I heard something on Hardball tonight that struck me. (By way of disclaimer, I don’t watch Hardball that much, but I tend to turn on MSNBC as I change out of my work clothes). Anyway, some beltway pundit or another was talking about how maybe Democratic primary voters would vote for Hillary Clinton even though they didn’t really like her because she might be perceived as “the most electable.” If primary voters voted for her it would show how much Democrats really want the White House.
My sense is that this completely misreads the mood of the national electorate this year. I could be wrong – I’m no professional pundit (but that probably increases my likelihood for accurate predictions.) I get the sense that the Democrats can elect anyone within reason this year. I think any Republican candidate (except for perhaps Ron Paul who almost certainly won’t get the GOP nomination) will have the Bush albatross so firmly wrapped around their neck that they can’t win. This year, the Democratic nomination is kind of like playing for the AFC Championship. It’s not guaranteed, but the winner has to be a prohibitive favorite to win the Super Bowl.
Now that I’ve stumbled onto the NFL metaphor, I’ll push it along for awhile. Hillary is kind of like the New England Patriots of the field – she has some gaudy stats, but she’s tainted with a lot of big money, a hint of dynasty, and a sketchy explanation for her war vote. At the end of the season, do you really want her wearing the ring?
Democrats should just forget about perceived electability this year. For starters, it doesn’t work. They picked Kerry in 2004 because they thought he was more electable. What that seemed to translate to was an overly cautious approach and an unwillingness to get pinned down on a position. This season, I figure Democrats should vote for a candidate whose policies they like best. From there, I think the electability will take care of itself. Now, I just have to figure out whether Obama is the Colts and Edwards is the Steelers, or vice versa.
And, for what it’s worth, Todd Beeton at MyDD has an interesting post entitled “If the Caucus were held tonight.” John Edwards is usually an afterthought in any Democratic primary discussion. But, there is a narrative going around that Edwards would probably win the Iowa Caucuses if they were held right now because he supposedly has a superior organization and, importantly for this process, he is a lot of people’s second choice. In the Iowa caucus system, if a candidate doesn’t get above a certain threshold of support, that candidate’s supporters go to their second choice among the remaining candidates.
One poll shows the likely-caucus goers as having second choice preferences as follows: Edwards 22.7, Obama 20.1, Clinton 13.8. I think Hillary is going to face real problems once it becomes clear that Obama or Edwards is more viable than the other. Supporters of the less successful of the two will mostly peel off for the other and mostly not go over into the Clinton camp. That’s my impression anyway.
If voters were to forget about electability when they went to the polls it would be the end of the Democratic/Republican hegemony, which I rather think would be a good thing. Duopoly in politics is a zero sum game of badmouthing the opposition to drive down his voter turn out (with the frequent side effect of alienating the center, but who wants them going to the polls, they’re too hard to control). In the long run two party politics doesn’t really seem to differ a great deal from a one party system.
What I’d like to see is a energetic third party that can win elections.
Except I voted for Jon Edwards 80 times in that straw poll. Those damn straws are expensive!
Democracy is like anything else. You get what you pay for.
Speaking of Patriots… They just converted on a sixth-down play, followed by a nice fifth-down “catch” a yard out of bounds for a last-minute win against the Ravens.
Too bad we can’t vote on the AFC champs…