Home Article MORE, MORE, MORE ON ELECTABLITY.
MORE, MORE, MORE ON ELECTABLITY.
Jon Chait makes the case for electability speculation, and says that, in electability terms, we can confidently say that Hillary Clinton is like the Detroit Lions, and Barack Obama is like the New York Giants. I don't agree. Jon bases his analysis largely on Obama's healthy favorable-unfavorable numbers. He's at +27, Clinton is at +4. But the idea that Obama's current ratings are positive proof of anything is misguided in the most elemental way. It's like looking at a puppy, then an older dog, and going with the pup on the theory it'll stay cuter forever. I did a piece for the LA Times on Hillary's polarized numbers awhile back, and talked to a bunch of pollsters for it, and they all said the same thing: Obama will get there. He's not there yet, but he'll get there. For now, the press coverage is fawning. After nine months of being called "Barack Hussein Obama" and enduring dark insinuations about his religion and defending leaked pamphlets from his afro-nationalist church and battling back against decontextualized excerpts from his book where he speaks candidly (and bravely) of his complicated feelings towards whites, we'll see what the numbers look like. Obama will be polarized, just as John Kerry was before him, and Al Gore was before Kerry, and Bill Clinton was before Gore. Polarization is part of the process, not part of the person. Clinton, for her part, has a profile more like a president running for reelection, and so that's what her numbers look like. As for Obama's advantage among independents, well, it's a more complicated picture than Jon paints. Obama is doing well with indies, who tend to be better educated, higher earning, and so forth. He's having much more trouble among downscale whites. If those voters don't thrill to him, and the cultural attacks sure to be levied against Obama intensify their apathy (or even quiet discomfort), that could easily overwhelm his advantage among independents (assuming that advantage even proves durable). And what of Hispanics? Particularly if McCain, who has a fairly good relationship with that community, is the Republican nominee? You can't simply assume Obama will be Hillary plus independents. He's a different candidate, and some of his new, interesting demographics may come at the expense of old reliables. Is this an argument for Clinton? No. I could make a similar case as to her weaknesses, and am happy to do so if folks are curious. Moreover, I'm not saying you can't speculate about who is more electable. I'm saying that I don't yet find the speculation convincing, on either side. What we're largely seeing are supporters of particular candidates taking that candidates strengths -- Obama's favorability numbers, Clinton's political discipline, Edwards ability to look like a white male from the American South -- and simply doubling down on the existence, and political durability, of that condition. What I'd be more interested in seeing would be an argument taking on the weaknesses -- why Obama's campaign won't have trouble appealing to downscale whites and dodging vicious smears; why Hillary won't be dragged down by negatives and activate the Republican base; why Edwards won't find the haircut and the house interact with his occasional tendency to seem too smooth. I have no idea which candidate would be most electable (though my hunch, for months now, has been Joe Biden), but I'm pretty sure the calculus isn't as clear as some are making it out to be.