The Electability Myth
This column was written by Ari Berman.
Forget the issues. The Democratic candidates for president are now sparring over that age old question of "electability." The Hillary Clinton campaign hosted a conference call Tuesday with Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and Congresswomen Sheila Jackson-Lee and Stephanie Tubbs Jones to argue that Hillary is the Democrat with the best chance of recapturing the White House. The Barack Obama campaign countered with Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, Mississippi Governor Roy Mabus and Missouri Congressman Russ Carnahan vouching for Obama's winnability.
Clinton supporters claim Hillary's centrist record, years of experience, ability to withstand GOP attacks and lead in national polls give her an electoral edge. They point out that large numbers of Democrats think she's their best chance to beat the GOP nominee and other voters will admire her resilience.
Obama partisans counter that Hillary is too polarizing and easily stereotyped, citing her incredibly high unfavorability ratings in polls and the fact that Republicans are already attacking her in down-ballot races, painting her as a raging lefty. Obamaites argue that Clinton will be a drag across the country in the swing states and red states Democrats need to win in order to increase their congressional majorities.
Obama supporters point to his crossover appeal and popularity among Independents and Republicans. (See Matt Yglesias' post about why conservatives like Obama, even though he's more liberal than Clinton.) According to his campaign, in '06 Obama campaigned for gubernatorial or congressional candidates in states like Kentucky, Indiana, Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee, Florida, Arizona, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Ohio and Arkansas. It's difficult to imagine Clinton being welcomed similarly in a number of such places.
At the same time, no one really knows whether the country is ready to elect a woman or a black man. That perception of uncertainty helps the Southern white male in the race, John Edwards. Yet Edwards has his own problems - he's easily categorized as a "limousine liberal," didn't help the Kerry ticket in places like North Carolina and doesn't have the money or nationwide organization of Clinton or Obama.
Obama and Edwards would probably be better allies for down-ballot Democrats across the country than Clinton would. But Clinton and those around her, most notably her husband, know how to win elections. In sum, all of the major Democratic candidates have major positives and negatives - and all would likely be able to defeat a Republican in November and increase their party's seats in Congress.
Now let me qualify everything I've just written. Jason Zengerle wrote an article for New York Magazine on the "pseudoscience of electability" and concluded that "the whole exercise of backing a candidate because of his or her supposed electability is a fool's errand." That's why, in the end, even if you're not for Hillary, what Bill Clinton says about choosing a nominee makes sense. "This electability thing is a canard; it doesn't amount to a hill of beans," Clinton told voters in Iowa. "What you need to figure out is, who would be the best president."
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online