From confidence? (4.00 / 2)

I'd assume that part of the reason electability has been emphasized less is because Democratic voters think we have a good chance of winning, and they probably thought any of the top three candidates could win.

---

by: Semblance @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 15:33:08 PM CDT

The bitter irony (4.00 / 2)

is that Dem voters chose John kerry based on "electability."

[shakes head and makes low-pitched groan ala Lurch]

I think an Obama/Dean ticket would be the greatest.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 15:44:23 PM CDT

This is wrong (0.00 / 0)

Everyone has different definitions of the word "electability."  And different degrees with which they employ the factor.

I believe that many, if not most, voters have a version of what you and I call "electability" in their choice calculus.  

What voters may "want", as you say, may be someone they think can win.  And they don't state that in polling.

I think this always has been and always will be the case.  I do not believe there will ever be a mass enlightenment, and it will just disappear.

I hold that there is one exception to my view - in a time of severe economic uncertainty/threat, "what's in it for me" perceptions of policy may overwhelm everything else.   Now, we may be entering such a phase now....but I don't think that played out in the D primary this year.

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 16:17:32 PM CDT

"Electibility" vs winning (4.00 / 1)

As many have pointed out, the problem with "electibility" is multi-fold.  First and most damaging, it is when you nominate someone for "electibility" it is obvious to the voters that you choose someone other than who you think would make the best president.  This is similar to the problem the DLC gets into all the time.  You can't sell a program because you think it will be popular, you sell a program because you think it will be good.

The other problem, and it is a bit more subtle, is nobody votes for "electibility" in the general election.  In other words, you are expecting someone to win in the general for a different reason than they won in the primary.  But that reason is often left unstated.

Now the obvious counter to all this is you need to nominate candidates that can win.  No one doubts that, per se.  (Though in some cases, all you are trying to do is move the narrative of the possible, one of the goals of the 50 state strategy.)  But you can't get into this weird double-think that has caused so many problems.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 16:29:33 PM CDT

Electability (0.00 / 0)

means different things in different election. In 2004 it was who people thought was the best to beat Bush. So com[paring percentages of people as Chris did is just the wrong measurement.

This year electability means who wiill carry the most electoral votes and 'what states they will do that in'. Some people want to gamble with states we have never done before. Those would be the Obama people.

Others want to carry the Kerry states plus a couple which is a more realistic strategy. those would be the Clinton people because polls show she can do that. Polls don't show that Obama can bring the WH home with his electoral map. Again it is a gamble.

Of course there all the factors such as the constituencies that Clinton can carry that lead to the electoral map she commands.

---

by: SayItLoud @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 17:59:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And HRC is a gamble too (4.00 / 2)

You are asserting that Obama is a gamble and she is not.

She could make big time mistakes - after all, she hired Mark Penn, she embarassed herself with the primary strategy and Tuzla....

How many major strategic and tactical errors has Obama made?  That's why he won this.

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 19:27:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Electability still matters (4.00 / 1)

The difference is that democrats in general feel good about their chances, so maybe felt a little bit more freedom in voting their conscience rather than a calculation.

But I think what people tell pollsters masks greater truths. The question of "Can he/she win in November?" is still the first and most important one voter's ask themselves in a primary.

If "electability" was really a non-issue, there's a good chance Dennis Kucinich would have done a lot better than he did.

And I'll be honest. If Obama had responded to the Wright flap with the skill and grace that John Kerry responded to the swiftboat attacks - even I'd be clamoring to get the superdelegates to nominate Hillary, because it would have been a clear sign Obama wouldn't survive the fall.

Of course, John Kerry proves the fallacy of trying to pick the most "electable" candidate - but the point still stands. Winning a primary is nothing, winning in November is everything.

---

by: ejp1082 @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 16:38:07 PM CDT

Kerry and electability - a fallacy (0.00 / 0)

Why is it a fallacy?  Assuming that electability truly was the reason Kerry won the nomination, the question is, why did the public get that perception?  I think it was a combination of the conduct of the Kerry campaign and the conduct of the other campaigns.  Electability was part of the sell.

Whatever his other flaws, Kerry outgamed the other candidates.   This is part of the game.  Managing the press is part of the game.

I don't think Kerry ran a good enough campaign, and the war had majority approval at the time of the election, and Bush was around 50% approval - it was no slam dunk.  The Kerry-bashing in this thread and others is wrong.  

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 16:43:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually, if Clinton insists on taking this to convention (0.00 / 0)

it will be only because of "electabilty" argument that she's been making.

John McCain won't insure children

---

by: magster @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 16:55:24 PM CDT

Another To Look At These Numbers (4.00 / 1)

is in terms of what percent of those who thought electability was important in 2004 still think so today.  That is, instead of subtracting 2008 figures from 2004 figures, divide 2008 figures by 2004 figures.  The results range from a high of 37% in Oklahoma to a low of 14% in Rhode Island and Delaware.  The unweighted average is 23%.

That means less that 1 in 4 who thought it was important in 2004 think the same today.

Another angle, but the same conclusion.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 17:09:05 PM CDT

Still (0.00 / 0)

at some point you have to get elected.  I remember watching George McGovern's 3:00 AM acceptance speech in 1972.  It was inspiring, but the Vietnam War dragged on.

Obama is not progressing as a candidate. He's not ready to beat McCain.  I doubt he ever will be.

---

by: Upstate Dem @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 17:14:52 PM CDT

So much guilt by association (0.00 / 0)

So little evidence

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:12:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The key being ... (0.00 / 0)

As long we win in November

While I like the notion of primary purity, I think that there is always a sense that we are moved to vote for the candidate that we think will actually deliver in the GE.  Just as we were salivating over a Republican from the farthest right corner of their party (remember back to just after Iowa -- it seems so long ago), they would salivate over someone from the far left.  Electability is simply part of the mix of what we look for -- the person who will best represent us before the electorate as a whole.

---

by: BlueBear @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 17:51:50 PM CDT