"electability"

[© tweed]

remember back to our last incumbent campaign, 2004, a key issue in the challenger primary was "electability" - who could beat Bush? absurdly enough longtime Senator and Mass liberal John Kerry was able to make it an accepted fact that he was the most electable of the Democratic field; the only member of the mainstream media I remember challenging this convention was Pat Buchanan, who felt that Edwards may have been a stronger candidate.


so the question: could this emerge as an issue in the 2012 GOP primary? and who could best benefit from it? as I see it it could prove to be a negative issue, used against Palin by whoever emerges as a leading anti-Palin: possibly also by Romney in a positive sense, as he has the money and the hair and the he-was-here-last-time-remember-that? effect. however it may be that the Reaganist tendency within the party of seeing the White House as a birthright (and also the objectively weaker position of Obama relatively to Bush ca. 2003, who appeared next to unbeatable and it is in a strong sense amazing Kerry limited him to 286) and also the strength of the Tea Party, which both would be likely to a) resist such argument and b) lack the cognitive capacity to think such two-step logic through to conclusion.

[California8429]

In Karl Rove's book he stated he feared Edward's the most, though right after saying that he slammed him

Obivoulsy most electable will be Romney, Thune, Daniels, and Gingrich if he can make peace with women

[Poundingtherock]

I don't know how you can characterize Kerry's performance as a strong one.  Bush looked strong in the early part of 2003 but his approval ratings fell dramatically in that year and in 2004.

The climate wasn't particularly favorable or unfavorable to either Bush or Kerry.  Kerry could have plausibly spun Iraq as a failure and the economy as sputtering.  There was an opportunity for Kerry to win and potentially win big.

Unfortunately for us Republicans, there is a ceiling on the number of electoral college votes we can get these days and Bush's 280 + isn't that far off (perhaps he could have plausibly won Pennsylvania) considering that Washington/Minnesota are not serious possibilities without third-party help.

[anvi]

Electability will always be an issue.  The Republican nominee will have to be someone with strong appeal to voters from Indiana to Pennsylvania and down the coast to North Carolina, as well as voters in the southwest.   

[Mr. Taft Republican]

I think Huckabee is by far the most electable, pretty much untouched by scandal and not seen as crazy like Palin.  He seems to be a likeable person, even after he argues with someone

[pbrower2a]

I don't know how you can characterize Kerry's performance as a strong one.  Bush looked strong in the early part of 2003 but his approval ratings fell dramatically in that year and in 2004.

The climate wasn't particularly favorable or unfavorable to either Bush or Kerry.  Kerry could have plausibly spun Iraq as a failure and the economy as sputtering.  There was an opportunity for Kerry to win and potentially win big.

Unfortunately for us Republicans, there is a ceiling on the number of electoral college votes we can get these days and Bush's 280 + isn't that far off (perhaps he could have plausibly won Pennsylvania) considering that Washington/Minnesota are not serious possibilities without third-party help.

Dirty tricks may have sunk Kerry. Do you remember the photo montage that showed him with Jane Fonda? It was a Soviet-style fake, as shown by the shadows showing the sunlight hitting them from different directions.  Figure that if that photo didn't appear, Kerry might have won  somewhere between 1.05% (which would have flipped Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio to Kerry) and  2.51% of the vote (which would have also flipped Nevada, Colorado, and Florida).

You are right about the ceiling. With an electorate like that of 2010, the GOP will win the Presidency, take over the Senate, and consolidate its gains in the House.

 

[pbrower2a]

This is about what 280 electoral votes looks like for a Republican in 2012:

Shades indicate closeness.

Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico are probably lost to the GOP in all but landslides, but Iowa and New Hampshire are shakier than those three states. 

300: The Republican wins Pennsylvania or the combination of Minnesota and Wisconsin as well. 

[Bull Moose Base]

A less electable candidate can win within reason.  Obama, head-to-head, polled weaker than Hillary and Edwards.  I'm not sure why Palin is pointing to Reagan as a relevant precedent instead of Bush Sr. though when defending her electability.  Bush Sr. trailed Dukakis by double digits 6 months before Election Day.  He made up the ground by successfully attacking Dukakis's record, famously on Willie Horton.  She could at least try to argue that Obama's record will be similarly vulnerable enough for an underdog Republican to close the gap.  And the side benefit to Palin bringing this up is that she throws the subject out there as a deterrent to Huckabee.  And she'd set Pawlenty up for trouble in case he gets a foothold.  I'm not saying she'd put the electability question to bed obviously, but she could mitigate it to win over some primary voters who do prefer her in other ways.

As for 2004, I guess Kerry was superficially the most electable as a decorated war hero facing a war time incumbent.  I suggested last year that 2012 could parallel 2004 with Romney, like Kerry, a Massachusetts flip-flopper, linkable to the vilified president's signature policy, could likewise overcome that because his background would be best suited to challenge the incumbent that year.  At the time, I thought Howard Dean was the most electable: as a consistent war opponent, the clearest contrast on Bush's biggest mistake, and a moderate except I guess a liberal on social issues.  And I took FOX's ravenous distortion of the "Dean scream" as a sign that they felt the same way and were eager to destroy him.  Though it may have been more short-sighted than that.  I guess Rove is probably right that Edwards was the most electable, but I couldn't see it because even then he seemed like a greasy lawyer.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

As for the "Reaganesque tendency" of the idea of birthright to the Whitehouse, that would help Mitt the most given that he's been the guy that ran before and lost the nomination, and by logic he should be nominated in 2012. I'm not saying that's my opinion, but that will be the opinion of many Romney supporters. I'd support either him or Daniels for the nomination.

[Napoleon]

Fox News likes to promote the more conservative, DLC type of Democrats. They were, and the Clintons both agreed, the least biased news network against Hillary's campaign. Networks gave Hillary a lot of undue negative coverage, and that is a fact. Kerry was this guy in 2004, once Lieberman was no longer viable. Dean was the candidate of the moveon.org types much like Obama was in 2008. A lot of Democrats watch Fox News, you know. They just tend to be older, and probably vote mostly Republican but are still registered Democrats from the old days. West Virginia and Kentucky primary voters, for example. Plus Fox tends to have this uncanny power to drive the news of the day as you see they did with Death Panels. They were able to destroy Dean similarly. Sucks, huh?

[pbrower2a]

A less electable candidate can win within reason.  Obama, head-to-head, polled weaker than Hillary and Edwards.  I'm not sure why Palin is pointing to Reagan as a relevant precedent instead of Bush Sr. though when defending her electability.  Bush Sr. trailed Dukakis by double digits 6 months before Election Day.  He made up the ground by successfully attacking Dukakis's record, famously on Willie Horton.  She could at least try to argue that Obama's record will be similarly vulnerable enough for an underdog Republican to close the gap.  And the side benefit to Palin bringing this up is that she throws the subject out there as a deterrent to Huckabee.  And she'd set Pawlenty up for trouble in case he gets a foothold.  I'm not saying she'd put the electability question to bed obviously, but she could mitigate it to win over some primary voters who do prefer her in other ways.

Most of the questions about the electability of Barack Obama revolved around one thing -- ethnicity. America has had an overwhelming tendency to elect WASPs and near-WASPs. (German, Dutch, or French Huguenot ancestry has not been a problem -- FDR was all of those). The one non-WASP, JFK, was barely elected. But that has been smashed as an electoral reality. If in 2016 the Democratic nominee is Senator Amy Klobuchar, then her non-WASP origin won't be a problem, and neither will gender.  

If there are to be any comparisons to Ronald Reagan  in 2012, then they will be to Barack Obama.  The current President's political skills are more like those of Ronald Reagan. He is in a "heads I win, tails you lose" position with Congress. If Congress compromises at all with him he gets credit; if it goes intransigent and doctrinaire he gets to run against Congress. The Republican nominee will have no record of military heroism as John McCain had. Charisma? Who but he?  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Superficial attractiveness or virtue isn't enough.

[milhouse24]

I wouldn't necessary say Romney is a sure-fire electable candidate.  I strongly doubt he will get much support from Evangelicals and Southerners.  Can someone find polling about how Romney does against Democrats in Southern States?  I see Huckabee or Palin running on a 3rd Party to challenge Romney for Christian conservative voters.

Kerry played up the War Hero card in the primaries, and his experience.  Kerry was the Democrat version of John "War Hero" McCain.  But it just wasn't enough.  For Kerry, he might have been able to scrape some swing voters in Ohio to beat Bush.  Maybe a Kerry-Clark ticket would have improved the military/white veterans votes.

I think for any GOP candidate, he or she has to keep the Southern Christians in line, but also appeal to swing voters - Catholics, Women, Hispanics, Veterans or Midwesterners.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Huckabee has the most electability now. (And I believe that earlier this year, someone in the Obama campaign admitted that they were more worried about him in 2008 than McCain.) He's quite conservative but he's popular among Democratic "groups" (women, blacks, Hispanics) and he doesn't seem like one who just opposes Obama for the sake of it. It also helps that he's nice, appeals to people, and has name recognition.

Palin is clearly the least electable. Even conservative Republicans are beginning to have doubts about her.

[Devilman88]

Obama was the weakest candidate in 2008, look how that turned out for him.

[exopolitician]

Obama was the weakest candidate in 2008, look how that turned out for him.

What? Really? In what way?

[Devilman88]

Obama was the weakest candidate in 2008, look how that turned out for him.

What? Really? In what way?

Clinton and Edward was polling better national then Obama was. Go back and look.

[exopolitician]

Obama was the weakest candidate in 2008, look how that turned out for him.

What? Really? In what way?

Clinton and Edward was polling better national then Obama was. Go back and look.

At the beginning, yeah I guess I can see where you are going with this.

[phk]

Obama was the weakest candidate in 2008, look how that turned out for him.

What? Really? In what way?

Clinton and Edward was polling better national then Obama was. Go back and look.

At the beginning, yeah I guess I can see where you are going with this.

iirc: CNN's exit polling showed Clinton-McCain at 51-41.

[pbrower2a]

Obama was the weakest candidate in 2008, look how that turned out for him.

Weak? He is a personable, slick campaigner.  He consistently got his message across. He learned from his mistakes (like his "guns and religion" gaffe).

[Brittain33]

Obama was the weakest candidate in 2008, look how that turned out for him.

Weak? He is a personable, slick campaigner.  He consistently got his message across. He learned from his mistakes (like his "guns and religion" gaffe).

Perhaps instead of weak, we should say he was the most electorally disadvantaged? We have to separate his strong political and intellectual skills from the profile which, if you described to people without seeing the man in person, would have had you write him off as a candidate for President.

[Poundingtherock]

You guys blew a chance to really change the map with either Clinton and in the bizarro world where Edwards doesn't screw someone other than the sociopath/psychopath he had for a wife who was a bigger balloon than even Michelle Obama.

There wasn't one Obama voter from 2008 who wouldn't have also voted for those two.  There's no reason why West Virginia, Missouri, or Arkansas (and perhaps Montana) shouldn't have gone to the Democrats.  These states tend to vote for the Democrat Party nominee with the conditions at play in 2008 and Obama somehow managed to lose these states by 20 (with the exception of Montana) when Clinton and a faithful Edwards would have won everywhere else that Obama won.

[milhouse24]

Obama was the weakest candidate in 2008, look how that turned out for him.

What? Really? In what way?

As far as actual experience as a Senator.  But he was the most anti-Iraq.

[pbrower2a]

You guys blew a chance to really change the map with either Clinton and in the bizarro world where Edwards doesn't screw someone other than the sociopath/psychopath he had for a wife who was a bigger balloon than even Michelle Obama.

I admit to voting for John Edwards in the 2008 primary in Michigan. I expected to see the fiery populist who impressed me at times in 2004 -- only to find later why he seemed to have so little zest for running. After a bad technocrat, what better solution could there be than a fiery populist?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Neither Hillary nor a scandal-free Edwards would have won Indiana, and I doubt that either would have won Virginia. Barack Obama seemed to take chances in states that the Democrats had long written off as hopeless -- like Indiana and Virginia. But that said, Hillary Clinton would have won against John McCain, if with a different set of states.  Democrats would have dropped John Edwards much as they dumped Elliot Spitzer and Rod Blagojevich.

(Liberals seem to have less personal loyalty to moral failures than do conservatives.  Conservatives seem to have more tolerance for sinners -- maybe it is because they have a less optimistic view of humanity?)

[Reaganite]

I don't know how you can characterize Kerry's performance as a strong one.  Bush looked strong in the early part of 2003 but his approval ratings fell dramatically in that year and in 2004.

The climate wasn't particularly favorable or unfavorable to either Bush or Kerry.  Kerry could have plausibly spun Iraq as a failure and the economy as sputtering.  There was an opportunity for Kerry to win and potentially win big.

Unfortunately for us Republicans, there is a ceiling on the number of electoral college votes we can get these days and Bush's 280 + isn't that far off (perhaps he could have plausibly won Pennsylvania) considering that Washington/Minnesota are not serious possibilities without third-party help.

Dirty tricks may have sunk Kerry. Do you remember the photo montage that showed him with Jane Fonda? It was a Soviet-style fake, as shown by the shadows showing the sunlight hitting them from different directions.  Figure that if that photo didn't appear, Kerry might have won  somewhere between 1.05% (which would have flipped Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio to Kerry) and  2.51% of the vote (which would have also flipped Nevada, Colorado, and Florida).

You are right about the ceiling. With an electorate like that of 2010, the GOP will win the Presidency, take over the Senate, and consolidate its gains in the House.

 

Wrong on 4 out of 6.  Bush won Ohio 50.8 to 48.7 = 2.1% margin, Nevada 50.5 to 47.9 = 2.6% margin, Colorado 51.7 to 47.0 = 4.7% margin, and Florida 52.1 to 47.1 = 5% margin. 

Iowa and NM were both under 1% margins for Bush. 

[Napoleon]

I don't know how you can characterize Kerry's performance as a strong one.  Bush looked strong in the early part of 2003 but his approval ratings fell dramatically in that year and in 2004.

The climate wasn't particularly favorable or unfavorable to either Bush or Kerry.  Kerry could have plausibly spun Iraq as a failure and the economy as sputtering.  There was an opportunity for Kerry to win and potentially win big.

Unfortunately for us Republicans, there is a ceiling on the number of electoral college votes we can get these days and Bush's 280 + isn't that far off (perhaps he could have plausibly won Pennsylvania) considering that Washington/Minnesota are not serious possibilities without third-party help.

Dirty tricks may have sunk Kerry. Do you remember the photo montage that showed him with Jane Fonda? It was a Soviet-style fake, as shown by the shadows showing the sunlight hitting them from different directions.  Figure that if that photo didn't appear, Kerry might have won  somewhere between 1.05% (which would have flipped Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio to Kerry) and  2.51% of the vote (which would have also flipped Nevada, Colorado, and Florida).

You are right about the ceiling. With an electorate like that of 2010, the GOP will win the Presidency, take over the Senate, and consolidate its gains in the House.

 

Wrong on 4 out of 6.  Bush won Ohio 50.8 to 48.7 = 2.1% margin, Nevada 50.5 to 47.9 = 2.6% margin, Colorado 51.7 to 47.0 = 4.7% margin, and Florida 52.1 to 47.1 = 5% margin. 

Iowa and NM were both under 1% margins for Bush. 

You're wrong. Shifting 2.51% of Florida's voters from Republican to Democrat would leave us with 49.61 Kerry to only 49.59 for George W. Bush. And of course, that means the others would all flip as well.