The Electability Canard
Even as an Obama supporter, however, this line of thought from many Democrats strikes me as odd. Based on public opinion polls, the most"electable" candidate is actually John Edwards, not Clinton. Indeed, Clinton's frighteningly high negative ratings could make her the least electable of the serious contenders for the nomination, including relative dark horses such as Joe Biden and Bill Richardson.
The heart/head split isn't new: to a much greater extent than the Republicans, the question of"electability" has factored into recent Democratic nominating contests. Its first clear emergence appeared in 1984. Gary Hart burst onto the scene with a second-place finish in Iowa and an upset win in New Hampshire—followed by Super Tuesday victories in the two largest states that held ST primaries that year (Florida and Massachusetts).
Walter Mondale countered with the claim that he was the safer, more electable and experienced choice. He suggested that Hart's proposals lacked"beef." Party professionals rallied to his side. And in the end, he prevailed on the strength of key wins in the Midwest.
It's hard to imagine how Hart could have been less electable than Mondale in 1984—or, indeed, how any primary voter could have voted for Mondale (the vice president in what many at the time considered to be a failed administration) on the grounds that he was electable.
A similar split developed in 1988. At various points in the contest, Dick Gephardt, Paul Simon, and Jesse Jackson represented the"heart" wing of the party. Yet all fell short to Massachusetts governor Mike Dukakis, who based his strong third-place finish in Iowa on the theme of"electability." This message proved critical to Dukakis' triumph in key Super Tuesday primaries, especially Texas and Florida, where on paper he would have seemed to have had scant appeal.
While a Jackson nomination would have been a disaster for the party, it's hard to imagine that any of the other serious contenders in the race (and certainly Gephardt or Simon) could have been less electable than Dukakis—or, indeed, how any primary voters could have voted for Dukakis on the grounds that he was electable.
This was, after all, the same Mike Dukakis who was so"electable" that he had lost a renomination bid in 1978; and then had barely scraped through in a 1982 primary campaign against Ed King, described in that recession-prone year as"Ronald Reagan's favorite Democratic governor." He governed a state in which the Republicans were non-factors during his tenure. And he lacked any foreign policy experience beyond his status as the son of Greek immigrants.
The heart/head battle resurfaced in 2004. On the heart side fell Howard Dean and (to some extent) John Edwards. The"head" candidate, of course, was John Kerry. Kerry's theme that his military experience made him the best candidate to take on George Bush was crucial to his victories in Iowa and New Hampshire.
In retrospect, of course, it's hard to imagine how any primary voters could have voted for Kerry on the grounds that he was electable. Despite representing overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts, he had survived two close races for the Senate (1984 and 1996). His voting record was well to the left of the nation's norm. And he lacked, of course, an ingratiating personality on the campaign trail.
How, then, could candidates such as Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry have successfully ridden the"electablility" card to the nomination? Part of the blame lies with the party's voters (especially in Iowa and New Hampshire), who have proven themselves to be very poor judges of what constitutes an"electable" candidate. This is unsurprising—the primary/caucus voters tend to skew left: their perception of the"mainstream" isn't exactly mainstream.
But much of the blame also falls to the media. One common complaint of press coverage of presidential campaigns (think of any time you see Kathleen Hall Jamieson on PBS) is the charge that political reporters focus too much on the"horse race" aspect of the campaign. Yet reporters have done consistently poor jobs in testing the"horse race" claims of candidates who make"electability" critical elements of their appeal.
It's unclear what path Democratic voters will follow this year. But those looking to the recent past might be a bit troubled at the party's inability to judge what constitutes"electable" qualities.