The Awful Truth

I've been pondering what, exactly, makes the primary season so unbearable and the crux of the matter is that it's the epistemology, damnit. If I had to vote today, I would definitely vote for Obama, because when I think about the factors that I feel certain about they definitely tilt in his favor. On the other hand, when I think about the race as a whole the set of knowable factors is a pretty tiny subset of the set of relevant factors. I know a lot of people who have, for example, really strong feelings about the likely general election performance of these candidates. And if you forced me to make a guess, I think I could make an educated guess. But the reality is that it would just be a guess -- I don't think I or anyone else has any real way of knowing.

Around Democratic Washington -- and among political junkies all around the country -- people have tons of barroom wisdom about the electability, judgment, experience, managerial competence, etc. of the various candidates but frankly I think the evidence available on all of these scores is indecisive and that the issue is pretty inherently unknowable. Unfortunately, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama has experience running against a conservative Republican in a "red" or "purple" jurisdiction and neither of them have held executive office. We can make educated guesses about their skillz in these regards, but we're just guessing. The evidence from the campaign trail suggests to me that Obama would have a better foreign policy, but the evidence of history suggests to me that campaign-based evidence is a terrible predictor of how foreign policy will actually be conducted. Which candidate is most likely to be able to get his or her agenda through congress? I have no idea and I don't think there's any way to figure it out. It's just a very frustrating thing to spend one's time thinking about.

Comments

I'm just guessing here, but I think Mike Gravel would be terrible at getting an agenda through Congress.

Posted by Bill | November 14, 2007 10:40 AM

Making decisions without knowing what the consequences might be?

Yes, it's hard. This is what people have been doing for, oh, several millenia. And with considerably less information to go on than people have today.

Posted by Whispers | November 14, 2007 10:42 AM

Matt wrote:

> If I had to vote today, I would definitely vote
> for Obama

Well, if I were allowed to vote, I would for Obama too despite his lack of experience. I think he has a bigger upside than Hillary, so despite the war in Iraq the Dems should gamble on the appealing but untested politician for a change.

The odds of a Democrat winning in 2008 seem fairly good anyway, but I think Hillary would just continue the current 50-50 Red/Blue state era whereas an Obama (or Edwards-) presidency might become truly transformational.

MARCU$

Posted by MARCU$ | November 14, 2007 10:47 AM

Petey does. He'll be along shortly to tell you exactly what's what.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 14, 2007 10:48 AM

I know you like parliamentary systems, Matt, and it seems to me this is another good argument for one: in (for example) the UK, the Leader of the Opposition has ultimate responsibility for their party's policies and organization, so come an election they actually have a track record at something other than running for election. It seems to me this is greatly preferable to the system that produced Warren Harding.

Posted by william | November 14, 2007 10:57 AM

This gets it all wrong and is entirely punditized. Elections are about getting behind the candidate you prefer, nothing complicated about it. For me, I was enthusiastically in favor of Howard Dean last time.

This time I'm vaguely disappointed by everyone, but it's got nothing to do with epistemology or hazarding how effective they'd be with Congress or competent at diplomacy. None of them sees the political landscape the way I see it, and for these particular candidates (against, say, the reincarnation of Lyndon Johnson) I have no confidence that they are right and I am wrong.

Posted by Marshall | November 14, 2007 10:58 AM

"It's the epistemology, stupid!"

Posted by goethean | November 14, 2007 10:58 AM

This gets it all wrong and is entirely punditized. Elections are about getting behind the candidate you prefer, nothing complicated about it.

Not if you're a pundit. It's punditized because Matt's a pundit. Pundits try to do better than "get behind the candidate they prefer." It may be a fool's game, but such is what they try to do.

Posted by Bill | November 14, 2007 11:07 AM

Both Hillary and Obama leave me limp. Both of them are simply horrible when it comes to protecting the Constitution or holding Bushco accountable for the atrocities (both literal and figurative) they have committed over the last 7 years.

The problem they both have is they're too afraid to fight, and being able to take the gloves off and fight is a necessity when running against contemporary, lying, extremist Republicans.

Hopefully one or the other of them will have such a favorable political environment that they will be able to win despite being pathetically weak. But I'm not betting the farm.

Posted by Junius Brutus | November 14, 2007 11:09 AM

The reason I hate the electability question is that the most rational basis upon which to prefer a candidate's electability is ... your own preference. The odds that most people will like the same person you do have to be higher than the odds that you can accurately predict what other people want, especially when the primary filter through which that second case is evaluated is the retarded news media.

Posted by dbt | November 14, 2007 11:14 AM

When many of the important variables are unknowable, I say: Support who you like and agree with; advocate for that person; try to convince as many others as you can; and forget trying to psyche out what general election voters might think. When even the professional marketers can produce an Edsel, and when amateur prognosticators of what other people might think chose John F. Kerry to be the nominee in 2004, it's best to call them as you see them, not as you think others might see them.

Posted by RaymondA | November 14, 2007 11:16 AM

"I know a lot of people who have, for example, really strong feelings about the likely general election performance of these candidates."

Which is how we ended up with nominee John Kerry last time. It seems to me that one of the side effects of trying to choose our preferred candidate as a "pundit" is that the candidates themselves spend much of their time selling themselves as the "electable" one, instead of spending their time selling us on how great their universal health care plan/plan to end the war, etc. would be.

As Marshall said above, I'd rather get behind the candidate I prefer and let the rest work itself out. If more people actually liked their party's candidate, perhaps that enthusiasm would be enough to convince undecided voters to vote for that person.

Posted by drjimcooper | November 14, 2007 11:18 AM

Unfortunately, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama has experience running against a conservative Republican in a "red" or "purple" jurisdiction

Are you trying to make me cry, big fella? Because there's one candidate who has, and his name isn't mentioned in the post.

John Edwards came out of nowhere to beat a GOP Senate incumbent in North Carolina in 1998. It was the only Senate victory for a NC Democrat in the last 20 years. And in November 2004, exit polls showed that people would've voted to re-elect him if he'd been running again.

If you want to win elections, this is your guy.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | November 14, 2007 11:21 AM

Well, there are known knowns and known unknowns. Then there are unknown knowns, and of course there are unknown unknowns. I don't think Rumsfeld got sufficient straight-faced credit for this observation, by the way.

I think Clinton is a better foreign policy bet, because we have a bad track record in this country with peace-obsessed idealists in power, when they get their dander up. It's not an extensive record--Wilson and Carter, basically--but it's not the number of cases, it's the path of causation, which obeys time-worn truths about how we react when the world doesn't obey our world-view. I hate that the following is identified with the Very Serious People justly derided by Matt on a regular basis, but I really think we are better off (in the sense of better outcomes, and less war) when we're led by people who are straightforward about force being an option.

Posted by Rich | November 14, 2007 11:29 AM

I think a large part of the argument lies in the underlying premise that people often times govern differently than they campaigned. The biggest example in favor of this idea is George W. who campaigned in favor of humility and quasi-isolationism.

However, the research I have come across points out that actually candidates do what they said they would do. For example, George W. domestically governed pretty much like his campaign promises. The problem arises when unforeseen developments arise, like Sept. 11; or perhaps when Presidents make huge U-turns on big issues. Also, campaign distort the importance of issues and some issues that may become important in the future are glossed over when evaluating a candidate. For example, George W. had a pretty aggressive position on Iraq that no body gave a damn about.

Therefore, I think the sensible thing to do is OTOH, judge candidates on where they stand on the issue, but after taking care to discount their present importance and OTOH, to judge them as personalities; how would they govern if a variety of unforeseen crises emerged.

For example, one issue I would spend some time thinking about would be the economy; there's a lot that might go wrong in the next 4 years and it's been a long time since anything serious went wrong.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 14, 2007 11:33 AM

I agree this is a very difficult problem to solve. I think a better incentive system for pundits (and all citizens) would be useful here.

e.g., a conditional betting market: betting on the proposition "if Obama is elected, we will have significant health care reform within one year."

There are conflict-of-interests type problems with betting markets, but in the end, you have to give people a REAL incentive to get the answer to the complex problem right.

Another option would be to print a "Nutrition-facts"-style label next to every column by every pundit, describing their past accuracy at predictions. The contents of this table could be determined by a Wiki-like procedure.

Posted by mk | November 14, 2007 11:35 AM

It'd be nice to have both sets of candidates play some games -- poker, Risk, Monopoly (?) just to get a feel for what they prefer in terms of strategy. I'd also like (as would everyone else) to have them be subject to withering debates where they're not allowed to filibuster or evade.

I'd also like a flying pony, but that's not going to happen, either.

Posted by Klug | November 14, 2007 11:40 AM

Are you trying to make me cry, big fella? Because there's one candidate who has, and his name isn't mentioned in the post.

Seriously. Edwards is tied with Clinton and Obama in Iowa polling right now, but from Yglesias's post you'd think he wasn't even in the running. Matt, you have seriously internalized the DC conventional wisdom that the nomination fight is a binary choice between Clinton and Obama. And given that, it's seriously worrying that you seem to be doubting your support of Not-Clinton for supposed "electability" concerns. Someone start the "Matt Yglesias endorses Hillary" countdown clock.

Posted by Christmas | November 14, 2007 11:44 AM

Well, there are known knowns and known unknowns. Then there are unknown knowns, and of course there are unknown unknowns. I don't think Rumsfeld got sufficient straight-faced credit for this observation, by the way.

Agreed.

Posted by Will | November 14, 2007 11:45 AM

The whole Obama appeal has always escaped me. Sure he opposed the war in Iraq-back when he safely had no vote on the subject, and no one really cared what he thought anyway. His record since entering the Senate doesn't suggest great courage or willingness to take risks, which was what was required of actual Senators with presidential hopes in the fall of 2002. On things like Social Security he has been offering little but GOP talking points, and he his whole campaign is built around the evil of partisanship at a point where our goal should be to grind the current extremist GOP into the dust.

On the issues Edwards or Dodd seem at least as appealing, and on experience Hillary or Richardson are in different ways superior. So why Obama?

Posted by tdraicer | November 14, 2007 11:48 AM

I'm a little rusty in my "public choice" theory reading, but I recall reading that if large numbers of people make their own independent judgment about the quality of a product, for example, that judgment will prove superior to the judgment that results from asking people how they think others will judge the product. In other words, if the product proves not to be durable, the judgment as to its durability made by people asked to judge for themselves will almost always be more sound than that made by those asked to assess whether others would think the product likely to be durable. Bottom line: go with your own judgment.

Posted by RaymondA | November 14, 2007 11:49 AM

Anybody who casts a vote with confidence, with regards to the preferred candidate being a good President, is a fool. The job is too unique, and thus past accomplishments or credentials can never suffice as a predictor of future performance. However, one can have varying degrees of confidence as to how awful a candidate will be as President, based on the candidate's biography. I was highly confident that the current Bush would be terrible domestically, because a guy who made his pile via taxpayer subsidies would likely have a very skewed vision regarding what the role of government was. Similarly, I have grave reservations regarding Edwards, because a guy who made a good percentage of his pile by making false claims about the causes of cerebral palsy is also likely to have an unhelpful view of how the world works. I actually prefer a guy like Obama, who has little experience in the private sector, to the sort of private sector experiences of a Bush or an Edwards. I haven't spent enough time looking into a Romney to form an opinion yet, but he is such a craven figue on the campaign trail that is hard to be motivated to do so.

Posted by Will Allen | November 14, 2007 11:50 AM

I'm sick of all the attacks on Kerry. Sure, his personality is rather awkward, and the idea of him being particularly "electable" is questionable.

I continue to have no doubt, though, that he was more electable than Dean, and indeed, he came surprisingly close to being elected, despite his weaknesses and the general difficulty of defeating an incumbent president - it was a very close election. Kerry's electability may have been somewhat dubious, but I'm going to suggest that, in spite of that, he was still the most electable of the options available, and that, arguably, he was one of the better substantive candidates of the options available. Kerry had a genuinely liberal record on most subjects. He also had a lot of real experience, certainly a lot more than the preferable options people generally suggest, Edwards and Dean. And his position on the war, while unfortunately muddled, was nonetheless better than Gephardt's or Lieberman's, and had little to nothing to distinguish it from Edwards'.

Kerry was a perfectly adequate candidate, and I'm not sure I see any other candidate doing any better. I'd add that substance and rhetoric-wise, I think he's been far better since his defeat than either Clinton or Obama in terms of actively denouncing the war. Can't we just lay off the poor man?

Posted by John | November 14, 2007 11:51 AM

Rich and Will: Rumsfeld shouldn't get credit for the "unknown unknowns" thing because:

1. It isn't original with him.

2. He paid no attention to what he was saying.

By #2 I mean that if he was really concerned about "unknown unknowns", he would have done more to reduce uncertainty, but instead he helped to kill any plans for what to do after overthrowing Saddam, because he and his allies were afraid that good information would argue against doing the invasion.

Posted by Joe Buck | November 14, 2007 11:52 AM

It's not an extensive record--Wilson and Carter, basically--but it's not the number of cases, it's the path of causation, which obeys time-worn truths about how we react when the world doesn't obey our world-view.

The path of causation is completely messed up in those two cases. Things sucked while those dudes were in power, but World War I was going to suck no matter who was president, and the Iranian revolution was going to suck for America no matter who was president.

Posted by Consumatopia | November 14, 2007 11:52 AM

Lets be honest here, 'Democratic washington; is full of democrats who just plain suck at politics. They might now how to write bills, or about random parliamentary procedure, but they know dick about winning elections. You can tell this by the fact that they only win elections when Republicans lose them. These people have no clue what it takes to win elections, because the think biographies and policies are the stuff that win elections. They are not, personality and leadership win elections.

Posted by Soullite | November 14, 2007 11:57 AM

"It's the epistemology, stupid!"

Well, but ultimately, epistemology is what this election is about. The Democrats are largely grounded in the rational/empirical epistemology that is the foundation of science and the modern world. The Republcians are all "faith-based."

Posted by rea | November 14, 2007 11:59 AM

Politics are becoming unbearable for the same reason as Christmas. It's so. damn. long. And it gets longer and longer each time around.

Christmas season should start after Thanksgiving. That's plenty of motion activated, Jingle Bell singing, plastic dancing Santa Clauses for one year.

Federal primaries should be held 3 months before the general election. That's plenty of rampant hair splitting, gotcha Tim Russertism for one election.

Posted by Jalmari | November 14, 2007 12:03 PM

Neil is right. Edwards is far from my ideal, but out of the frontrunners he is the least afraid and the best positioned to be competitive in the South.

There is another issue which I hesitate to raise and it has to do with the dread electability question.

As a preliminary, I have to disagree with dbt who said, "the most rational basis upon which to prefer a candidate's electability is ... your own preference." This is clearly wrong. Electability may be hard to estimate but assuming that your own preferences are the best estimate is crazy. My preference is that I be elected but I have zero electability so I have to look elsewhere. I also disagree with the Kerry haters above. The problem was not Kerry per se but the lame ass campaign he ran. I'm afraid that Hillary and Obama will run similarly lame campaigns.

Here is the issue I hesitate to bring up but that I think deserves mention. The next election is absolutely positively crucial. We absolutely cannot afford to let a Republican get elected. Hence we need to be very risk averse.

Now I am not at all a misogynist or a racist and I will cheerfully applaud the election of the first woman or African-American to the presidency. But is this crucial election the one in which we want to test those waters?

In addition to having a ton of baggage and being (unjustly) hated by a certain segment of the population (and not just Republican extremists either but many ignorant swing voters as well), Hillary will be trying to be the first woman ever elected in an election that the Republicans will turn into a referendum on war -- the worst possible issue climate in which to elect the first woman president. If she were running in 1992 in the conditions her husband faced, she would be a lot less problematic as a candidate

And Obama will be in a similar position trying to be the first African-American ever elected. At the very least this has to enter into your calculations of Obama's electability. There is a known phenomenon of people giving socially acceptable answers in polls. African-American candidates often poll better than they actually perform in elections. Doug Wilder got elected Governor in Virginia but by a lot less than what the polls showed.

I'm not saying this necessarily does or should rule either one out, but I am saying it is a relevant consideration in calculating electability and electability is certainly an important consideration.

Posted by Junius Brutus | November 14, 2007 12:03 PM

It's because you have this long period while nothing REALLY happens; it's much more dependent on media echo chamber decisions than anything real in the world. Then, once something does happen, people decide it's over in a week, before anyone gets to actually vote. It's made worse this year, for anyone who doesn't want Clinton to win the Democratic nomination, by how stagnant the polls are.

Posted by Katherine | November 14, 2007 12:19 PM

A nod to Joe Buck who sees the shallow Rumsfeld for what he is: double dumb. He didn't know what he didn't know and he didn't know on purpose (unless he did know and is just a liar). Either way, his job was to know and this is why he gets straight-faced credit only as the worst defense secretary ever.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | November 14, 2007 12:26 PM

> Then there are unknown knowns, and of course
> there are unknown unknowns. I don't think
> Rumsfeld got sufficient straight-faced credit
> for this observation, by the way.

Rumsfeld was quoting the project management literature of the 1950s when he said that. It was not his original observation or words. And while managing projects certainly can include "unk-unks", the overall scope and goals of the project are known in advance (or fixed during the first 25% of the execution phase) not left undefined for 5 years.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | November 14, 2007 12:37 PM

I've always suspected that the advantage of Democracy wasn't that it picked good leaders (obviously it usually doesn't) or that it held leaders accountable (Bush II reelected) but that it kept shuffling both the leaders and the parties. I don't trust The People to choose wisely (we don't), but I'm reassured that no one jackass can stay in power forever (though it sure seems like it) or choose his successor.

Posted by aleks | November 14, 2007 1:02 PM

Let's see--Edwards is the most likely to win the general, is the most likely to be transformational (by putting poverty front and center and by making inroads in the South), Eis the most liberal (except for Dodd). Apparently too much evidence all in the same direction makes Matt suspicious. If Edwards is so good, why don't the pundits flap their jaws about him more?

Posted by calling all toasters | November 14, 2007 1:13 PM

"It's just a very frustrating thing to spend one's time thinking about."

Then why not spend your time thinking about something besides politics, like science, economics, technology, history, etc.?

And when you've spent enough time to learn something useful in these areas you'll return to politics and realize what a bunch of phucking idiotic self-serving scumbag a-holes our republicratic politicians really are.

Posted by kafka | November 14, 2007 1:24 PM

tdraicer on Obama: he his whole campaign is built around the evil of partisanship at a point where our goal should be to grind the current extremist GOP into the dust.

Thinking that is why you don't get Obama. The objective isn't to destroy the opposition; it's to win people to your side and accomplish a policy agenda. If you go for the jugular you become an inverse Karl Rove.

My view is that the candidate you like is probably the most likeable, and therefore the most electable. The likeable person is also most likely to be able to govern in the face of constant mudslinging.

Posted by Rebecca | November 14, 2007 1:30 PM

I think we do have some history of Hillary running against a conservative in a 'purple" jurisdiction -- i.e., her 2000 Senate campaign. She managed to perform fairly well in upstate NY, which is purple-to-red -- that is, she at least kept it close so that her overwhelming victory in NYC was more than enough to win. I'll grant you that Rick Lazio wasn't that formidable a competitor, so I'm certainly not willing to suggest this is necessarily predictive of how she would do against, say, Romney in a nationwide campaign. But it's some data.

I do agree, though, that Edwards' 2000 win was more what you're looking for.

Posted by Glenn | November 14, 2007 1:34 PM

I hope this doesn't come across as a personal attack of the candidate, because I think he is truly sincere in his plans and efforts to end poverty, but the biggest qualm I have with Edwards is the fact that he hasn't won an election since 1998, and I fear his plans might be a reflection of that.
I don't mean to say that he "lost" the 04 elections, but, putting his vision of America together with Kerry's, with an obvious greater emphasis on Kerry's, and comparing it to the Republican vision, Americans decided to go with the other team, unfortunately.
Elections and the accountability to voters that they bring with them tend to have moderating influences on policies. Between the top three contenders, I would argue Edwards is the most progressive, and most fundamentally changing, but theres not a lot of evidence Americans are ready to support that in a presidential election. (Senate, yes, Brown ran as a populist and won in Ohio)
Edwards beat a Republican incumbent in 1998, but he also ran in a year where there was a strong backlash against Republicans for their efforts to impeach Pres. Clinton.
This probably has to do with the timing of announcing as a candidate, but I could never get why Edwards decided not to run for Senate while running for President (and subsequently Vice President) if Kerry was already doing the same. If exit polls reflected a good chance of winning the seat, why not do work to promote poverty awareness and his other programs that he touts as a Senator, where he would've had a chance to make a real impact or influence?
If he could show some example of running a strong progressive campaign in the South and winning, I think that would greatly enhance his argument of being electable, but pointing to only one win in 98 isn't sufficient in my opinion.

Posted by ec | November 14, 2007 1:39 PM

How will a candidate rule after elected?

Look at the people they gather around themselves over their campaign, if not their lifetime.

Does anyone think this nation would have moved on Iraq had Cheney not been VP, who happened to drag with him the Rumsfeld gang?

It would do the electorate a lot of good if some aspiring journalist would analyze, or at least expose, who's running who's campaign.

What has each candidate's inner circle espoused over the years? How have those underlings philosophy evolved over time?

Good grief...the Prez sets the tone, but the folks around s/he run the policy.

Who's around each of these candidates?

Posted by G Davis | November 14, 2007 1:40 PM

Sorry, meant to refer to Edwards' win in 1998, not 2000. But you guys knew that.

Posted by Glenn | November 14, 2007 1:41 PM

If Edwards is so good, why don't the pundits flap their jaws about him more?

Because he will make a better world for most people. That means the children of the wealthy will not longer automatically get everything, and the children of normal people won't automatically get shafted. Pundits are wealthy people who do not care about freedom or democracy, they only care about getting far more than their fair share of everything. That is why they favor Hillary, because she will never do anything to challenge the existing power structures. The base supports her because the base is mostly female, and they don't seem to care where Hillary stands on issues so long as they share the same genitalia.

Posted by Soullite | November 14, 2007 2:13 PM

Matt,
This is a great post - it's nice to hear humility and honesty about your actual decision making process. I think that blogs have the potential to encourage that kind of transparency, but that it's not exploited enough. So thanks. As always, you make the obscure clear,

B

Posted by Brendan Mackie | November 14, 2007 3:01 PM

Thanks to the people that have posted on here that remember there is a third candidate in this race. I am so damn tired of hearing people talk about only Hillary and Obama. No matter what anyone says, the electablility of both of these candidates is highly questionable. Somewhere between unlikely and snowballs chance in hell. And by the way, John Kerry was very electable. He just got ravaged by a moronic press just like Gore. John Edwards would make a fine president, but he would definitely rock the boat. The press just doesn't want to cover him. I personally can't wait for him to start kicking his opponents to pieces in the primaries and really gain some steam. Most of the people in the country are worried about our standing and situation in the world. I am neither a racist or a mysogynist, but do you honestly think that they will vote for the most hated woman in America or the inexperienced black guy from Illinois? Hillary is not Bill and she's barely a democrat. She's a hawk and in the pocket of the insurance companies. Consistently wrond and unimpressive. All either of them do is wait for Edwards to come out with a plan and then steal the damn thing.

Posted by Jbaker | November 14, 2007 3:49 PM

I like the post and it points up what's often frustrating about chat in the comments, which is that people dress up a preference for one candidate in BS assertions about future events or weirdly bitter attacks on competitors. (Is this just an internet effect, like those ratings in which every toaster or ebay seller is either wonderful or horrible?)

To pick up on Rebecca's point, At least some of us find Obama appealing precisely because supporting him doesn't seem to require enlisting in the anti-Hillary club or the Edwards-detractors. Any of the current top 6 would be fine with me, OK?

But I will suggest one mental exercise: think of some decent Republicans you know well (and I hope y'all know at least a few, because they exist), and ask yourself which of the current crop could best reach out to them. We're not necessarily totally locked in our own heads.

Not that I want to be nice to *everyone* today. Every election is crucial -- or at least in advance of every election you can make a good argument that it is. So if you follow the logic of one troll above, you would *always* nominate white men, 'cause it's imprudent not to pander to a few folks' prejudices. I say no way, and I say the "cheerfully applaud ... but" bit by junius brutus is duplicitous. As the saying goes, ignore everything before the "but." MLK was always very good on this point -- if he had listened to the "I applaud ... but" folks, nothing would ever have changed, because it's the favorite argument of people who want to have it both ways.

Posted by Colin | November 14, 2007 4:01 PM

I have nothing to add about electability, Obama, Clinton, or Edwards that hasn't already been said, but I did notice that Matt spelled "skillz" with a 'z.' This may be the most intelligent and mature context that I have ever seen the word "skillz" be used.

Posted by Shane | November 14, 2007 4:28 PM

>Thinking that is why you don't get Obama. The objective isn't to destroy the opposition; it's to win people to your side and accomplish a policy agenda.

Anyone who thinks you can win any of the GOP over to our side has already lost the plot.

Posted by tdraicer | November 14, 2007 5:54 PM

Anyone who thinks you can win any of the GOP over to our side has already lost the plot.

Then what is the point of politics?

"With all the challenges our country faces, we cannot elect a president who will go to Washington and just get bogged down by the same partisan gridlock," said Brett Blix, a 30-year-old Iraq war veteran from Northwood who switched his party registration to caucus for Obama. "That's why I'm supporting Senator Obama even though I'm a Republican. He's the only candidate in either party with a record of bringing Republicans and Democrats together to solve problems, and he will always tell you where he stands even when you disagree. There are thousands of disaffected Republicans like me who are disappointed by President Bush and the Republican presidential candidates who would consider voting for a Democrat who can bring about change we can believe in." See link.

Posted by Led | November 14, 2007 6:29 PM

Australians will be voting in ten days' time, after a campaign lasting six weeks. Not bad, really.

And Lord Bryce's comments on why mediocrities win presidential elections remain true, a century after he wrote them. The primary process is just a case of sorting through to see which party has the best mediocrity: the Dems aren't so good at that.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 14, 2007 6:31 PM

So after routinely agreeing that Edwards is good on issues and has at least a shot in Iowa, MY decides to write a long post which seems to self-consciously avoid mentioning his name.

Ridiculous.

If you prefer Obama on foreign policy grounds, say so, but don't embrace the MSM erasure of the Edwards campaign.

Posted by Justin | November 14, 2007 6:48 PM

What Led said, a couple of posts up. The link is his name, btw, which I didn't get at first.
And a concrete/stunning example of this ability of Obama's is here:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/12/obama.death.penalty.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

Posted by Phoebe | November 14, 2007 6:58 PM

Relax, don't worry. 2008 will be the least important election in your lifetimes, about as important as 1960 or 1976.

See, everything, everything is going to get worse, and there is not yet the political will in America, any kind of working majority to solve any problems or change directions. Nothing much gonna happen in the next term, and doesn't matter who is President. Obama & Edwards will just get blocked by the Repubs. The Repubs understand this very well.

So then it will get catastrophic, I mean 1931 level bad, and 2012 will be an important election. Make sure Republicans get blamed for the frigging weather and bad movies. Everything.

Posted by bob mcmanus | November 14, 2007 9:22 PM

The objective isn't to destroy the opposition; it's to win people to your side and accomplish a policy agenda. If you go for the jugular you become an inverse Karl Rove.
.....The likeable person is also most likely to be able to govern in the face of constant mudslinging.

Sorry, but this is simply wrong. The objective isn't to destroy people who vote for Republicans - Rebecca is conflating them with Republicans politicians. No no no. The idea is to destroy Republican political power as much as you can. That means getting things done which most people in the country want or like, like Uni health care, cleaning up the money sewer in DC, etc. Do some of these things and progressive ideas and politicians gain power, and the GOP loses it. Get it? And Edwards is the one to appeal to people who work for a living and are tired of getting shafted - both Republicans and Democrats. That's why he polls so well, even in red states. If you want real progressive change as it's generally understood, it has to be Edwards.

And...being the 'most likable' person is *not* the best indicator about a person's ability to govern in the face of constant mudslinging. That is just...I don't want my use of this word to appear loaded, because I quite like Obama too, but... naive - horribly so. Have you actually been in the United States over the last 25 years, Rebecca? Of America? Unions had to fight very hard (sometimes physically) to get what they got. FDR (who was likable) had to fight tooth and nail to get much of what he wanted; LBJ (who was not very likable) had to fight to get what he wanted domestically (little things like Medicare, Voting Rights Act). Being likable is good. Both Edwards and Obama are likable. One will confront power and one might not. I know which I'll bet on.

Posted by jonnybutter | November 14, 2007 9:37 PM

I like Obama and Edwards. There is a residual reason to vote for Hillary though: to a greater extent a vote for her is a vote for health care reform. It's a signature issue of hers and not of the others, even if she screwed it up previously.

Posted by bob | November 14, 2007 9:55 PM

I think there is an argument to made that if one votes based on electibility, Edwards is the guy. The most electable Democrat will be the one who plays best in the south. That's Edwards. Plus, since Edwards ran last time as the VP candidate, and did a decent job, I think he's pretty much a known quantity. I'm less sure about how Obama and Hillary play in the south, but I fear not so well...

Also, North Carolina has become a swing state! With Edwards leading the ticket, the Dems could take it.

Even so, I'll admit it's a tough decision.

Posted by Thorstein Veblen | November 14, 2007 10:02 PM

Rich wrote:
Well, there are known knowns and known unknowns. Then there are unknown knowns, and of course there are unknown unknowns. I don't think Rumsfeld got sufficient straight-faced credit for this observation, by the way.

Agreed, except Rumsfeld didn't say anything about "unknown knowns." Which makes sense, seeing as there's no such thing.

Posted by douglasfactors | November 14, 2007 10:33 PM

jonnybutter: And...being the 'most likable' person is *not* the best indicator about a person's ability to govern in the face of constant mudslinging. That is just...I don't want my use of this word to appear loaded, because I quite like Obama too, but... naive - horribly so. Have you actually been in the United States over the last 25 years, Rebecca? Of America? [...]

Yes. Perhaps "likeable" is too simplistic a term for what I mean. Take Bill Clinton as an example -- he was able to maintain high approval ratings in the face of a multimillion dollar mudslinging campaign against him. Those approval ratings gave him continued political power through the impeachment farce he otherwise would not have enjoyed. I think a modern pres needs that "teflon" quality to be effective.

And I also believe that long-term political power comes from getting more people on your side elected, which comes from swaying more voters to your side. You can't do that if you're insulting or belittling large portions of the population all the time.

The GOP is weak right now because W has treated a large portion of the population -- and their elected representatives -- like they're his enemy. I don't want to see the Dems in the same place in 4 or 8 years.

Posted by Rebecca | November 14, 2007 11:11 PM

Edwards has a lot of progressive policy proposals. On the other hand, his record as senator -- even leaving the Iraq war out, and even when comparing him to a typical Democratic senator rather than some Platonic ideal -- does little to inspire great confidence. He was, of course, elected by North Carolina, but if his NDC moderation as an NC senator was a pose he needed to win, how do we know that his current progressive proposals aren't a pose he needs to win the Democratic primary? Incidentally, I don't think they are; I think that Edwards is a sincere leftist Democrat. However, the topic of this post, originally, was uncertainty and lack of information. The problems of uncertainty and lack of information certainly apply to Clinton and Obama, but I don't think you can claim that we're completely knowledgable about Edwards in comparison. If I had to guess whether Edwards would be a good president, I would guess that yes, he would, but I don't think we can say we're certain about Edwards while we're uncertain about the others. I do agree, though, that Matt ought to have mentioned that Edwards is in the running, and that there are a lot of unknowns about all three of them, and Edwards certainly does have the advantage of having been elected for office in a tough, red state election, which is certainly not true of Clinton or Obama.

Posted by Julian Elson | November 15, 2007 1:40 AM

"Petey does. He'll be along shortly to tell you exactly what's what."

Well sure I can tell you exactly what's what.

But let's talk epistemology instead. Matthew writes:

"Which candidate is most likely to be able to get his or her agenda through congress? I have no idea and I don't think there's any way to figure it out. It's just a very frustrating thing to spend one's time thinking about."

But this just isn't true. And worse, it's really sloppy thinking.

It's hard to figure this stuff out. But thinking that difficult things must be impossible things is the mark of sloppy thinking.

I could look at the temperature, barometer, and satellite photos and not have a particularly good idea of whether or not it's going to rain tomorrow. Fine. I'm not a meteorologist. But if I were to conclude that because I can't make sense of the data, therefore no one can make sense of the data, that would be some sloppy thinking.

Matthew has contempt for politics, therefore doesn't understand politics, and then concludes that no one can understand politics. Sloppy thinking.

Posted by Petey | November 15, 2007 1:45 AM

"Matt ought to have mentioned that Edwards is in the running"

Many Obama boosters think that pretending Edwards doesn't exist is helpful to Obama.

(FWIW, I think they are largely wrong in thinking that.)

Posted by Petey | November 15, 2007 1:50 AM

"Similarly, I have grave reservations regarding Edwards, because a guy who made a good percentage of his pile by making false claims about the causes of cerebral palsy is also likely to have an unhelpful view of how the world works."

I would take your reservations more seriously if you were to cite a claim made by Edwards and show that the claim is false.

For a review of the science on the causes of cerbral palsy, see the following links:

http://radio.weblogs.com/0110436/2004/02/01.html

http://radio.weblogs.com/0110436/2004/02/14.html

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | November 15, 2007 4:02 AM

If you live in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina vote for Edwards.

If you live in any of the states with a primary in February and Edwards did not win at least two of the early states then vote for Obama. If Edwards wins at least two of the early states then vote for Edwards.

If your primary isn't until March then vote for the most progressive of the remaining candidates unless the presumptive nominee is Edwards or Obama.

In November vote for the Democrat.

Posted by Concerned Citizens Voting Guide | November 15, 2007 6:05 AM

I also believe that long-term political power comes from getting more people on your side elected, which comes from swaying more voters to your side. You can't do that if you're insulting or belittling large portions of the population all the time.
The GOP is weak right now because W has treated a large portion of the population -- and their elected representatives -- like they're his enemy. I don't want to see the Dems in the same place in 4 or 8 years.

Long term political support comes from people being happy with what you/your party does (eg Social Security, Medicare, etc.). The GOP is weak right now because people don't like what the GOP has done/not done: Iraq war, shrinking middle class, health care unaddressed, stem cell research, SS privatization, Katrina, corruption, etc. etc. etc. Again, don't conflate people who sometimes vote for Republicans with Republicans politicians; big difference there. My contention is that voters are mostly not very ideological - they tend to be too smart and too *normal* for that. The GOP has built up a giant FUD machine which feeds ideological talking points to voters, and that has worked for them for a while. But it has been rather expensive; despite this huge misinformation infrastructure, they still have been winning only narrowly. And despite scare tactics, I don't think most people who have been voting Republican in recent years really have a deep, ideological aversion to universal health care, for example. They just vote in what they percieve to be their interests. The GOP and their corporate sponsors were able to scare them last time on this issue, but most of those voters are not Hayak devotees, etc.

I think both Obama and Edwards understand that voters are not mostly ideologically driven, or that, if they are, that ideology is necessarily very shallow (eg Rush L.-type). The difference, to me, is that Obama doesn't emphasize the political battle which I think is unavoidable. It's not a battle with voters, but with large monied interests.

It's fine to work with the other party when you can, but you have to do that from a position of strength. I mean, this GOP is the party which wouldn't have a vote on a bill if it wasn't going to pass with a majority of the majority. This is the party which explicitly, tactically, rejects cooperation. This is the party of the 'nuclear option'. This is the party of Impeachment and Bush v Gore, of the Unitary Executive (as long as the Executive is a Republican). The idea that Democrats need to be 'post partisan' now is just ridiculous. The GOP is a disciplined, hierarchical, parliamentarian organization. They, and their corporate sponsors, will do absolutely nothing they are not forced to do. And some Democrats have some of the same corporate sponsors.

So, be post/non-partisan with the voters, because most of them (sensibly) don't care about partisanship - hate it, in fact. But crush Republican political power.

Posted by jonnybutter | November 15, 2007 10:07 AM

How I learned to stop worrying and love the Imperial Presidency

Why fret over which candidate will best be able to get his program through Congress? Embrace the Imperial Presidency, delight in the wonders of the Unitary Executive, accept the fact that Congress is completely irrelevant. They will not, under any circumstances, stand up to a President who insists on having things his or her way, period. If they won't do so in the face of a President as unpopular as this one, on issues where they have the polls as solidly behind them as de-escalating this war, then the Congress will never insist on having its way should it come in conflict with the President. So stop worrying about the political skills, the ability to get along well with Congress, of your own favorite candidate to be the next emperor. Political skills are no longer in the job description.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | November 15, 2007 10:59 AM

The concept of representative government

You aren't expected to be smart enough to make wise choices in how we are governed. You only need to be smart enough to choose folks from the much smaller subset of prominent people in your district, someone you can trust reasonably well to represent your interests and ideals. And since that trust is only a pretty shaky guarantee of non-disastrous results, we send your representative into a crowd of hundreds of his peers, and set it up so that the govt cannot actually cause any mischief unless a clear consensus emerges in this crowd on things the government needs to be doing.

But we've grown impatient with the subtleties of indirect, representative, government. So we have sidelined the representative bodies in favor of bestowing all power on one Leader, an elected leader to be sure, but one Leader to serve as the agent of what each of us individually imagines is the right agenda for the govt to accomplish. Of course you're not smart enough to either come up with this agenda, or have any confidence at all which prospective emperor is likely to actually carry it out. At least you're smart enough to recognize your limitations, which is a step ahead of the majority of the superficial idiots who imagine themselves wise enough for direct self-governance. This stupidity leaves the majority open to manipulation by candidates who are best able to meet the impossible expectations in direct proportion to how willing they are to ignore the needs of sound governance in order to be electorally manipulative.

If we still had a functioning system of representative democracy, it wouldn't much matter who the next President might be, or rather, the least important thing about this individual would be his policy preferences, because Congress would be the master and the President the servant. And you wouldn't have much direct control over policy via your Congresscritter either, because he/she couldn't get anything done without a consensus. It's a terrible system of government, and we wouldn't have even considered using it, except that all the others are even worse. As we are re-discovering now with our unwritten constitution non-system of elected dictatorship.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | November 15, 2007 11:39 AM

The top three issues in this election are going to be:

1. Iraq
2. Foreign policy overall
3. Repairing our reputation around the globe.

Voters can name a laundry list of other issues to the pollsters, but when they step into that voting booth a year from now, those three things will be on their minds. If the Democrats have a prayer of taking back the White House, then - at least the way I see it right now - the ticket most likely to win will be...

Biden/Obama

Posted by Wayne | November 19, 2007 8:21 AM

The top three issues in this election are going to be:

1. Iraq
2. Foreign policy overall
3. Repairing our reputation around the globe.

Voters can name a laundry list of other issues to the pollsters, but when they step into that voting booth a year from now, those three things will be on their minds. If the Democrats have a prayer of taking back the White House, then - at least the way I see it right now - the ticket most likely to win will be...

Biden/Obama

Posted by Wayne | November 19, 2007 8:22 AM