Electability

Live on YouTube, sundry pundits discuss the fact that Barack Obama would be a stronger general election candidate matched up against John McCain. As readers know, that's certainly my view. And it's certainly the view of Democrats running in "red" states who feel he'd be better for down-ballot candidates than would Hillary Clinton.

It's been my experience, though, that it's basically impossible to convince people on this score. At the end of the day, there's a ton of uncertainty surrounding this question and there's nothing one could do to prove things one way or another. Given the uncertainty, it's open to people who like Clinton to just insist that, well, sure, Obama's more popular now but things would look different after a campaign.

Comments

Excellent point, Yglesias. Similarly, I like cheese.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 21, 2008 10:43 AM

This type of commentary is a reminder of the situation in 1980 when Democrats said openly they would rather run against Reagan then GHW Bush because they could portray the former as a washed up movie actor.

Posted by SLC | January 21, 2008 10:46 AM

"It's been my experience, though, that it's basically impossible to convince people on this score."

There are many things that are impossible to convince folks about. But that doesn't mean that some positions aren't more correct than others.

And since we're unlikely to find out the electability of Edwards or Obama, this is all kinda moot at this point. But if we were to rank the candidates against McCain, I think that's Obama's weakest matchup. He's not going to be able to sell old white folks on the Obama brand before November, and old white folks are the McCain constituency.

He'd likely get slaughtered up the age ladder in a way that he wouldn't be able to make up.

Obama wouldn't be as destructive to downballot Dems as Clinton would be. But that's a different calculus than the top of the ticket.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 10:47 AM

I agree that Obama may be a better choice for the top of the ballot than Clinton. However, Dems selected John Kerry because common wisdom thought he was more "electable" than the other candidates. Also, perceptions can change during a long election campaign.

Posted by MarvyT | January 21, 2008 10:50 AM

A Clinton nomination means a Bloomberg campaign. Clinton is turning off potential general election supporters, who may actually defect to Bloomberg's billion dollar Unity Orgy or even to Mr. Straight Talk.

Posted by Tim | January 21, 2008 10:51 AM

Question repeated for the millionth time: "Has Obama EVER Been Hit With a Single TV Attack Ad?"...

Posted by RKU | January 21, 2008 10:53 AM

Unfortunately Petey's pessimism about Hillary as the nominee seems correct. Things look terrible for republicans right now. The truth about the surge will come out as troops have to go home in rotation; the economy is in the toilet; there is no progress on health care, college tuition or alt-min tax relief; illegal immigrants will remain regardless of status, etc. Its hard to see the dems losing. But if they want to lose, putting H. Clinton up against McCain may be the best way to do it.

I disagree with Petey about Obama v. McCain though. It looks to me like either Obama or Edwards could beat McCain. If McCain is not the nominee, the other republicans are so terrible, they erase Hillary's negatives and it may not matter. But in all events Hillary seemingly would struggle and be no help to the other dems running.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | January 21, 2008 10:54 AM

He's not going to be able to sell old white folks on the Obama brand before November, and old white folks are the McCain constituency.

Aw, c'mon. Give old white folks a little credit. For the most part, they'll warm up to anyone who "gives a good talk" and doesn't overtly threaten them. Plus, McCain's older than they are and he's got a hurricane for a temper.

Posted by southpaw | January 21, 2008 10:56 AM

Question repeated for the millionth time: "Has Obama EVER Been Hit With a Single TV Attack Ad?"...

Nah, he's just had a popular former president biting at his ankles for the last couple months.

Posted by southpaw | January 21, 2008 10:59 AM

Excellent post, Matt. I think we're all starting to recognize the soft underbelly of the Obama campaign: kumbaya only gets you so many votes. I'll vote for Obama over Clinton in the New York primary, largely because of Clinton's Iraq policy and the electability argument, but Obama clearly hasn't figured out how to reach older white voters, Latinos, and folks further down the economic ladder, for whom the Clinton brand carries real weight. Also -- and this I find most unsettling -- he seems to be willfully leaving out policy in his message. He's got ideas, he's got terrific folks on board, and yet somehow lacks the confidence that the brain plays a role in elections, too. All this post-partisan appeal to emotion probably doesn't get you to 52% in the polls, which Dems will likely need to take the electoral college.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | January 21, 2008 11:08 AM

I've heard lots of old white folks gush on about Obama. They're right-leaning independents, so this doesn't help in the primary, but it WOULD help against McCain--I've never heard old white people other than broadcast media professionals and journalists get excited about McCain. Obama would crush him--right now he's having trouble with older white Democrats, but they will even more reliably prefer Obama to McCain.

If the opponent was someone with detail-oriented experience like Giuliani or Romney, Hillary might be a safer bet.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 21, 2008 11:10 AM

He's got ideas, he's got terrific folks on board, and yet somehow lacks the confidence that the brain plays a role in elections, too.

I wonder if this is the lesson that he has taken from the last two presidential elections? At the end of the day, I'm frankly not sure that this is wrong. Hollow rhetoric ("I'm a uniter, not a divider! I'm a compassionate conservative!") seems to work fairly well as a tactic, while policy prescriptions become fairly easy to parse and attack.

Not that I'm a fan. I'd like to see more steak and less sizzle in campaigns in general. But that doesn't mean that's what wins.

Posted by Brad L | January 21, 2008 11:15 AM

". . . the fact that Barack Obama would be a stronger general election candidate matched up against John McCain. . . . At the end of the day, there's a ton of uncertainty surrounding this question and there's nothing one could do to prove things one way or another."

Then in what sense is the first statement a "fact"?

Posted by david | January 21, 2008 11:25 AM

yeah, obama, who can't even bring himself to utter the word 'democrat' would be fantastic for down ballot races.

Posted by matt | January 21, 2008 11:25 AM

matt, the proof is in the pudding. Down ballot democrats in competitive races have been endorsing Obama, even in the wake of his difficulties in the last couple states.

Posted by southpaw | January 21, 2008 11:31 AM

"yeah, obama, who can't even bring himself to utter the word 'democrat' would be fantastic for down ballot races."

That's actually a fantastic strategy in, say, Nebraska. It works well for Ben Nelson, even if it may not be in the long-term interests of the Party...

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2008 11:39 AM

While pundits talk to each other, the voters watch the debates and compare the candidates on issues important to them.

Conclusion: If your number one issue is to elect somone other than Hillary, Obama is your choice. If your number one issue is the economy, Clinton is your choice.

Contrary to what the pundits think, the economy is going to be the deciding issue in November. No poll has ever found that 'someone other than Hillary' is more important that the 'economy' among independents and moderate republicans.

In November the voters will pick Clinton by overwhelming margins if she runs against anyone but Romney. Romney will be tough but a hard nosed Clinton campaign has the best chance of beating him.

Obmana would lose by huge margins to either Romney or McCain. When economic security is the issue, and it will be, voters are just not going to roll the dice with Obama.

Posted by ken | January 21, 2008 11:44 AM

"Given the uncertainty, it's open to people who like Clinton to just insist that, well, sure, Obama's more popular now but things would look different after a campaign."

Or they could just point out that the Clinton campaign could use the same smears and dirty tricks they've used against Obama vs the GOP nominee.

Posted by Ron | January 21, 2008 11:46 AM

I'm not so sure. My republican friends down here in Texas are pretty annoyed with incumbents, and hence inclined or at least more inclined towards a democrat because another republican administration seems unlikely to be much different from what we have now. But for at least some of these people the old antipathy towards the Clintons dies hard.

Posted by djeri | January 21, 2008 12:01 PM

Mc Cain will be 73 years old next november, 78 at the end of his fist term and 81 at the conclusion of any possible 2nd term.
Please be serious: Americans would never vote that way.

Posted by Michael C. | January 21, 2008 12:17 PM

I know a number of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who look forward to voting for Obama because they are so disgusted with Bush. Not a single one would vote for Hillary. The one thing that can unite the Republicans is Evita Clinton. You don't win elections going into them with 47% of the people already dead-set against voting for you. And frankly, given the disreputable and egregiously dishonest campaign Hillary has won, she does not have the moral character to be president. At least not my president. I'll never vote for a Republican, but I will never vote for Hillary.

Posted by Traven | January 21, 2008 12:32 PM

Amen, Traven.

Posted by Slipsok | January 21, 2008 12:33 PM

Well, I personally tend to focus a lot on political demographics and ethnicity issues.

Offhand, I'd bet that blacks will be well over 20% of the Democratic primary vote this cycle, perhaps even closer to 25%. And it looks like Obama will grab 80% or more of that segment.

Since Edwards and a couple of others are still going to be pulling at least a few percent until they drop out, that probably means Obama's the nominee if he can attract more than about 1/3 of the non-black Democratic primary electorate. And then all the Obama-bots can loudly cheer.

But suppose Obama *can't* win even 1/3 of the non-black Democratic primary voters. Then it seems to me that unless you believe that Democratic Party primaries tend to attract America's most "deeply racist" voters, you'd have to give Obama pretty difficult odds in November, with a 90% non-black electorate and Republican political consultants willing to play to it.

So: Let's just watch how Obama's share of the non-black vote fares in the next few states. Winning just 1/3 or more can't be *that* impossible for such a tremendously attractive candidate...

Posted by RKU | January 21, 2008 1:08 PM

Have people forgotten 1996? Bill Clinton, running as an incumbent President with peace and prosperity behind, still couldn't get 50% of the public to vote for him. The experts and the polls had been forcasting for months that Clinton was going to cruise to a Reagan-in-1984 landslide. That didn't happen. If fact, if you actually look at how close the race was, you'll realize that if the GOP had run a candidate just slightly better than the horrible Bob Dole, they might've won.

Unless you think Hillary is a better candidate than Bill, the idea that Hillary is more electible than any other Democrat is laughable.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 21, 2008 1:11 PM

I know a number of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who look forward to voting for Obama because they are so disgusted with Bush. Not a single one would vote for Hillary. The one thing that can unite the Republicans is Evita Clinton. You don't win elections going into them with 47% of the people already dead-set against voting for you. And frankly, given the disreputable and egregiously dishonest campaign Hillary has won, she does not have the moral character to be president. At least not my president. I'll never vote for a Republican, but I will never vote for Hillary.

I will say this as an Obama supporter, I find this posting implausible. The never-vote-for-Hillary Democrat knows a number of Republican and GOP-leaning independents ready to vote for Obama out of disgust with Bush? By the time the Republican noise machine is in full swing against a "black Muslim socialist," let's assess where they stand. And, you my friend, obviously didn't draw sufficient lessons from 2000.

I've given money to Obama. I'll vote for him the NY primaries. If Clinton wins, she will have my complete support because she's orders of magnitude better than anything being fielded by the Republicans.

Posted by SavageView | January 21, 2008 1:21 PM

I'll certainly take Traven's anecdotal evidence over the numerous hypothetical matchup polls that show Hillary beating all of the potential Republican nominees any day of the week.

The fact that Republican operatives have turned Hillary into a monster in the eyes of so many right-leaning citizens is no argument against her. Who ever the Democratic nominee is will get that same treatment. By November, Traven, your Republican and GOP-leaning independent acquaintances will be telling you that they might like to vote for a Democrat, but that they'll never vote for that skirt-chasing cocaine-sniffing closet Muslim Obama.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 21, 2008 1:23 PM

Would Obama be more effective against McCain. Perhaps. Of course, there was a credible alternative to Clinton, and a real possiblilty for progressive change, and someone who regularly beat the opposition in the head-to-heads. It was Edwards. He lost to John Kerry last go around, in part because of the Dean scream. He is losing now because of the independent/youth turnout in Iowa that put Obama over the top. Hillary now seems as inevitable as John Kerry did last go around. Hope that works out for the democratic party. We all know how it went down the last time. I won't be much interested at this point. Reminds me of the beginning scene in the movie "Bullworth" . . ."the electorate is unenthused."

Posted by progressivedem | January 21, 2008 1:31 PM

As mentioned above, "Dems selected John Kerry because common wisdom thought he was more "electable" than the other candidates."
And at this time in '92 everyone thought GHWB was going to just crush whoever the Democrats nominated.

Guessing what other people think is hard enough, guessing what they'll be thinking half a year from now is even tougher.

Unless you're looking at a Ron Paul/Dennis Kunich level longshot, vote for the candidate you'd most like to see win - maybe whatever it is you like, other people will eventually see and like.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 21, 2008 1:38 PM

Rob Mac:

The Republicans don't even have to go that far.

All they need is some old video clips of Obama with his arm around Jeremiah Wright with text from Obama's autobiography scrolling across the screen, followed by clips of some of Wright's rantier moments on the pulpit, and Obama goes down.

One reason polls this early are meaningless is because the voters don't yet have all the information they're going to get. Hillary's negatives are so much higher than Obama's only because the voters don't know him as well yet....

Posted by ralph phelan | January 21, 2008 1:47 PM

I'm basically of the view that the following equation should be used to assess a person's vote:

1 - 0.5*(number of times person voted for Bush)

But I would ask my fellow Obama supporters, do you really believe that he will somehow not face a fully frontal assault by the Republican noise machine and its enablers in the MSM? Or that in the face of that assault, he'll somehow pivot more successfully than Clinton?

I support Obama because I think he's the greater-risk candidate with potentially higher returns. I don't believe for a moment that he's any more or less electable than Clinton. And today's polls are irrelevant.

I plan to vote for Obama in the NY primaries and then, win or lose, fight like hell for the Democrats in November.

Posted by SavageView | January 21, 2008 1:54 PM

But I would ask my fellow Obama supporters, do you really believe that he will somehow not face a fully frontal assault by the Republican noise machine and its enablers in the MSM? Or that in the face of that assault, he'll somehow pivot more successfully than Clinton?

I don't think anyone believes he won't be subject to the Republican smear machine. Any Dem candidate would be. I think the idea, though, is that Obama will withstand those attacks better than Hillary because of his carefully cultivated image of honesty and "above-the-fray" forthrightness.

The idea is that he could be a teflon candidate. Part of that is, fairly or unfairly, because the media tends to give him the benefit of the doubt. But part of it is because he emphasizes character and honesty in his campaign, rather than tit-for-tat sniping. It's all about whether John and Jane Voter will actually believe the venom that Rush/Sean/Ann will inevitably spew.

Posted by Tractarian | January 21, 2008 2:09 PM

I'm not sure you can get LESS popular than Clinton is on the right.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | January 21, 2008 2:50 PM

I'm not sure you can get LESS popular than Clinton is on the right.

Well, I don't spend a huge amount of time hanging around conservative websites, but I really wonder if this is correct.

Remember, the bulk of the conservative media apparatus today is totally dominated by the neocons, and Hillary has become something of a neoconish candidate, especially on foreign policy. Consider also how much of the conservative press is owned by Murdoch, and didn't Murdoch hold a fundraiser for Hillary back when she was running for the Senate?

While these facts obviously make a Hillary presidency much more worrisome, I'd argue that they considerably raise the likelihood that there would *be* a Hillary presidency.

It's clearly a trade-off in these things...

Posted by RKU | January 21, 2008 2:58 PM

It's all about whether John and Jane Voter will actually believe the venom that Rush/Sean/Ann will inevitably spew.

If that's your basis for choosing Obama, I'm speechless.

Posted by SavageView | January 21, 2008 3:03 PM

The idea is that he could be a teflon candidate. Part of that is, fairly or unfairly, because the media tends to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The media tried to shield John Kerry from negative stories, too, and it didn't work.
Four years have passed, the public's trust in the MSM is lower than ever, and the number of people getting news from alternative sources is higher than ever.
So that trick's gonna work even less well for Obama.

On the other hand, Obama does have the personal charisma of a Reagan or Bill Clinton, which is the source of true political Teflon: When people like you so much that the bad stuff doesn't stick not because they didn't hear it, not because they didn't believe it, but because even if they believe everything that's been said against you, they'll forgive and go on liking you anyway.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 21, 2008 3:25 PM

The problem is less Obama's electability per se, and more his conception of what would make him electable. He thinks all this pro-Reagan "one America" stuff will make him immune from attack.

What he doesn't get, what WAY too many Dems don't get, is that there is no immunization in politics. You can respond, you can defend, you can attack, but you cannot immunize. And you can't be "above the fray", either. In an election, mud sticks.

Posted by Demosthenes | January 21, 2008 3:56 PM

No Third Term!

Posted by Greebe | January 21, 2008 3:57 PM

I think the question of whether Clinton or Obama is more electable is something of a tossup.

But the development that would sorta make that question moot is if Clinton is the nominee and she picks Obama as the vice-presidential candidate.

A Clinton-Obama ticket in '08 would consolidate the Democratic party like none other. And that could be decisive ... especially if Bloomberg runs Democrats will need to be able to keep the base intact (and Obama seems to be having trouble winning the base).

Posted by DemUnity08 | January 21, 2008 5:03 PM

What's your take on the opposite? If Obama wins the nomination, should he pick Hillary as her VP?

It seems to me she'd be useful as a gravitas-lending elder-statesperson attack-dog, a role similar to the one Cheney has played for Bush.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 21, 2008 5:11 PM

Or LBJ for JFK, for that matter.

On the one hand, she's already compared herself to LBJ. On the other hand, Michelle Obama is already worried enough without the implications of that analogy....

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 21, 2008 5:14 PM

Ralph Phelan, if you ever start up your own blog, I'll be there. :-)

Posted by artappraiser | January 21, 2008 6:03 PM

If that's your basis for choosing Obama, I'm speechless.

Care to elaborate? I'm not saying Obama is necessarily more electable. But is it that unreasonable to believe that right-wing attacks on Obama won't stick like they would on Hillary?

The media tried to shield John Kerry from negative stories, too, and it didn't work.

The media tried to shield Kerry? Which media are you talking about?

Posted by Tractarian | January 21, 2008 6:05 PM

Ralph:

"What's your take on the opposite? If Obama wins the nomination, should he pick Hillary as her VP?

It seems to me she'd be useful as a gravitas-lending elder-statesperson attack-dog, a role similar to the one Cheney has played for Bush."

I agree: that's the best argument for Obama picking Clinton as a vice-president. I would also add that picking up Clinton picks up her campaign cash, her machine, the experience of Bill Clinton, etc.

There are other vp choices for Obama that would also provide him with a more experienced statesman (Biden, Dodd, etc.), so Obama would have many options.

Posted by DemUnity08 | January 21, 2008 6:12 PM

I will vote for whichever candidate promises not to do the following three things during the general election campaign: 1)go wind surfing or participate in any sport where a ball is not involved
2)go hunting 3)eat arugula

No more of this Senator Obama.
“Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?” the senator said. “I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.”

Posted by reality | January 21, 2008 8:45 PM

"The media tried to shield Kerry? Which media are you talking about?"

The MSM ignored the Swifties until they wrote a book and bought TV ads and they were no longer able to, which was rather late in the race.

But I had found the Swifties website in December 2003, before the NH primary. I was stunned that he wonthat race, and even more stunned that he won it on the basis of "electability."

If the Swifties' charges had been thoroughly covered in December 2003, either Kerry would have found a way to neutralize them and had a chance of winning the general election, or he would not and he would have lost the primary, leaving the Democrats to nominate someone who would have had a chance of winning the general election.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 22, 2008 8:17 AM

I have given a signficant amount of money starting last Fall to the John Edwards campaign because I thought, and still think he can win in November. I am one of those life long Democrats, who propably devoted over 10 person days of volunteer time phoning (travelling to a swing state to get out the vote), money and energy via moveon.org to the John Kerry campaign, who will NOT vote for Hilary. I would support Obama as a second choice. However, I don't like Hilary, don't trust her, and feel that either Romney or McCain will prevail against her come November. Am I in a minority opionion here?

Posted by Cliff | January 25, 2008 2:03 PM

Had She been just Hilary Rodham ....her 35 years of service and being a woman would have been a blessing to any country party or community, But being Mrs Clinton with all the ethic negative vibes from blow job in oval office to special investigator Starr she is too vulnerable to the GOP hitmen....

Posted by Adams | February 4, 2008 6:04 AM