It's Electability, Stupid!

By David Paul Kuhn,
CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer

This man-to-man contest is more diplomatic tussle than barroom brawl, unlike the two-man bouts of recent primary history: Bush-McCain, Bradley-Gore, Mondale-Hart, Bush-Dole. This time it's kinder and even gentler. If there is bad blood between Kerry and Edwards, it is in the backrooms. The issue divide is not wide; neither man says the future of the party is at stake.

Even as the economy dominates Democratic stump speeches, it is not why the party has united around Kerry, who has won 15 of 17 contests so far. Issues are not the issue for Democrats this primary season.

It's electability, stupid!

Throughout the campaign, there have been substantive policy differences between the candidates. Between the last viable Democratic hopefuls, Kerry and Edwards, disagreements exist but have been largely ignored by voters. If they care most about the bad economy they are still voting most of all on electability, according to exit poll data.

Edwards is against NAFTA; Kerry is not, although the Massachusetts senator believes environmental and labor standards must be included. Edwards supports the death penalty; Kerry does not, except in cases of terrorism. Kerry opposed the congressional ban on "partial birth" abortions; Edwards chose to sit that one out.

Although they agree more than they disagree, such differences usually lead to heated primary debates. Not this year.

"Electability mattering is a measure of the importance of this election," said Kevin Phillips, the chief political strategist for Richard Nixon's victory in 1968 and author of "Wealth and Democracy."

"Generally speaking, electability is not something people will make concessions for unless it is one of those rare elections that breeds strong animosity, strong feelings and bids to be a realignment election," Phillips said.

"Believe it or not, Lincoln was regarded as the more electable in 1860. That was one of the things that really worked for him. And you could argue that FDR in 1932 was much more electable and pushed Al Smith out of the way," he continued, citing those historically pivotal years as similar realignment elections. "I think you have finally reached a point in the Democratic process where they really want somebody."

In 2000, when Vice President Al Gore debated Bill Bradley, there was real rancor and topical disagreement, whether it was solvency for Social Security and Medicare, having to raise the retirement age, Gore's "disappointment and anger" at President Clinton or Bradley's motif of being the new Democrat able to dunk the not-yet-seriously taken governor of Texas, George W. Bush.

The last time the Democratic field was so crowded was 1988, when Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis and Illinois Sen. Paul Simon were joined by Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt and then-Tennessee Sen. Gore, among others, in stormy debates.

The Democratic Party has learned from the debacles of Mondale and Dukakis in the 1980s. Although Democrats united around Jimmy Carter, a then-unknown Southerner governor, in 1976, they did it as a response to the corruption within President Richard Nixon's White House. That's wholly different than this year when Democrats feel the country is headed in a drastically wrong direction, in both domestic and foreign policy. And of course there is the great losing liberal icon, George McGovern in 1972, who only won Massachusetts.

"I think that '88 and '76 were stiff Democratic debates. They were certainly more intense and personalized than this time around, as this has been more gentle by comparison," said Professor William Galston, a University of Maryland political scientist. "The dominant mood of Carter was one of disgust about lying and manipulation of government policies. But this time it has to do with the direction of the country; it wasn't as profound of a policy difference as President Bush."

This year, the Democrats have learned their lesson: don't savage each other, stay in shape for November, be pragmatic and centrist. Edwards has proved the value of manners and niceness, while Kerry has proved that demeanor counts – he may be stiff but he is presidential.

So Democrats shadow box before the big bout. And make no mistake about it, when the general election comes, they will fight harder.

"The Democrats know they have to have somebody that is combative; if they aren't combative they reinforce every male view that they are the feminine party," Phillips emphasizes.

What does this mean? For one, Democratic disagreement is not an endangered species; we simply have a unique election year. Two, even as the two-man contest precedes, Edwards will likely not rail against Kerry. The blue wagons are being circled.

"Most Democrats see President Bush as having led the party in a radical and wrongheaded direction across the board, whether you are looking at Iraq, the economy, the environment or relations around the world with other nations," Galston said.

"George Bush has unified and aroused the Democratic Party in a way I have not seen in many years, and in that context, the question of who is most likely to be able to defeat him becomes absolutely central and some of the differences that have divided the party in the past becomes less significant."