Electability and the Democratic candidates

What is "electability"? It is a very real factor in primary elections. It is the answer to the following questions: Can the candidate win the general election? Can he or she be president? Can he beat the other party's candidate by appealing beyond the base of his party? The answer to these questions do sway voters. Voting for a loser or voting for a candidate who is too far out of the mainstream to win is not very palatable for a lot of voters. It is an intelligent way to size up candidates--it's not smart to marginalize your own party, but make as broadly attractive as possible. The electability narrative is one that any front-runner candidate has to tackle. Howard Dean got smeared on it in the weeks before Iowa.

The electability angle is frustrating to the ideologues who want their party's nominee to be a strong public voice for the issue positions that most of the active party members hold. It seems to argue that people should vote against their interests and beliefs and try to project how other people who don't have the same issues and beliefs will vote. And of course they aren't doing it alone, but are fed a narrative by the mainstream media, which is controlled by (fill in the blank: liberal elitists or corporate interests). Chris Bowers has complained about this recently.

But thinking about who is the most electable is really the smart thing to do. What Bowers doesn't mention is that at the beginning of the Rasmussen Report he cited, it referenced an earlier report on the lack of perceived ideological differences between the candidates.

Here's Joe Klein a few days ago on Obama and Hillary:

Both candidates are emphasizing the exact same issues and they are saying almost the exact same things about those issues. The consultants and their focus groups have never seemed more powerful. Health care for every single American (except that neither has produced a plan to do that--Obama's lacks a mandate and we'll see about Hillary's, when she launches in a couple of weeks). Energy independence. End the war. Restore America's place in the world. Raise up the middle class. End cronyism. Both candidates have populist flickers, and name the Insurance companies, Big Oil, Big Pharma as corporate evildoers.

Especially if the differences on substance are not large, voters should go with the most electable candidate. It's the smart thing to do. And primary voters are the smartest, most well-informed voters. Turnout is under 20% in primary elections; the Iowa Democratic caucus in 2004 was 6% of all registered voters. These are not stupid ignoramuses but the cream of the electoral crop.

Here's the original report Bowers was responding to: Rasmussen reported Friday on the issue of "electability" and the Democratic candidates:

If nominated, Clinton is considered at least somewhat likely to win by 53% of all voters. Fifty-four percent (54%) say the same about Edwards and 55% about Obama. However, 24% of all voters say that if Clinton is nominated, she is Very Likely to win it all. Just 17% say that Obama is Very Likely to win the White House while 16% say a victory in November is Very Likely for Edwards.

The picture looks much different, however, among unaffiliated voters. Among this important segment of the voting population, 50% say Obama is at least somewhat likely to win if nominated. Forty-eight percent (48%) say the same about Edwards and just 42% see a Clinton victory as Somewhat or Very Likely.