That electability thang.
Walter Shapiro recently wrote:
In the most telling bipartisan effort to consign George W. Bush to irrelevancy, the 2008 presidential race has already begun -- six months earlier than any comparable contest in modern history.
Has it ever! And to the extent it means that Bush is over, it's fine with me. Anyway, trolling around Friday afternoon, I stumbled on these two interesting diaries by Kossack RonK Seattle, polling the Kos community about who is the most and least electable of the major Dems. According to his respondents, the least electable major Dem is Hillary Clinton, followed by John Kerry. Their most electable major Dem is Al Gore, followed by Russ Feingold and Wes Clark.
Without further ado, my totally subjective ramblings on the subject:
Least electable potential candidate: John Kerry. I remain a fan, but Kerry (a) was never very "electable" to begin with and (b) is now tainted with the "loser" label. Kerry could beat Bush in a rematch, and might even do better than some other potential candidates against Bush. But the story when he goes up against any fresh-faced Republican is how the GOP is "moving on" while us Dems are "mired in the past". Short of a Brownback- or Tancredo-style wingnut winning the GOP nomination, I really don't see Kerry beating anybody in their potential field. More likely, he'd lose embarrassingly.
First runner-up in this category: Joe Biden. Biden is smart, but he comes off as arrogant, without the requisite religosity with which US pols usually back up their arrogance. The press already shows more disdain for him than they did for Kerry and almost as much as they did for Gore. The signs of reversing this trend look bad.
Second runner-up in this category: Russ Feingold. I'm open to being wrong about this. Feingold surprises me with his media presence. And I don't think it matters that he's a divorced single Jew. The bigger problem is that he's a wonk, and his issues are enormously technical ("Section 215 of the Patriot Act"). I expect the Republicans will be able to demagogue him on national security, and that the wonk-averse press will play along, and will render him unpalatable to relatively uninformed, middle-of-the-road voters. It also doesn't help that the party establishment doesn't care for him. He'll be leaked against terribly and some locally popular party hacks will probably refuse to support him. In the ferociously divided country as it stands now, this could be detrimental.
Third runner-up in this category: Bill Richardson. Fun to watch, but more inately gaffe-prone and self-aggrandizing than Biden, and without the counterbalancing gravitas. Being a swing-state governor with a decent biography (save the Lewinsky connection and wandering-eye allegations) raise his profile a little bit. A very little bit.
High-potential, high-risk: Wes Clark. I'm surprised how little Clark-buzz there is right now. Not only is he obviously considering another run at the nom, but he could potentially dessimate the GOP on national security in a national election. Clark makes me nervous, just like he did in the 2004 primary. I could see him being successfully portrayed -- maybe correctly -- as a loose cannon, and, worse, a loose cannon closely associated with high-intensity military and diplomatic issues. I also can't see him winning the nomination. But if he did win it, he's the only candidate I can potentially see humilitaing the GOP (55%+ of the vote)... or being humilitated himself.
Runners-up in this category: John Edwards, Al Gore. I could see either of these two either galvanizing the Democratic coaltion, such that its members drag their usually-abstaining neighbours to the polls to produce a relative landslide (52%+ of the vote); or being total, embarrassing flameouts (<47% of the vote). They're both enormously uneven campaigners and media presences. For instance, I remember seeing Edwards on Larry King with his wife in 2004 and thinking he could walk away with the election if only Kerry would stand down. But, then, his nomination acceptance speech at the convention was a slow-motion trainwreck (the worst, in fact, since Gore's in 1992). Both inspire enormous enthusiasm in their supporters (Here's looking at you, Neil). Like Feingold, they're issue-wonks, so the success of their campaigns would depend on their ability to make the electorate focus on their issues. I want to believe a Democrat could ride poverty and/or environmental degradation to victory but, despite the blog title, I'm, well, cynical. On the other hand, the payoff of making either of these two president might be worth the risk. I don't know yet.
Underrated: Hillary Clinton. I am wildly unenthuiastic about a Clinton presidential candidacy. In fact, "wildly unenthusiastic" understates the case. But the "she can't win / Dole in '96" comparisons that will inevitably be made are wrong. The pros: she's cool as a cucumber. She doesn't make political mistakes. Because of the silliness she inspires on the right, she's a partisan force without having to act partisan: usually the catch-22 of candidates facing a ferociously partisan electorate who swear they hate all things partisan. She could hold together most of the Democratic coalition, including the antiwar vote, which will be desperate to turf the neocons. Democrats already come very close in national elections despite doing appallingly among white men even in blue states. I don't see HRC doing much worse in this demographic (and it doesn't matter how red-state men vote.) The question will be whether HRC can win back the white urban/suburban female vote who switched from Gore in 2000 to Bush in 2004. There's no guarantee, but I see no reason why she'd be less likely to do so than any of the men in contention for the nomination.
Runner-up in this category: Tom Vilsack. I don't mind Vilsack being totally buzzless right now. I hoped he would use the DLC chairmanship to restore a little bit of soul to the organization, but sadly he's seems to simply be dishing out more of the watery arrogance the DLC is known for. But he's also a successful, reasonably media-savvy swing-state governor, and I still believe that beneath the DLC veneer lurks a Democratic soul. Maybe he'll let it peek out at some point.
Correctly perceived as reasonably electable: Mark Warner. So far, Warner has struck me as depressingly mushy and boring -- though any red-state multimillionaire capitalist who chooses to become and remain a Dem and spend his college years working for the DNC gets points in my book. It's a lot easier to be a Republican. Warner is bland, but I'm not sure being bland has anything to do with being unelectable. I'm not sure it doesn't either, which makes me a little hesitant.
Runner-up in this category: Evan Bayh. Unlike Warner, Bayh has been making a concerted effort not to be mushy, a plus. But he's always struck me as a horrible opportunist and I wonder if that wouldn't become a meme were he to run, as it did for Kerry who is (in my view) much less of one.
And the kicker:
Most electable: Tom Daschle. Flame away, but starting from the standard tenets of "electability" -- successful in a red state, non-polarizing, inately unthreatening -- Daschle seems to me less boring and more inately appealing on TV than Warner, Bayh or Vilsack. He's also saying more interesting, forthright things at the moment. The unflattering contrast he makes with Harry Reid will only matter to activists. A Democrat needs credibility on Iraq, and Daschle's work trying to pass the Biden-Lugar alternative to the Bush-Gephardt blank cheque puts him ahead of Hillary Clinton and several of the other senators on the list. As former majority leader, he has strong, long-standing ties to the party and managed to maintain a profile as a mainstream liberal in the reddest of states. Daschle isn't exactly uncorruptable and his wife's lobbying could be a problem. (In fact, I'd tap it as a big problem if it weren't for the fact that recent, still-unfolding history suggests that corruption charges are likely to be moot against any Republican candidate, including McCain.)
I don't see him winning the nomination, but I can see him surprising us in the primary. And I see him see him as reliably competitive in the general election if he did win.
All this is, of course, totally subjective. Thoughts are welcome.
In the most telling bipartisan effort to consign George W. Bush to irrelevancy, the 2008 presidential race has already begun -- six months earlier than any comparable contest in modern history.
Has it ever! And to the extent it means that Bush is over, it's fine with me. Anyway, trolling around Friday afternoon, I stumbled on these two interesting diaries by Kossack RonK Seattle, polling the Kos community about who is the most and least electable of the major Dems. According to his respondents, the least electable major Dem is Hillary Clinton, followed by John Kerry. Their most electable major Dem is Al Gore, followed by Russ Feingold and Wes Clark.
Without further ado, my totally subjective ramblings on the subject:
Least electable potential candidate: John Kerry. I remain a fan, but Kerry (a) was never very "electable" to begin with and (b) is now tainted with the "loser" label. Kerry could beat Bush in a rematch, and might even do better than some other potential candidates against Bush. But the story when he goes up against any fresh-faced Republican is how the GOP is "moving on" while us Dems are "mired in the past". Short of a Brownback- or Tancredo-style wingnut winning the GOP nomination, I really don't see Kerry beating anybody in their potential field. More likely, he'd lose embarrassingly.
First runner-up in this category: Joe Biden. Biden is smart, but he comes off as arrogant, without the requisite religosity with which US pols usually back up their arrogance. The press already shows more disdain for him than they did for Kerry and almost as much as they did for Gore. The signs of reversing this trend look bad.
Second runner-up in this category: Russ Feingold. I'm open to being wrong about this. Feingold surprises me with his media presence. And I don't think it matters that he's a divorced single Jew. The bigger problem is that he's a wonk, and his issues are enormously technical ("Section 215 of the Patriot Act"). I expect the Republicans will be able to demagogue him on national security, and that the wonk-averse press will play along, and will render him unpalatable to relatively uninformed, middle-of-the-road voters. It also doesn't help that the party establishment doesn't care for him. He'll be leaked against terribly and some locally popular party hacks will probably refuse to support him. In the ferociously divided country as it stands now, this could be detrimental.
Third runner-up in this category: Bill Richardson. Fun to watch, but more inately gaffe-prone and self-aggrandizing than Biden, and without the counterbalancing gravitas. Being a swing-state governor with a decent biography (save the Lewinsky connection and wandering-eye allegations) raise his profile a little bit. A very little bit.
High-potential, high-risk: Wes Clark. I'm surprised how little Clark-buzz there is right now. Not only is he obviously considering another run at the nom, but he could potentially dessimate the GOP on national security in a national election. Clark makes me nervous, just like he did in the 2004 primary. I could see him being successfully portrayed -- maybe correctly -- as a loose cannon, and, worse, a loose cannon closely associated with high-intensity military and diplomatic issues. I also can't see him winning the nomination. But if he did win it, he's the only candidate I can potentially see humilitaing the GOP (55%+ of the vote)... or being humilitated himself.
Runners-up in this category: John Edwards, Al Gore. I could see either of these two either galvanizing the Democratic coaltion, such that its members drag their usually-abstaining neighbours to the polls to produce a relative landslide (52%+ of the vote); or being total, embarrassing flameouts (<47% of the vote). They're both enormously uneven campaigners and media presences. For instance, I remember seeing Edwards on Larry King with his wife in 2004 and thinking he could walk away with the election if only Kerry would stand down. But, then, his nomination acceptance speech at the convention was a slow-motion trainwreck (the worst, in fact, since Gore's in 1992). Both inspire enormous enthusiasm in their supporters (Here's looking at you, Neil). Like Feingold, they're issue-wonks, so the success of their campaigns would depend on their ability to make the electorate focus on their issues. I want to believe a Democrat could ride poverty and/or environmental degradation to victory but, despite the blog title, I'm, well, cynical. On the other hand, the payoff of making either of these two president might be worth the risk. I don't know yet.
Underrated: Hillary Clinton. I am wildly unenthuiastic about a Clinton presidential candidacy. In fact, "wildly unenthusiastic" understates the case. But the "she can't win / Dole in '96" comparisons that will inevitably be made are wrong. The pros: she's cool as a cucumber. She doesn't make political mistakes. Because of the silliness she inspires on the right, she's a partisan force without having to act partisan: usually the catch-22 of candidates facing a ferociously partisan electorate who swear they hate all things partisan. She could hold together most of the Democratic coalition, including the antiwar vote, which will be desperate to turf the neocons. Democrats already come very close in national elections despite doing appallingly among white men even in blue states. I don't see HRC doing much worse in this demographic (and it doesn't matter how red-state men vote.) The question will be whether HRC can win back the white urban/suburban female vote who switched from Gore in 2000 to Bush in 2004. There's no guarantee, but I see no reason why she'd be less likely to do so than any of the men in contention for the nomination.
Runner-up in this category: Tom Vilsack. I don't mind Vilsack being totally buzzless right now. I hoped he would use the DLC chairmanship to restore a little bit of soul to the organization, but sadly he's seems to simply be dishing out more of the watery arrogance the DLC is known for. But he's also a successful, reasonably media-savvy swing-state governor, and I still believe that beneath the DLC veneer lurks a Democratic soul. Maybe he'll let it peek out at some point.
Correctly perceived as reasonably electable: Mark Warner. So far, Warner has struck me as depressingly mushy and boring -- though any red-state multimillionaire capitalist who chooses to become and remain a Dem and spend his college years working for the DNC gets points in my book. It's a lot easier to be a Republican. Warner is bland, but I'm not sure being bland has anything to do with being unelectable. I'm not sure it doesn't either, which makes me a little hesitant.
Runner-up in this category: Evan Bayh. Unlike Warner, Bayh has been making a concerted effort not to be mushy, a plus. But he's always struck me as a horrible opportunist and I wonder if that wouldn't become a meme were he to run, as it did for Kerry who is (in my view) much less of one.
And the kicker:
Most electable: Tom Daschle. Flame away, but starting from the standard tenets of "electability" -- successful in a red state, non-polarizing, inately unthreatening -- Daschle seems to me less boring and more inately appealing on TV than Warner, Bayh or Vilsack. He's also saying more interesting, forthright things at the moment. The unflattering contrast he makes with Harry Reid will only matter to activists. A Democrat needs credibility on Iraq, and Daschle's work trying to pass the Biden-Lugar alternative to the Bush-Gephardt blank cheque puts him ahead of Hillary Clinton and several of the other senators on the list. As former majority leader, he has strong, long-standing ties to the party and managed to maintain a profile as a mainstream liberal in the reddest of states. Daschle isn't exactly uncorruptable and his wife's lobbying could be a problem. (In fact, I'd tap it as a big problem if it weren't for the fact that recent, still-unfolding history suggests that corruption charges are likely to be moot against any Republican candidate, including McCain.)
I don't see him winning the nomination, but I can see him surprising us in the primary. And I see him see him as reliably competitive in the general election if he did win.
All this is, of course, totally subjective. Thoughts are welcome.
9 Comments:
Laura,
I'm a little mystified: why exactly do you think Tom Daschle is most electable? In addition to the ethics angle you mention, there remains the fact that he flopped pretty badly after 2000 as an opposition leader, not to mention having lost his most recent election. Plus, isn't he at least as wonky as John Edwards?
And why do think Edwards is a wonk? I'm not sure what could be less wonky than his "Two Americas" stump speech. And I think you ought to acknowledge that his awful convention speech was written by the Kerry team, not by his own.
And why no mention of Brian Schweitzer?
This sounds awfully trivial, but it's not because of how important television is: Daschle has dumb hair.
I don't think it's the kind of dumb hair that can be fixed.
Like you, I'm wildly unenthusiastic about Hillary, but I think she's the one, and I think she can win, because I don't think the Republicans are going to nominate the only celebrity they have---McCain.
Warner's her VP.
I'm hoping Edwards comes on strong.
D'oh! I see this right after writing my magnum opus on abortion, and with a dissertation chapter deadline ahead of me!
Well, I'll fulfill my promise and respond on the Ezra blog. But if I don't have enough time, it may be a week before that happens. (Don't worry, your posts age well.)
rich -- I was only doing the guys on RonK's Daily Kos list. That's why no Schweitzer, and no Obama. Personally, I think Schweitzer, Obama and Eliot Spitzer all have huge electable potential, but we'll see.
As for Daschle, it's just a gut reaction. I just think he'd sell among the electorate at large -- I've always found him credible on TV. He's safe and, I'd say, less dull than some of the others. I don't think "failed leader" will be the story beyond the activist community, or even if Daschle says things we like and agree with. I expect it was the GOP ethics problems that have encouraged him, because they'll blunt the attacks on his wife (that would have sunk him in 2004). So, yeah, this far out I think he'd be a solid nominee -- compared to Warner, Bayh, etc. I may turn out to be very wrong, but I think we'll end up taking him seriously if he runs.
Lance, I think you're right too that Hillary is it. If she runs, she can't be beat and most of those who conceivably could will stand down. She may not. There's always hope.
Neil -- don't worry about linking to this rambling post on the Ezra blog. Honestly, I wasn't even thinking about that when I wrote it. I was just in a noodling post-drinking mood.
Also -- the Edwards-as-wonk thing; Edwards has taken on poverty and labour and done his best to make them his defining issues, to make himself really credible on them. If he runs, that's what he'd make his campaign about I assume. It could work. Like I wrote, I'm interested. But galvanizing the electorate around an issue-theme... it just seems a country in which that was possible wouldn't currently be headed by gwb (a point Neil makes quite often).
I've said for months now: if Hillary runs, she gets the Democratic nomination. (I would prefer Edwards or Gore, in that order.) No one will beat her enthusiastic partisans, name recognition, and money. Further, given all her activity and the swamp of scandal that seems poised to really damage the Repubs, I consider it a given that she is going to run in 2008.
So, can she win the presidency? Two or three years ago, I'd have said no chance on earth. Her negatives are higher than any politician ever successfully elected except possibly Nixon. She is viscerally, literally hated by huge numbers of people, at least as many as love her (with, IMO, equal irrationality).
Now, with W's numbers, DC's scandals, and the natural American penchant for change starting to kick in, I think she could be elected. First, if Iraq is still a bleeding ulcer and there is a bad/weak economy in 2008, any Dem probably beats any Rep. Otherwise, it'll depend a lot on the Rep nominee. And fact is, two years in advance, there's no way to know. Had anyone ever heard of W in 1998? I'm a political junkie and I hadn't. I figured it'd be McCain for sure.
Final note. Unless things are incredibly good or bad in 2008, the presidency will again go to the candidate who takes two of the following three states: Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvannia.
What lance said. Also, Daschle is only 5' 8". This should be completely irrelevant, but it would probably render him unelectable if he carried a signed endorsement from Jesus Christ.
The Democrats have a long tradition of honorable candidates from that part of the country: Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale...
now why is it Daschle would be more electable?
Richardson is probably the most elactable followed by Warner and Bayh. Daschle is near the bottom probably above kerry.
Post a Comment
<< Home