NTL IA NH SC Issues 49 53 62 65 Electability 44 40 32 25
New Hampshire through Wisconsin NH AZ DE MO OK SC TN VA WI Issues 57 58 54 52 62 59 55 55 60 Electable 33 34 41 37 27 32 37 36 33 Super Tuesday CA CT GA MD MA NY OH RI VT Issues 50 45 53 46 50 47 35 44 59 Electable 43 44 35 44 40 44 56 44 31Even though "issues" never fell behind "electable" as the main reason for candidate selection in any single state during the primaries, "electable" never fell below 30% save once, and was always the main reason for selecting a candidate over any single "issue." Beyond Iraq, beyond health care, beyond the economy and beyond anything else, the perceived "electability" of a candidate was always the single most important issue driving the Democratic primaries in 2004, as it was the top concern of around 35-40% of the Democratic electorate.
Personally, I do not think there is anything wrong with this. Even though it is probably not my top concern, selecting a candidate in the primary who seemingly has "the best chance" to win the general election is certainly a very high priority for me. As Jerome once noted, rather than anything ideological, the primary issue for a reform Democrat is defeating Republicans, and above all else that is what I want. However, while I think it is important and good that so many Democrats take defeating Republicans as their number one priority, I also worry that the current image of what makes a Democratic candidate more "electable" than another has become destructive to the Democratic Party, because it is basically bad advice fed tot eh populace by the Republican Noise Machine.
For example, during the 2004 primary season, Democrats were repeatedly told that thy needed to select a candidate who was strong on national security issues, as though plugging a single hole in the dam would make even slightest bit of difference (read Armando's rebuttal here). We have repeatedly been told after the election that we need to select a candidate who can connect with values voters, as though somehow Democrats have no values, and 85% of Democratic voters aren't already religious. For a long time now we have been told that the South will be swung by selecting a southerner, as though the south does not vote based upon ideology like the rest of the nation. Now, as a group, we have become convinced that Senators do not win, as though someone's title, rather than their ability to articulate their agenda and run a good campaign were the determining factors in a Presidential election. And, of course, there is always the "move to the center" philosophy, that really does little except tell the nation that you think you are wrong about the issues and the other side is right.
In short, it has been nothing but bad advice that, at best, does not work, or, more often than not, actually helps Republicans win and make the country more conservative. This has to end. Long before the field becomes clear, as a party we need to do a lot of work to dispel exiting concepts of electability and replace them with better ones. Even apart from the bad advice, I'm not sure if I can stand blogging through another primary season when so many people are regularly offering up such crude, evidence-free definitions of electability.
I'd like to hear your ideas on what makes a candidate electable. From a short term, single campaign perspective, mine focus on reformer appeal and good framing. From a long-term perspective, it has nothing to do with the candidate and is all about structurally altering the electorate. Let's have a frank discussion about this stuff.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 17 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
