Which Democrat is the Most Electable?
I know everyone hates the dreaded "e" word, but electability matters. Whether we acknowledge it or not, perceptions about electability influence the decision-making of just about every primary voter. And this is perfectly understandable. Not all candidates are equally equipped to survive the rigours of a general election and be able to command a majority when all is said and done. It makes sense for voters to take this into account. The problem, of course, is that voters (and pundits and bloggers) tend to be pretty bad at assessing the relative electability of candidates--so much so that many have suggested that it would be better if voters just abandoned electability as a criterion altogether.
I don't buy that. I think that there is a way to approach the issue that can lead you to at least a somewhat well-informed conclusion regarding the relative electability of the candidates. It involves looking at the skills and attributes that have historically been pivotal in presidential races. What follows is a list of electability factors and my assessment of how the Democratic candidates stack up against each other. Obviously these kind of assessments are very subjective, so feel free to disagree vigorously in the comments:
1) Debating skills
The televised one-on-one debate has become a crucial rite of passage in American presidential politics. The debates tend to draw high ratings, and many voters' impressions of the candidates are either formed or hardened as a result of watching them. In 2004, Bush was pretty much coasting to re-election until the debates. John Kerry's solid performance in the debates (particularly the first one) led to a significant narrowing in the polls and ultimately a very close election.
Unfortunately, it's often very hard to determine how a candidate will do in a general election debate based solely on their performance in primary debates. The format is just so different. Kerry was completely unmemorable in the primary debates, but turned out to be pretty good in the one-on-one format. Conversely, John Edwards was pretty good in the primary debates, but didn't do all that well in his debate with Cheney (though, to be fair, Kerry had a much easier opponent).
Hillary has been very good in the primary debates: confident, quick on her feet, and even funny when the situation calls for it. I'm fairly confident that she would do fine in the general election debates. I haven't been as impressed with Edwards or Obama. I tend to think Obama, however, would do much better in a format where he actually has significant ideological and policy differences with his opponent. Like Bill Clinton, Obama is very good at painting in broad strokes, at describing the basic philosophical differences between progressives and conservatives. But, for now, he's unproven. Advantage = Clinton.
2) The Convention Speech
In terms of influence, the only thing that matches the debates is the nominee's convention speech, which much of America tunes in to watch. And this is the one area where we have a pretty solid basis of comparison. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama all spoke at the 2004 convention. Edwards is pretty good in this format, better than Clinton. But Obama wins this category by a landslide. His speech was one of the better convention speeches ever delivered. It turned him from a nobody into a star overnight. This is a format where Obama is exceedingly comfortable and exceptionally talented. If he's the nominee, he'll blow people's socks of with his convention speech. Advantage = Obama, by a mile.
3) Gaffes
The general election is long and grueling, and unforced errors can really cost a candidate. Clinton and Edwards are safer bets than Obama in this category. Clinton has lived under hyper-scrutiny for much of the last two decades. She's very polished. And Edwards survived the last general election without making any major gaffes. Obama, on the other hand, is inexperienced politically and has made some questionable decisions in the primary so far (the McClurkin episode, attacking Hillary on Social Security, etc.). Advantage = Clinton and Edwards.
4) Press coverage
This is easily the most unfair factor, but it is highly relevant. We have a very fickle press corps, and it is very difficult to campaign successfully when the journalists covering the campaign don't like you (just ask Al Gore). I agree completely with Bob Somerby that, for whatever reason, "the press corps loathes Clinton and Edwards—but not Obama." I think Obama would get much more favorable coverage than either Clinton or Edwards. I also think that the historic nature of Obama's candidacy would largely drive the press narrative. All coverage would be framed around the prospect of Obama becoming the first black president, and I think that would generally work to his advantage. Advantage = Obama.
5) Swiftboat-ability
The principal campaign strategy of the Republican party in every presidential election is to mock and villify the Democratic nominee to such a degree that he or she becomes a permanent object of ridicule and scorn. This character assassination takes place on many different levels, and as we saw in the last election cycle, can include downright slanderous accusations, attacks, and whisper campaigns. If Hillary is the nominee, we can expect "independent" groups to dredge up all sorts of bogus allegations. Republican surrogates will engage in relentlessly misogynistic rhetoric, and there will be an aggressive whisper campaign alleging that she is a lesbian. If Edwards is the nominee, he will be mocked viciously as a pretty-boy and prima donna, with less savory Republicans like Ann Coulter outright accusing him of being a homosexual. And if Obama is the nominee, I think he'll primarily be mocked primarily for his inexperience, but there will also be attacks with racial undertones (for example, attempts to paint his church as being too "militant"). Less savory types will play the Muslim card and whisper campaigns will accuse Obama of being a terrorist-sympathizer. Advantage = no one.
I think the mistake that many primary voters make in assessing electability is putting too much emphasis on a candidate's resume. Kerry was a great candidate on paper, a decorated veteran with many years of government experience and a relatively moderate voting record. But at the end of the day, I think that a candidate's experience plays very little role in influencing voters. Ultimately, many people end up voting for the candidate they "like" better. I think this is particularly true of the mysterious "swing" voters who can never seem to make up their mind until the last minute. It's not so much about the issues for these folks; it's about their perceptions of the candidate's characters. The candidates don't get very many chances to make an impression on these voters, which is why their ability to perform in debates and at the convention matters a great deal.
My own personal assessment, based on what I've seen to date, is that Obama is the most "electable" of the Democratic candidates. I think he'd do very well in the debates and at the convention. I think he'd receive much better and fairer press coverage. And I think Obama's freshness and charisma--as well as the historical nature of his candidacy--will make him more appealing to independent and swing voters and will lure people to the polls who don't normally vote.
I could be completely wrong about all of these things, but that's how I see it. I'm curious to know what you think.
I don't buy that. I think that there is a way to approach the issue that can lead you to at least a somewhat well-informed conclusion regarding the relative electability of the candidates. It involves looking at the skills and attributes that have historically been pivotal in presidential races. What follows is a list of electability factors and my assessment of how the Democratic candidates stack up against each other. Obviously these kind of assessments are very subjective, so feel free to disagree vigorously in the comments:
1) Debating skills
The televised one-on-one debate has become a crucial rite of passage in American presidential politics. The debates tend to draw high ratings, and many voters' impressions of the candidates are either formed or hardened as a result of watching them. In 2004, Bush was pretty much coasting to re-election until the debates. John Kerry's solid performance in the debates (particularly the first one) led to a significant narrowing in the polls and ultimately a very close election.
Unfortunately, it's often very hard to determine how a candidate will do in a general election debate based solely on their performance in primary debates. The format is just so different. Kerry was completely unmemorable in the primary debates, but turned out to be pretty good in the one-on-one format. Conversely, John Edwards was pretty good in the primary debates, but didn't do all that well in his debate with Cheney (though, to be fair, Kerry had a much easier opponent).
Hillary has been very good in the primary debates: confident, quick on her feet, and even funny when the situation calls for it. I'm fairly confident that she would do fine in the general election debates. I haven't been as impressed with Edwards or Obama. I tend to think Obama, however, would do much better in a format where he actually has significant ideological and policy differences with his opponent. Like Bill Clinton, Obama is very good at painting in broad strokes, at describing the basic philosophical differences between progressives and conservatives. But, for now, he's unproven. Advantage = Clinton.
2) The Convention Speech
In terms of influence, the only thing that matches the debates is the nominee's convention speech, which much of America tunes in to watch. And this is the one area where we have a pretty solid basis of comparison. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama all spoke at the 2004 convention. Edwards is pretty good in this format, better than Clinton. But Obama wins this category by a landslide. His speech was one of the better convention speeches ever delivered. It turned him from a nobody into a star overnight. This is a format where Obama is exceedingly comfortable and exceptionally talented. If he's the nominee, he'll blow people's socks of with his convention speech. Advantage = Obama, by a mile.
3) Gaffes
The general election is long and grueling, and unforced errors can really cost a candidate. Clinton and Edwards are safer bets than Obama in this category. Clinton has lived under hyper-scrutiny for much of the last two decades. She's very polished. And Edwards survived the last general election without making any major gaffes. Obama, on the other hand, is inexperienced politically and has made some questionable decisions in the primary so far (the McClurkin episode, attacking Hillary on Social Security, etc.). Advantage = Clinton and Edwards.
4) Press coverage
This is easily the most unfair factor, but it is highly relevant. We have a very fickle press corps, and it is very difficult to campaign successfully when the journalists covering the campaign don't like you (just ask Al Gore). I agree completely with Bob Somerby that, for whatever reason, "the press corps loathes Clinton and Edwards—but not Obama." I think Obama would get much more favorable coverage than either Clinton or Edwards. I also think that the historic nature of Obama's candidacy would largely drive the press narrative. All coverage would be framed around the prospect of Obama becoming the first black president, and I think that would generally work to his advantage. Advantage = Obama.
5) Swiftboat-ability
The principal campaign strategy of the Republican party in every presidential election is to mock and villify the Democratic nominee to such a degree that he or she becomes a permanent object of ridicule and scorn. This character assassination takes place on many different levels, and as we saw in the last election cycle, can include downright slanderous accusations, attacks, and whisper campaigns. If Hillary is the nominee, we can expect "independent" groups to dredge up all sorts of bogus allegations. Republican surrogates will engage in relentlessly misogynistic rhetoric, and there will be an aggressive whisper campaign alleging that she is a lesbian. If Edwards is the nominee, he will be mocked viciously as a pretty-boy and prima donna, with less savory Republicans like Ann Coulter outright accusing him of being a homosexual. And if Obama is the nominee, I think he'll primarily be mocked primarily for his inexperience, but there will also be attacks with racial undertones (for example, attempts to paint his church as being too "militant"). Less savory types will play the Muslim card and whisper campaigns will accuse Obama of being a terrorist-sympathizer. Advantage = no one.
I think the mistake that many primary voters make in assessing electability is putting too much emphasis on a candidate's resume. Kerry was a great candidate on paper, a decorated veteran with many years of government experience and a relatively moderate voting record. But at the end of the day, I think that a candidate's experience plays very little role in influencing voters. Ultimately, many people end up voting for the candidate they "like" better. I think this is particularly true of the mysterious "swing" voters who can never seem to make up their mind until the last minute. It's not so much about the issues for these folks; it's about their perceptions of the candidate's characters. The candidates don't get very many chances to make an impression on these voters, which is why their ability to perform in debates and at the convention matters a great deal.
My own personal assessment, based on what I've seen to date, is that Obama is the most "electable" of the Democratic candidates. I think he'd do very well in the debates and at the convention. I think he'd receive much better and fairer press coverage. And I think Obama's freshness and charisma--as well as the historical nature of his candidacy--will make him more appealing to independent and swing voters and will lure people to the polls who don't normally vote.
I could be completely wrong about all of these things, but that's how I see it. I'm curious to know what you think.
posted by A.L. at 1:01 AM
26 Comments:
AL said...
I could be completely wrong about all of these things, but that's how I see. I'm curious to know what you think.
No offense AL, and this is not directed at you in particular, but I would just assume people took the concept of "electability" and shoved it.
People can talk all they want about restoring the constitution and our civil liberties but if they then vote for Clinton or Obama... well they might as well not have wasted everyone's time.
I am voting for Kucinich. If he isn't on the ballot come election day I will be writing his name in. If I have to vote by way of a Diebold touch-screen voting machine, I will be writing his name on the screen, in large block letters, with an over-sized fluorescent pink Sharpie.
Never again. Never again will I vote for the lesser of two evils because of "electability" concerns.
If we're being completely cold-blooded in this calculation, I think we'd have to admit Obama's chances of winning a southern state outside (perhaps) Florida are highly dubious. He's made claims that he could squeeze by with increased black voter turnout. But said turnout would have to double, a mathematical impossibility.
I'm voting for him anyway.
If we're being completely cold-blooded in this calculation, I think we'd have to admit Obama's chances of winning a southern state outside (perhaps) Florida are highly dubious.
That may be true, but I think it's even more true of Hillary. And Edwards' presence on the ticket last time didn't seem to make much of an impression in the South.
Luckily, Democrats don't need to win in the South, which is good, because I don't see any Democrat winning any Southern states (except Florida and perhaps Virginia) anytime in the near future.
Electability, for a Democratic Party presidential candidate in 2008, at present seems to be synonymous with "ability to be nominated". There are precious few undecided voters out there, and not enough to make a difference in the general election, so "electability" for any of the field at present is moot.
Let me be a little more cynical, however, and suggest a fifth category called “the-fix-is-in-ability”. Suppose our national elections have nothing to do with what people want or who most of them vote for. Suppose elections are just a dog-and-pony show, put on by the MSM to mollify the masses and make them feel like they have a hand in determining our leader, but that in fact our president is chosen by elite powerbrokers looking to make sweetheart deals to maintain the status quo. I’m not saying that’s the case, mind you, but one certainly couldn’t blame a person for thinking it is. By that metric, which I suspect looms large in the strategic conscience of all voters, Hillary Clinton positively mops the floor with Obama and Edwards, simply because, of the three, she’s the one we can see mopping the floor with Giuliani and Romney. In other words, if the people really do have a say, then I agree with you, one could make very good arguments for the candidacies of Edwards and Obama. But if the fix is in and it all comes down to backroom “Kingmakers” – and who’s to say it isn’t? - it feels like they’re ready to crown Clinton right now. And insofar as she is clearly preferable the Republican offerings – Mussolini and Lyle Wagoner – maybe that’s the way to go.
AL- see, Brux's reference to Giuliani and Romney as "Mussolini and Lyle Wagoner," while in no literal sense fair or accurate, is an example of how one can use rhetoric to make one's point in a humorous way.
You may not get the Lyle Wagoner reference, but, trust me, its funny.
"The principal campaign strategy of the Republican party in every presidential election is to mock and villify the Democratic nominee to such a degree that he or she becomes a permanent object of ridicule and scorn."
Right--it's only the Republicans who do this. Democrats would never stoop so low as to mock and ridicule, say, Ronald Reagan--would they? And they truly treated G. W. Bush with kid gloves in 2000 and 2004, as I recall it. They're just not nasty enough, those Democrats.
Trying to decide which political party is more venal, vicious or corrupt is a mug's game, believe me. I vote for the Repubs every time, but it's been a long time since I harbored any illusions that they were morally superior (or inferior) to the Dems.
Obama is a great candidate, but so is Dodd and Edwards. Gender and race may well be an unspoken factor if the nominee is either Clinton or Obama, but the Democrats should be able to win the presidency even if the candidate is their mascot the donkey.
Right--it's only the Republicans who do this. Democrats would never stoop so low as to mock and ridicule, say, Ronald Reagan--would they? And they truly treated G. W. Bush with kid gloves in 2000 and 2004, as I recall it.
Of course this works both ways. But the Republicans are far better at it. They're more coordinated. They pick a theme (like flip-flopper) and literally everyone repeats it endlessly. They're also willing to go a lot further then dems in terms of pushing the bounds of decency. John Kerry was a decorated war veteran, and he was slandered endlessly. Speakers at the Republican convention mocked his service and delegates in the audience war purple band-aids to mock Kerry's purple hearts. And that's not even counting all the swift boat ads, which were quietly condoned (and likely coordinated) by the Bush campaign and funded by prominent Republican donors. Find me anything that even remotely equals that on the Democratic side.
AL- see, Brux's reference to Giuliani and Romney as "Mussolini and Lyle Wagoner," while in no literal sense fair or accurate, is an example of how one can use rhetoric to make one's point in a humorous way.
I thought it was funny too. I'm not sure what your point is. Surely there's a difference, though between an obviously humorous line and a demonstrable lie?
Moreover, there's a difference between what's okay to say in a blog comment and what candidates can say. I'm pretty sure that if a major Democratic candidate called Giuliani "Mussolini," the shrieking from conservatives would be deafening and the candidate would be forced to apologize. But Giuliani feels free to say that Democrats want to invite terrorists to the inaugural ball.
Giuliani gets away with a lot more than anyone else. He's pretty shameless.
I would add a sixth category to your list: How effective is the candidate in fighting back against the swiftboat attacks? Since we all know they will come, it isn't about who has the cleanest record. This is why everyone has been telling Obama to stop trying to place himself above the fray. We all saw what happened to Kerry when he tried to be gentlemanly about the attacks. Nobody refers to "my distinguished opponent" anymore. Like it or not, Americans seem to prefer fighters.
A.L., I find it quite surprising that you would contend that Republicans are “far better at it.” I expect you will hear some angry denials from Messrs. Begala and Carville very shortly, but I’ll leave that to them.
As for the “slanders” against Mr. Kerry, as you would say “I know a lot about this.” I wasn’t with Kerry (any more than John Glenn was “with” Ted Williams), but I know a very great deal about how he conducted himself during his four months in country and, far more shamefully, for the next forty years. I also know, to an extent I believe you would find convincing, that although some of what his 250+ colleagues had to say about him in 2004 might have been slanderous, the great bulk of it was very much spot-on. I can give you all the detail you want, but having been there and done that, I’m not inclined to do so unless asked, or unless you or some of your correspondents express doubt about what I’ve just said. Suffice to say the man disgraced himself, and naval officers and sailors who shared his experience know very well how he did so.
If you want to hear more, let me know. Otherwise, I’ll let it go right here.
(...i think we may have located col. boylan's "hacker.")
A.L.,
It isn't that the RW crowd is so much better at slinging mud at their opponents, it's that:
1. They are not hampered by considerations of honesty, fairness, accuracy, or any rational rules of argument. As an example, they eagerly repeat hearsay as if it were absolute truth.
2. Their target audience is far more disposed to accept and internalize negative statements about those its leaders identify as "the enemy."
We have a truly asymmetric political environment, and it's a waste of energy to worry about it.
If, after the last 16 years, the American electorate is not relatively immune to the kind, well, what can be done?
I'm with Anonymous. We know that no matter who the Democrats choose s/he will be swift boated. What Democrats need above all else is someone who can hit back and hit back hard.
And when he or she "hits back," will/should he or she be hampered by considerations of honesty, fairness, accuracy, or rational rules of argument?
Oh, how I absolutely love this one:
"1. They are not hampered by considerations of honesty, fairness, accuracy, or any rational rules of argument. As an example, they eagerly repeat hearsay as if it were absolute truth.
"2. Their target audience is far more disposed to accept and internalize negative statements about those its leaders identify as 'the enemy.'
"We have a truly asymmetric political environment, and it's a waste of energy to worry about it.
"If, after the last 16 years, the American electorate is not relatively immune to the kind, well, what can be done?"
Permit me to offer a few suggestions as to "what can be done."
First, enlist the likes of Paul Begala, James Carville, Bill Moyers, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews to restore some semblance of diapassionate balance to the discussion. They will persuade listeners to be rational, calm and unbiased in their views.
Second, see if you can't get a billionaire or two (will George Soros do?) to finance an unaccounatable hit-machine funded by untouchable offshore accounts.
Third, try to get someone to get something like, say, "the daily Kos" or "Democratic Underground" to get your message out the the REAL people out there.
Then maybe you'll have a chance. Until then, of course, we elitists really have you over a barrel, don't we?
Neutral,
I wasn't speaking to you, but thanks for the suggestions. They're neither necessary nor useful. I really don't want to see the left become a copy of the right.
As for having a chance, I think we'll do just fine next year. The American people have had a crash course over the last 7 years of allowing authoritarians any official authority.
Your reading comprehension needs a touch-up. Saying that the battle is asymmetric isn't an admission of defeat; it merely recognizes that the methods on one side have to be fundamentally different from those of the other.
"Elite" isn't the term that springs to mind when I read your comments.
First, enlist the likes of Paul Begala, James Carville, Bill Moyers, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews to restore some semblance of diapassionate balance to the discussion. They will persuade listeners to be rational, calm and unbiased in their views.
That's seriously the best you can do? These are the liberal flame-throwers? Begala and Carville? Really? And Moyers, while liberal, is tame to the point of boredom. And Matthews? He's a liberal partisan? The guys hates Democrats. He hated Gore. He completely hates Clinton. And he always has a embarrassing man-crush on some prominent Republican (Bush from 1999-2003, more recently Giuliani and McCain). I realize the guy has been pretty negative about Iraq (and consequently hard on neocon types), but good lord, if you think he's a liberal partisan, you could not be more clueless.
Second, see if you can't get a billionaire or two (will George Soros do?) to finance an unaccounatable hit-machine funded by untouchable offshore accounts.
The Soros paranoia is fascinating to behold. It's like he's Dr. Evil or something. You guys think he's secretely running everything. But it's all bullshit. He has no connection to Media Matters. Moreover, Media Matters is just a frickin' website. Since when are websites "accountable" to anyone? What does that even mean? Do you find the Drudge Report equally sinister? And I love the idea that Media Matter is some sort of crazy "hit-machine." Have you ever even read it? Or do you just watch O'Reilly too much? Find me even a single Media Matters post that contains a lie. I dare you.
The whole Soros paranoia is so bizarre. One guy decides to fund some liberal causes and conservatives flip out. As if conservatives don't have legions of rich donors funding stuff.
I assume most of you have not read the coverage of the 2004 election by BBC/Guardian reporter Greg Palast (summarized for quick learning in his book Armed Madhouse) or by media studies professor Mark Crispin Miller (book: Fooled Again). But if their evidence is accurate -- I've looked around for serious attempts to refute their evidence and never found any -- you're missing a _very_ large electability issue.
Each make a very strong prima facie case that about seven million John Kerry votes disappeared in 2004, in a variety of ways; that the exit polls showing Kerry's victory were correct, and that he was the legit winner of Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, and probably Nevada. He also, of course, had money saved up to challenge the election in court -- and chose not to spend it. He was "electable" in all the senses you mean, but he wasn't willing to call the Republicans on their 2nd straight theft... and so he wasn't electable in any sense that led to power.
Who, of our current candidates, would be disputatious enough to fight a stolen election, in the lopsided media environment that made it so hard for Gore? I don't know -- but I'm certain it wouldn't be Clinton or Obama. Maybe Edwards. Maybe Dodd, who strikes me as plenty electable (he's very good at making his case in speeches and actions) if he ever gets enough traction to let the average voter know he exists. Maybe nobody, I don't know ... but can you seriously imagine Barack Obama having the audacity to risk being called the Sore Loserman of 2008?
There's another measure in here that was missed. Call it the "Insider/Outsider" measure. In '08, I believe there will be substantial anger with incumbents. If true, Obama relative newness on the scene helps him. Hillary's consumate-insider position detracts.
Remember that in 2000 Bush ran as an outsider-populist who wanted to bring the feuding parties to agreement to do the people's business. Boy--was that a load of horseshit. But that's what he ran as. Obama, strangely I guess, is running the same ticket but from the left-center. Given his communication skills, which are far and above what Bush could dream of, Obama can certainly make it close in the general. Whether he can beat the race issue is another question. America is steeped in racism--from coast to coast.
Hillary and Obama have large groups of people who would never vote for them. Larger than can be imagined. I have people making comments to me who don't know my loyalties and bash Hillary unmercifully. I don't think she can win. Obama has no chance in the South and bias might lose him an otherwise blue state.
I think "gaffes" are what the press will focus on when a politician doesn't have a message. It's not about electability, it's about being focused and having a realistic platform you can sell to the public.
George Soros paranoia is easy to explain. He backs the Democrats. Therefore he must be swiftboated. That's all.
"
As for the “slanders” against Mr. Kerry, as you would say “I know a lot about this.” I wasn’t with Kerry (any more than John Glenn was “with” Ted Williams), but I know a very great deal about how he conducted himself during his four months in country and, far more shamefully, for the next forty years. I also know, to an extent I believe you would find convincing, that although some of what his 250+ colleagues had to say about him in 2004 might have been slanderous, the great bulk of it was very much spot-on. I can give you all the detail you want, but having been there and done that, I’m not inclined to do so unless asked, or unless you or some of your correspondents express doubt about what I’ve just said. Suffice to say the man disgraced himself, and naval officers and sailors who shared his experience know very well how he did so.
If you want to hear more, let me know. Otherwise, I’ll let it go right here."
I'd like to know exactly what you are talking about.
neutral thinks Kerry disgraced himself. I am sure you think the people against the Iraq war are disgracing themselves also. You and your kind are a disgrace to this country.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home