play. It is instructive to think of a presidential nominee as an ambassador. The nominee is the public face for a whole slew of ideas and policies. If he can't sell them, and sell himself, it doesn't matter how good those ideas and policies are. A candidate must be an effective salesman to get elected. And a president who is an excellent salesman will accomplish much more in office that someone who is right on all the issues but ineffectual at pitching them to the public, to Congress, and to the world.

I think all three of these questions are important, but that Democratic primary voters need to give a little more thought this time around to question 3 (Republican voters should probably focus a little more on question 2).