Picking Winners

I, too, share this fear:

[O]ne thing that's striking about the current Democratic field is how few tough political races they've won. Bill Clinton won a number of competitive races in Arkansas before entering presidential politics. However, the top three contenders for the Democratic nomination have a combined total of two wins in competitive general elections above the state legislative level (Hillary's Senate victory in 2000 and Edwards's in 1998; Obama's 2004 Senate victory came against Alan Keyes) and only three wins total (add on Hillary's re-election in 2006). Only one of those -- Edwards's win in 1998 -- came in unfavorable territory.

Right, Edwards' 1998 race in North Carolina is the only time any of these three have shown an impressive ability to beat Republicans. Even here, by 2004 polls seem to have indicated that taking sufficiently liberal positions to make an Edwards presidential primary campaign viable had rendered him unpopular in North Carolina and since then he's only moved farther left. It's interesting to note that Obama actually has been in several tough races, at various levels, one of which he lost, but all his difficult campaigns have been against other Democrats.

UPDATE: I quoted text with a slight error, the corrected version: "This post previously said the top three Democratic presidential contenders had won three times above the state legislative level. In fact, they've won four times. The error has been corrected above."

Comments

Matt, John Edwards would have probably won re-election had he run for Senate in 2004. He also still had net positive favorability ratings in North Carolina at the end of the campaign. Kerry failing to win North Carolina has nothing to do with Edwards.

Posted by Clark | August 9, 2007 8:38 AM

I think the relative lack of experience winning campaigns is a big point in favor of Hillary, since she was presumably present, if not very actively involved in Clinton's successful campaigns, presidential and otherwise.

I think Obama will have his lunch eaten if he's the nominee, regardless of how appealing a candidate he is. Depending on how well run the Republican campaign is, his personality might still be enough to carry the day, but he won't run the same sort of mercilessly effective campaign that I see coming from Clinton.

Posted by TW Andrews | August 9, 2007 9:07 AM

Hmm. "Probably would have won in 2004" is debatable. It's worth mentioning that the state party forced Edwards to choose one option or the other, run for President or run to keep your Senate seat, and not both, because the polls were dire enough that they needed a full-time Senate candidate actively wooing NC voters.

Also, the '98 Senate race was some combination of Edwards winning and Lauch Faircloth losing. Faircloth was not a very strong opponent.

I think Matt's main point stands.

Posted by JBJ | August 9, 2007 9:20 AM

I agree that the lack of primetime experience is a concern. Certainly, any "electability" argument that claims that Hillary is more electable than Obama or Edwards is rediculous on its face, considering the fact that 40% of the country already hates Hillary. (I agree with TW Andrews that Hillary will run a "mercilessly effective campaign," but it's silly to ignore the fact that her candidacy will mobilize the Republican base to a much greater degree and irritate many more Americans than either an Obama or Edwards candidacy. There is simply no way to back her on "electablility" grounds with a straight face when she remains one of the most hated figures in American national politics.)

All that said, the inexperience of the Democratic candidates is an extremely minor problem compared to the gaping, ragged holes in every Republican candidate. The GOP's guys have much bigger problems...

Posted by owenz | August 9, 2007 9:27 AM

RIghton, TW Andrews.

Living in Chicago, and watching the Ryan implosion, as well as the ludicrous Keyes candidacy, I can attest to the cakewalk that Obama had here in both his primary and general Senate campaigns. Further, watching the events of the past two weeks unfold, I think the GOP will eat Obama alive should he win the primary.

As for Edwards, well, I remember Cheney wiping the floor with him during their debate not to mention his lukewarm convention speech. That, coupled with the fact that he lost his own state to Bush/Cheney, I hold little hope for him that 2008 will be any improvement over his 2004 track record.

Leaving aside her own Senate campaign victories, can anyone in contemporary American politics claim anywhere near the success that the Clinton's have had against the formidable GOP national machine? I mean, please!

No matter what personal animus one might have against the Clintons, their success in these matters is a matter of the public record.

Posted by JoeCHI | August 9, 2007 9:33 AM

Nyhan (prompted by me) has corrected the passage you quoted to reflect that the Democrats have four wins total. Also, the top three Republicans (Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson by his count) only have five wins total, three competitive, and that's allowing Giuliani's mayoral wins but not Obama's state Lege wins. Since the Republicans are considerably older than the Democrats, that doesn't seem like such an advantage.

Also, three of the last five presidents chosen by the Electoral College [that is, not Ford] had only won two general elections above the state lege level before becoming President, one as incumbent. Four, if you don't count George H.W. Bush's VP elections, where he wasn't exactly the main attraction. So I'm not convinced that experience is all-important.

Posted by Matt Weiner | August 9, 2007 9:37 AM

As a lifelong Democrat and Buffalo Bills/Sabres fan, I am far too familiar with snatching defeat from the jaws of victory to be anywhere near confident, despite all indicia to the contrary, that we'll get a Democract installed in the Oval Office come Jan. '09.

Posted by Will | August 9, 2007 9:40 AM

You could have (and should have) written pretty much the same post to make the case that this issue plays to Edwards advantage, given that he won a Senate race in a conservative state at a conservative time. He shared a state with Jesse Helms.

Posted by david mizner | August 9, 2007 9:41 AM

Hmm. "Probably would have won in 2004" is debatable. Sure, it's debatable, because it's hypothetical. We don't know what could have happened, but the odds are, Edwards would have won re-election. Burr beat Bowles 53-47, and polling showed that Edwards would have won 54-46. That's without Edwards barely campaigning in the state. He was also on the ticket with a guy who got beat pretty badly in North Carolina.

Posted by Clark | August 9, 2007 10:22 AM

three of the last five presidents chosen by the Electoral College [that is, not Ford]

I just realized that Ford isn't one of the last five anyway.

Posted by Matt Weiner | August 9, 2007 10:49 AM

Edwards win against an incumbent senator in the year of Monica in a red state was very impressive.

Hillary's win against Lazio while not as impressive as Edwards was still more competitive than Obama's win against Keyes. Hillary entered the race after Monicagate with high negatives and a sitting first lady with no experience. Lazio raised more money than her and for awhile it looked like he could win. Keyes OTOH never made it past the unhinged category. The guy was just plain nuts.

More important than competitive elections is experience in political combat, the ability to fight the Right Wing Noise Machine, Willie Horton, Swiftboat attacks. Here Hillary and Edwards have an advantage. Hillary has been combatting the VRWC for 15 years. Edwards has the tough 1998 election as well as the 2004 presidential election. Obama is the candidate who has never been tested.

Posted by DonB | August 9, 2007 11:57 AM

Also, the top three Republicans (Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson by his count) only have five wins total, three competitive

Sure, you could eliminate McCain to make your point, but that ain't very reasonable. In any case, I'd say that those three candidates have had four competitive elections - even though Rudy won reelection with a good margin, I don't think any Republican running in NYC (even Bloomberg) can be said to be running against non-competitive opposition.

Posted by Al | August 9, 2007 12:02 PM

As someone who used to live in NC and follows politics there somewhat, I thought Edwards would have lost and lost badly in 2004 if he had run for the Senate again. He had made it really clear that the Senate seat was just a stop on his way to the White House and NC voters didn't appreciate it.

Posted by SteveH | August 9, 2007 12:03 PM

"top three Democratic presidential contenders had won three times above the state legislative level. In fact, they've won four times."

That's still more times than Rudy or Romney wins.

People are forgetting that Rudy has never won a statewide election. The guy was a freaking mayor. Somebody will eventually point out that Mr National Security has zero experience in national security or foreign affairs or military affairs.

Posted by DonB | August 9, 2007 12:04 PM

Edwards win against an incumbent senator in the year of Monica in a red state was very impressive.

I don't think so. In 1998, the Democrats had a tailwind, not a headwind, due to Republican overreaching. You can tell because the Democrats increased their seats in Congress...

Posted by Al | August 9, 2007 12:04 PM

Like JoeChi, I am also from Chicago. I have to tell you that JoeChi is dead wrong that Obama's Democratic primary win for US Senate was a cakewalk. Obama was a state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood who was mostly unknown outside of his district, and he was competing against State Treasurer Dan Hynes (who was the candidate favored by the Chicago Democratic Machine), Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas, former Richard M. Daley aide Gerry Chico, and investment banker Blair Hull, who had very deep pockets. Yet, despite the organizational advantages enjoyed by Hynes & Pappas, and the financial advantages enjoyed by Hull, Obama was able to win the primary with 50% of the vote. It's not easy at all for a state senator from Hyde Park (and a University of Chicago law professor to boot) to win a US Senate nomination in those circumstances in Illinois, let alone with 50% of vote. It takes a lot of smarts (including people & street smarts) and a lot of hard work to win such a victory.

Posted by eltoro | August 9, 2007 12:26 PM

Sure, you could eliminate McCain to make your point, but that ain't very reasonable.

Nyhan was the one who eliminated McCain, and it doesn't help his point. I think it's pretty reasonable to include McCain, even though he polls in fourth place or worse; but then we should also include Richardson for the Democrats, who's won the most elections of any of these eight.

Posted by Matt Weiner | August 9, 2007 12:52 PM

With regard to whether Edwards would have been able to win reelection to that seat in 2004, it is interesting to note that since Sam Ervin retired in 1974 after a lengthy career, nobody has been able to hold that seat for more than six years.

1974 Robert Morgan-D
1980 John East-R
1986 Terry Sanford-D
1992 Lauch Faircloth-R
1998 John Edwards-D
2004 Elizabeth Dole-R

Dole ought to be worried about her prospects next year.

Posted by Vadranor | August 9, 2007 12:55 PM

Edwards won a senate race in a southern state that many hailed as a turnaround for the Democratic Party in the South. It didn't turn out that way. It was just that Edwards was good enough alone to look like a regional trend.

Hillary lost a gubernatorial race for Bill by being too abrasive and unlikeable. Incumbent Democratic governors of Arkansas didn't lose races until Hillary came along. It just didn't happen.

Hillary was likely to lose her senate bid against Rudy Giuliani until he developed cancer and pulled out. Rick Lazio was always a joke candidate for New York.

Hillary has never run in a competitive election with her own name on the ballot.

Obama forced out his opponents for state senate on technicalities and ran without opposition. Then he lost a race for U.S. House in the Democratic primary. Then he saw his opponents self destruct in a U.S. Senate race, first in the primary and then again in the general. Obama has never in his life run in or organized a race against any kind of plausible Republican opponent. You, whoever you are reading this, probably have more experience working to elect Democrats over Republicans than Barack Obama.

For the Republicans, we see much more experience and electoral strength. Even in this electoral climate, we are likely to see on the the Republicans win the presidency because the 2008 Democratic field is so unprecedentedly awful.

Rudy won two elections as a Republican in New York City. New York City is larger and more powerful than North Carolina, about the same size as Illinois and much more influential, and a mayorship is infinitely better preparation than the senate for being commander in chief. The voters will understand all this much better than they understand the "issues."

Romney won as a Republican in Massachusetts. Romney is handsome and loyal and decent and rich. Against senator Hillary, Romney is likely to win even the women's vote.

John McCain won his senate seat back when Arizona was a competitive state; he even served with a Democratic senior senator. Then AZ was strongly Republican. Unfortunately for him, he's been around long enough that it's now swinging back. McCain won New Hampshire in 2000 with independent votes and if he's the nominee he'll probably win the presidency with independent votes.

Unless Al Gore decides to run, 2008 is going to be a very disappointing year to be a Democrat.

Posted by Adult | August 9, 2007 2:07 PM

Adult,

Some of your key points about Obama are incorrect.

First of all, in Obama's 1st race for the state senate, he did not knock his opposition of the ballot on the basis of technicalities. What Obama did was to challenge the validity of the signatures on the nominating petitions filed by the other Democratic primary candidates (including those of the incumbent). Enough of Obama's challenges were sustained by the Board of Elections, which caused most if not all of his opponents to be knocked off the voting ballot, due to a lack of valid signatures.(NOTE: Since Illinois law does allow voters to cast write-in votes, a person does not have to be on the voting ballot in order to run for office. However, it is extremely difficult to win office as a write-in candidate.) Obama's opponents, in turn, either failed to take the opportunity to challenge the signatures on Obama's petitions, or failed to have their challenges sustained. Moreover, it is incorrect to say that Obama never was unopposed in either primary or general elections for his state senate seat. His opposition, though, was pretty weak after his first Democratic primary run for the state senate. Obama's state senate district included parts of liberal Hyde Park and of the African-American neighborhoods surrounding it, which gave the nominal Republican Party candidate virtually no chance of beating Obama in the general election. Since the Illinois General Assembly has high rate of re-electing incumbents, Obama didn't face a serious challenge in the primary or general elections for his state senate seat when he was the incumbent.

Moreover, while Obama did lose badly to Bobby Rush when Obama ran for the US House of Represenatives, let's remember some pertinent facts. One, Rush was a popular incumbent, and incumbent re-election rates to the US House are very high. Two, in Chicago elections at least, incumbent Congressman tend to win re-election by very high margins, even against a credible opponent. It's rare that a popular incumbent Congressman from Chicago wins re-election with less than 70% of the vote in the primary election, and with less than 85% in the general election. So Obama's loss to Bobby Rush hardly indicates a inability to win in the big time.

Finally, Obama's primary run for the US Senate was no cakewalk. Obama had 2 opponents with strong organizations (State Treasurer Dan Hynes and Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas), and one opponent (investment banker Blair Hull) with deep pockets. While Hull's momentum was stalled by revelations that Hull's ex-wife accused him of spousal abuse during their divorce proceedings, the implosion of Hull's campaign did not automatically translate to an Obama win, since Obama was not the only other major candidate in the primary. Hull's troubles could easily have boosted either Dan Hynes (who was backed by the Chicago Democratic Machine) or Maria Pappas at Obama's expense.
Even with Hull's implosion, it is still remarkable that Obama won the primary with 50% of the vote. It is not easy in Illinois for a state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park to win at all in a statewide primary election against a popular state treasurer and a popular county treasurer, let alone with 50% of the vote. (BTW, both Hynes and Pappas handily won re-election in 2006).

Posted by eltoro | August 9, 2007 4:00 PM

"Adult" should rename himself "Republican".

Posted by Jason | August 10, 2007 10:53 PM