Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> TalkLeft

Legal Commentary

: TalkLeft

Electability Again

By Big Tent Democrat

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

The electability argument rages on. Former Bush pollster Matthew Dowd writes:

[T]here seems to be a concerted effort by the Clinton campaign to point out weakness in the Obama effort related to November electability. . . . One argument being made is that there is a relationship between primary win in states and ability to win those states in the Fall. For example, the Clinton campaign likes to point out they won Ohio and Obama lost it, and that this bodes badly for his chances of winning that state in the Fall. The Obama campaign points out wins in red states in the primary process trying to prove their strength.

To put it bluntly, there is no relationship between primary success in any given state and November success in those states.

Dowd says it so it must be so. Um no. Dowd is wrong and he misdescribes the argument as one expects a politician or political operative to do. More . . .

The advantages Clinton and Obama hold in the electability argument are not difficult to grasp or explain. Dowd plays the simpleton here.

For example, in almost all GE matchup polling, Obama has run better in the states where he won the primary or caucus as has Clinton. Dowd does not mention that. It does not serve his purpose.

Take Dowd's two examples -- Obama's wins in 2004 red states like Iowa and Colorado and Clinton's win in Ohio. Obama is certainly more electable than Clinton in those two states (also in swing states like Wisconsin.) Obama's primary/caucus wins in those states are meaningful and make for an attractive electability argument - to wit, "Obama expands the electoral map." I think he clearly does.

Similarly when Dowd mentions Ohio he pretends that there is not a strong argument that Clinton is more electable there. We all know better. The demographics of Ohio and the GE polling show Clinton running much better than Obama in Ohio (as she has in Florida and Pennsylvania.) Clinton DOES have a big state advantage.

The recent rocky coverage of the Obama campaign has given me pause in my belief that Obama remains the most electable candidate - but I will adhere to it with a close eye on how it all shakes out. But the reason I currently believe him more electable is that Obama's expansion of the electoral map seems real and likely to make a difference in November in states like Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada. And this advantage does not negate Obama's ability to compete in the big contested states. To say that Clinton is MORE electable in Ohio is not to say that Obama is UNelectable in Ohio. The reverse is not true. Clinton is pretty much unelectable in say, Colorado.

But winning states is not the point in November. Winning electoral votes is. A Colorado + an Iowa + a New Mexico = an Ohio. 20 EVS. So we have to do all the math to develop these arguments.

Moreover, the question of electability is misunderstood. To argue, as I do, that Obama is more electable is not to say that Clinton is unelectable. In essence we have two competing theories of electability. Of course when you are driven by your agenda of candidate support or candidate hate, you can not recognize or concede the validity of BOTH electability arguments. Dowd makes the curious choice of pretending NEITHER electability argument is valid. But then he is arguing for Obama and taking the electability argument off the table NOW (there was a time when Obama supporters loved the electability argument) is favorable to Obama's chances.

Moral of the story? Beware "expert" political opinions. There is always an axe to grind. Think for yourself.

Note - Comments closed.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on March 24, 2008 (boomark / email).