The False Assumptions In the "Electability" Arguments
It seems the longer the presidential nominating contest goes on between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the more idiotic the pontificating and candidate spinning -- especially when it comes to the so-called "electability" argument.
The Clinton campaign, as exemplified by surrogate Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) this morning on Meet the Press when he said:
"She's clearly the strongest candidate in the states that Democrats must win to have a chance. Look, it's great that Barack Obama is doing wonderfully well in Wyoming and Utah and, and places like that, but there's no chance we're going to carry those states. Whether he gets 44 percent as opposed to 39 percent doesn't matter, but we're not going to carry those states. We do have a chance to carry the big four. We've got to in three of the big four. Hillary Clinton's the strongest candidate to do that. That's been proven by the voters in the -- those states and hopefully by Pennsylvania as well."
Let's put aside the fact that the Clinton campaign is insulting the importance of a huge swath of the American heartland -- a talking point that has been repeated throughout this campaign by Clinton surrogates. Let's just take a look at the two questionable assumptions inherent in this "electability" claim.
Assumption 1: The Map Can Never Dramatically Change
The first assumption relates to the topography of the national electoral map. In talking about states that are "significant" and "insignificant" based on how they voted in previous elections, the Clinton campaign is assuming the basic map of the last 16 years automatically has to stay the same, and that there cannot be a map-changing candidate. This argument comes despite periodic elections in our history that have seen such shifts. For example, take a look at this animated image derived from Wikipedia's maps - it shows how the national political map changed between the 1976 election and the 1980 election (note - on the maps, Dems are blue and Republicans are red):
Yes, those parts flashing between red and blue are the regions of the country that shifted in just one election cycle. Perhaps even more relevant to the Clinton argument today is the map change between 1988 and 1992 -- the year that one Bill Clinton benefited from a major map change:
So, in other words, Hillary Clinton -- the person who became First Lady because of a major map change - is nonetheless arguing the map can never change, and her campaign is making such an argument at the very moment one of history's most unpopular president is atop the Republican Party. The logic is positively ridiculous.
Assumption 2: Primary and Caucus Victories Directly Relate to General-Election Viability
The other assumption in the Clinton campaign's "electability" argument is that that because Clinton is winning Democratic primaries in big Democratic states like California, New York and New Jersey and other big states like Ohio, it means that she is the best candidate to win those states in the general election.
This rationale makes positively no sense at all, because it suggests that Obama in a general would do worse than Clinton in already Democratic states -- and there's no proof of that. Winning a Democratic primary among Democratic voters says almost nothing about the candidates' abilities to win general elections as we unfortunately saw in the Connecticut Senate race in 2006.
In fact, looking at what evidence we do have -- general election matchup polls -- we see that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate than Clinton, racking up more electoral college votes than Clinton. Though the polls show Obama losing Florida, New Jersey and Arkansas where Clinton would win, it shows Obama winning Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota and Michigan where Clinton would lose (the latter of which the Clinton campaign continues to hilariously insist it "won" in the primary, despite no other major candidate being on the Michigan ballot).
The differences, of course, go back to the underlying argument about maps. Right now, polls show Obama picks up electoral votes in states that the Clinton surrogates say "don't matter [because] we're not going to carry those states." And what's particularly absurd about the Clinton campaign making this argument is that former President Bill Clinton is insisting that in a general election Hillary Clinton can win back "the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president." In other words, the Clinton campaign is arguing that the map has to remain the same as it has been for two decades -- with the same states in play and not in play -- at the same time they argue that Hillary Clinton is the candidate who can win back Reagan Democrats that created that map in the first place.
I never thought I'd see the day when someone could say with a straight face that Hillary Clinton was the Democrats' best candidate to win back the Reagan Democrats alienated from the Democratic Party by, among other things, a job-killing lobbyist-written trade policy that Hillary Clinton championed for a decade. It's just a ridiculous assertion on its face - and it's even more ridiculous when you look at what evidence we have, which is current public opinion polls.
More generally, the attempt to cite the geography of primary wins as proof of general election viability is straight-up silly. And yet, the whole meme has bled into almost every analysis of what is going on in the race. As I said to start, the longer the presidential nominating contest goes on between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the more idiotic the pontificating and candidate spinning.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This post and Jane Smileys post are very important. Wake up and smell the coffee, Dems!
So far, more people have voted for Obama than McCain in EACH STATE except 5: Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, and Nevada. (For Clinton, it's the same - just replace Florida with South Carolina.)
For instance, in California, Clinton got 2,144,251 votes; Obama got 1,746,013; and McCain got 1,093,560.
In Ohio, Clinton got 1,207,806 votes; Obama got 979,025; and McCain got 636,256.
Will more people vote for McCain in a general election than in a Republican primary? Sure. But Clinton AND Obama have consistently mobilized more support...
are you sure about alaska? my recollection is obama captured 3/4 of about 9,000 and mc cain, about 40% of 12,000. it must have been pretty close...
i'd go get the real numbers but i'm using a boat anchor computer at a friend's place and... well, never mind.
If Obama were winning primary victories by Clinton margins in the "red" states I would agree with you 100 per cent and this election would be over. Unfortunately most of his victories have been caucus victories and caucuses which supress the vote do not prove that the winner is even the candidate of choice of his own party , let alone red-state Republicans. That is the flaw in your reasoning.
Obama has won more primaries than Clinton's total victories.
He has won more primaries than caucuses.
So in your view, the "fairness" of democratic contests can be measured by how well they favor Sen. Clinton? Got it.
Check out the Rolling Stone article "The Machinery of Hope" Old School vs the future!
Great post!!! Obama has a 50 state plan with great organizing going on everywhere. Hillary can't organize a caucus or a paper route!!!
IF, the Super Delegates and Party Elders would just do their jobs and stop this BS from continuing the Dems could pick up representatives in a LOT of previous Republican places.
However there was this story in the Washington Post this afternoon
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802664.html?hpid=topnews
"...Many of the 80 uncommitted superdelegates who were contacted over the past several days said they are reluctant to override the clear will of voters. But if Clinton (N.Y.) and Obama (Ill.) are still seen as relatively close in the pledged, or elected, delegate count in June, many said, they will feel free to decide for themselves which of the candidates would make a stronger nominee to run against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the fall...."
Like it has been said, it's the Democrats to lose; not the Republicans to win.
However, as we continue to see and MSM continues to promote (it keeps them in business for another couple of months), HRC with her "politics, down & dirty, as usual" approach is successfully assisting McCain to be our next President. Especially now that Karl Rove is working for his campaign.
Speaking of campaigns, her's campaign has been a disaster while Senator Obama's has been phenomenal (and a Repub. pundit on CNN the other night stated that they were really concerned about that).
Over on the Time Swampland, it was noted that like many posters here, 1/5 of each of Clinton's and Obama's supporters would NOT support the other nominee.
This, I believe, is due to the negativity and increasingly disgusting tone of HRC's campaign.
IMHO, Senator Clinton's obsession with winning at any or all costs and refusal to face the reality that she has already lost. Even IF there are re-dos for Fla. & MI. because of the Dems not having winner take all voting, she will still be behind in delegates when she hits the convention floor.
And, she may have added a couple of points to her national polling ratings but as she continues her attacks, the real gains in those polls are John McCain's.
Agreed.
I said the same in: "The Absurd Arguments of Both (Clinton and Obama) Campaigns",
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/the-absurd-arguments-of-b_b_86962.html
Yet, the MSM keeps pumping away at the notion that Hillary beating Barack, or vice versa, in this or that state has any meaning whatsoever. The key is who draws votes unlikely to be drawn by the other.
I would make an additional point: for the Clintons to keep bashing states as "not mattering", she guarantees she cannot possibly win them.
Clinton was not the only candidate on the ballot in Michigan. There was Kucinich and Dodd as well and Edwards and Obama urged voters to vote "undecided", so that they might be represented in the convention...
Nobody forced them to remove their names from the ballot, not even campaigning there was forbidden, as Howard Dean pointed out.
It is amazing that people blame Clinton, because Obama shots himself into his foot.
It is amazing that people blame Clinton, because she points out that states have different weight, while it was Obama who called Michigan and Florida "irrelevant". Go figure.
In a votinbg booth, you want to vote FOR somebody. It's basic psychology.
They had all pledged that the Michigan primary would not count. This fact has been obliterated by Hillary's spin machine.
Edwards, Obama et al. took their names off the ballot because the primary WOULD NOT COUNT. I believe it was too late for Florida. Hillary herself, explaining why she didn't take her name off, said it didn't matter because the primary WOULD NOT COUNT.
And it wasn't just any name -- it was CLINTON name in the early weeks of the campaign.
For all her whining about people not being nice to her because she's a girl, let's get this in perspective. Next to the Kennedy name, there is no more identifiable, powerful name in the Democratic party than Clinton. For her to have the gaul to act as if overcoming that juggernaut was not damn near insurmountable is totally absurd. By a mixed race man with a funny name. Come on.
She's built her entire campaign on the protection of women (great feminist there, Hillary), distortions, lies, Joe Lieberman-like love for John McCain, and smear tactics tainting her opponent. The vicious email was circulated by her campaign chair in Iowa. The Kenyan garb picture. He's a Christian "as far as I know." "Maybe he's a drug dealer," etc. And now with a little help from Rush Limbaugh. Disgusting. I seem to remember some off the rails union leader in Ohio the night Obama won Wisconsin and Hawaii saying some vicious things about Obama when he introduced Hillary. Has she ever disavowed them? Never. Because they work on the crowd that votes bases on what they learn from the evening news.
Hey, it could get her the nomination. Might even get her the presidency. But you will not see this county rush to protect her like we've had to do throughout the Clinton careers. At that, we are done.
These people are unfit.
The plain, unavoidable, unspinnable fact here for the Clinton campaign is THEY LOST. They are done.
They are now engaged in the same business we have seen from the Bush crowd for nearly 8 years -- telling us what ain't so is just so. Or, put differently, that "is" isn't "is." Not surprisingly, the logic doesn't stand scrutiny.
What is extremely surprising and not a little frightening is that the Democratic adults here seem willing to let the Clintons carry this effort right down to handing McCain and the Republicans the White House. Indeed, not a one of them has spoken up in outrage at her open and obvious declaration that if she can't win, she will see her good friend McCain victorious before she will tolerate an Obama victory. Sounds just like 2000 and 2004 to me.
Thank you so much for this informative article. I was getting so frustrated with the Clintons' mind-bending spin. It's unfortunate that the news networks haven't examined this talking point more closely. I'm not sure if they're just lazy or if this gives them a justification to drag this race out further.
Brilliant analysis, Sirota.
Preaching to the choir, David, but very nicely laid out. If Hillary were to somehow pull off the nomination, there will be backlash. A lot of the newly mobilized young voters will likely stay home, Clinton's baggage may provide some entertaining look at her skeletons, but won't deliver the votes in the general election to make her president.
It's also a fallacy that it will only be the new voters who will bolt. But bolt they will. Let's remember, they're not energized now because they want to be good, loyal Democrats. They are in it because they see a different leadership and vision to which they feel connected and important and vital. Hillary has dashed that into the ground. They will see politics as usual, and will be no willing to stay commited.
But it's the 50% of the party who can no longer trust the Clintons. She has effectively disenfranchised all of us -- people like me, at 57 years old, who have always "fallen in line."
We, at best, won't care anymore. We certainly are not going to run to her defense. And defense she will need. She is not a temperament of a kind of intelligence that makes for a great leader. She's smart, sure. But she is incapable of a vision that unites.
She is the wrong president now. Please -- let's stop her from slithering into the White House.
I don't think it's at all obvious which Democrat is more electable. That's why I voted in my primary for the candidate I thought would make the better President.
The political futures market Intrade seems to agree with me: you can effectively place bets on the candidates' electabilities there, and the odds for the two Democrats have been essentially neck and neck since late January. (Clinton's up today by 66% to 62%; Obama was up yesterday.) Of course, the futures markets can be wrong. Anyone who's confident that they are in this case should take advantage of a money-making opportunity and place a bet on it.
Technical details: There's no "electability" market on Intrade. It's what I think the pros call an "implied market." To place a bet on, say, Clinton's unelectability, you'd place three bets: one on Clinton to win the nomination and one on her to lose the general election. Choose the amounts so that if you lose the first one -- and hence automatically win the second one -- you come out even. The result is a bet where you win or lose only if she's the nominee. If you think that her electability is under 66% -- that is, that she stands a less than 2/3 chance of winning the election, assuming she's the nominee -- then the odds you'll get on this bet are in your favor.
I'd be interested to know whether anyone who likes to make pronouncements about a big difference between the two candidates' electabilities (in either direction) has put their money where their mouth is.
Don't forget the few Republicans who voted Hilary to try and keep this going to kneecap Obama. Why wouldn't they with McCain already in?
I couldn't agree with you more. Great analysis ~ THANKS!
Re: BIG state (HRC) vs 50 States. (Obama)...
Didn't the Dems win BIG with the 50 State approach by Gov. Dean in 2006?
So, does this HRC claim about BIG states really pass the SMELL TEST in 2008 when the approval ratings for "W" are in the toilet?
AND, with RECORD numbers of Republicans NOT running for re-election, does it make sense to let ANY Democrat be fooled by the BIG state theory?
AND, the Dems just WON Dennis Hastert's seat in Illinois!
IF, the Super Delegates and Party Elders would just do their jobs and stop this BS from continuing the Dems could pick up representatives in a LOT of previous Republican places.
However there was this story in the Washington Post this afternoon
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802664.html?hpid=topnews
"...Many of the 80 uncommitted superdelegates who were contacted over the past several days said they are reluctant to override the clear will of voters. But if Clinton (N.Y.) and Obama (Ill.) are still seen as relatively close in the pledged, or elected, delegate count in June, many said, they will feel free to decide for themselves which of the candidates would make a stronger nominee to run against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the fall...."
Like it has been said, it's the Democrats to lose; not the Republicans to win.
However, as we continue to see and MSM continues to promote (it keeps them in business for another couple of months), HRC with her "politics, down & dirty, as usual" approach is successfully assisting McCain to be our next President. Especially now that Karl Rove is working for his campaign.
Speaking of campaigns, her's campaign has been a disaster while Senator Obama's has been phenomenal (and a Repub. pundit on CNN the other night stated that they were really concerned about that).
Over on the Time Swampland, it was noted that like many posters here, 1/5 of each of Clinton's and Obama's supporters would NOT support the other nominee.
This, I believe, is due to the negativity and increasingly disgusting tone of HRC's campaign.
IMHO, Senator Clinton's obsession with winning at any or all costs and refusal to face the reality that she has already lost. Even IF there are re-dos for Fla. & MI. because of the Dems not having winner take all voting, she will still be behind in delegates when she hits the convention floor.
And, she may have added a couple of points to her national polling ratings but as she continues her attacks, the real gains in those polls are John McCain's.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
