A November 'Electability Guide'

Even at this late date, more than half of all voters in Iowa and New Hampshire say they have not made up their minds for sure. Many are still deciding which candidate they think would make the best president. But thousands of others are wrestling with a more cold-blooded question: who can win in November?

Most early head-to-head polls show John McCain and Barack Obama as the strongest candidates in a general election, a reflection of their slight edge over their primary opponents among independents, who make up at least a third of the electorate and often determine the outcome.

But "electability voters" need more than polls. With the stipulation that 10 months is an eon in politics, let's make some educated guesses about the pros and cons of how each of the plausible candidates would do in the Big Show.

Warning: these assessments could be thrown off by unexpected developments, the entrance of a third-party candidate or the particular dynamics of various matchups of Republican and Democratic nominees. Plus, I could just be flat wrong.

The candidates in both parties are listed from least to most electable:

DEMOCRATS

Hillary Clinton

Pro
Battle-tested. The dirt on her is so old it won't stick. Sensing history, women voters will come out in record numbers, including independents and Republicans who thought they never would. Steady debate skills would lessen Democrats' jitters. Restorationist appeal: nostalgia for the 1990s, a third term for Bill.

Con
The only candidate who can energize a dispirited GOP, which has been lying in wait for her. Surprise dirt will emerge, as it always does with the Clintons. Women would vote disproportionately Democratic anyway, offering little advantage. Depth of American misogyny unclear. Many Hillary-haters are the very independents she needs. Distaste for dynasties and a return of Clinton fatigue.

Bottom Line
She can win, but she'll need to run a near-flawless fall campaign.

Barack Obama

Pro
Fresh, inspiring and embodies what most elections are about: the future. Heavy black vote could tip a couple of Red states into the Blue column, while those against him because of race wouldn't be voting Democratic anyway. Teflon potential: Republicans would have to muzzle attack dogs or risk seeming racist. Strong with independents and college-educated men who have recently tilted to GOP.

Con
Untested against Republicans, who would leap to define him before he could define himself. Name, background and lack of experience may represent too much change. Depth of American racism unclear. While polling shows liberal-bashing has lost its resonance, GOP would try it anyway.

Bottom Line
A roll of the dice, but the only one with a decent chance for a landslide.

Read the rest here

Comments

[factanonverba]

I feel sorry for the people who read Newsweek if they're paying to read such garbage. Alter actually thinks Huckabee might stand a chance in the general election. He must be hitting the crack pipe pretty hard. The notion that Obama can win in a landslide is laughable. Even if African-Americans turn out in record numbers, so will white Southerners. But honestly to give such open-ended comments is just plain stupid. We won't know until we have a match up. And then there's the Bloomberg factor.
I suppose for his next column, Alter is going to handicap the 2012 race.

[factanonverba]

If it is Obama versus McCain and I realize that is a big if still, I would argue that it will be a very competitive race and though Obama would win the popular vote he might actually lose the Electoral College. McCain is a household name and much of the American public has bought the argument that surge has worked and McCain can take credit for that even while he distances himself from Bush's mismanagement of the war.
McCain can make a forceful national security argument and play the trump card of Obama's inexperience. Even if Obama wins, McCain is likely to carry the South and Mountain West thus putting the brakes on a realignment election.
The Constitution is one way a very conservative document. With only 1/3 of the Senate up for re-election in any given cycle, sweeping change is unlikely when 66 members of the Senate remain unchanged. For the Republicans to continue the politics of obstruction the magic number is 38 or 39 Senators and McCain candidacy will likely keep the GOP in the 40 plus Senators range. They can filibuster to their heart's content. Obama's politics of unity plays right into their hands which is why I think that an Obama Presidency would be a waste of time. Nothing would get done.
What is required is a confrontational style of politics. From Teddy Roosevelt to FRD and Harry Truman to LBJ to Reagan and now Bush, the successful (in terms of getting their agendas enacted) Presidents have been the confrontational ones.

[BPCentrisAmerican]

Notice how Edwards is left out of the conversation, while being called the angry populist, yet he could win Iowa, which is tight as a tick. In a panel of Republican and Democratic stragtist on C-Span the, Republicans openly admitted that Edwards would have been the hardest to attack. The trolls say that Cheney won 04 debates; really than why did they use the same debate format as 2000. Cheney needs to sit on his fat ass with his hands clasped looking thoughtful because that was the only way he can take on a younger more vibrant opponent. Edwards brought up his lesbian daughter which was relevant, since Bush was pandering to the holier than thou crowd and Cheney thanked him for it, while Kerry was called a bad man when the Rove realized Cheney’s misstep. Cheney dose not like to ask about his daughter, who was evident in the CNN interview just last year with the Wolfman almost, pissed he.

Edwards ran a very strong grass roots campaign, but Kerry’s people were so concerned that Edwards would overshadow Kerry; you rarely saw his speeches on TV. He lost in his own state because Kerry was on the top of the ticket.

A lot of has happened since 04, and Bush is barely at 50% in 4 states, his numbers are beyond toxic, probably the most unpopular president in history and his domestic policies are spinning out of control. Which makes him a drag on the party even though he is not running. If Edwards wins Iowa he could run strong in NH and take SC, because he speaks their langue better than any Dem running, without Huckerbee’s overblown religious nonsense, that was Bill’s gift.

I am still undecided; by the time this gets to my state this may well be decided. There is not a Republican on the ballet I can support. My Republican in-laws hate McCain, as do many Republicans, yet my mother-law constantly brings up Edwards name, they are considering changing to independent status in order to vote for him the primary.

[jbatch]

Uhmmm....E­rrrr...Wel­llll.... OK, there's no way to sugarcoat it. Passsing off your preferences as "analysis" is not ethical. And if these cheerleading muses really are you're best attempt at analysis, then may I suggest a new line of work?

Look, Jon, you're normally an asute observor of the poltical scene. This doesn't even pass the straight face test.

If you want to campaign for someone, fine. but take off your reporter/analyst hat and be honest about it, OK?

[rupperte]

Mr. Alter, I think you made a very contestable observation when you wrote above that, in the context of Hillary's candidacy, "The dirt on her is so old it won't stick."
This is a contestable remark because as the Government of Sri Lanka's Department of Defense pointed out a few weeks ago, Hillary has been relying fundraisers who are linked to the U.S.-banned Tamil Tiger terrorist movement, as reported here: http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20071213_05
The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of State have already indicated that this organization is banned in the U.S. (as it is around the world) : http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/MANPADS/2006/dojpr21aug06.htm
Why Hillary would choose to take money from a banned-terrorist organization that has trained al-Qaieda in the past (according to the Times of India) and pioneered the art of suicide bombing is beyond comprehension. Is our foreign policy for sale to a banned terrorist group?

[jackpinesavage]

Caveats aside, i think that Mr. Alter is pretty well dead on. That supporters of particular candidates go out of their way to tell him how wrong he is proves the point, i think.

I understand that it would be considered politically ill-mannered, but these are strange times. If i were campaigning, i think that i'd take this moment to talk about how i would structure the people around me if elected. (save the VP position)

What would be so wrong about a speech in which the candidate discussed their dream team of appointees. Edwards as attorney general, for example. Give the voters an idea of what kind of administration they would be electing, rather than campaign promises. It would certainly be a way for a candidate to incorporate other candidates pros.

Like i said, bad political manners, but considering the overall state of political manners...does it matter?

[musetta]

The author needs to do his homework. Obama does not do well in head to head matchups. Only Edwards wins against all Republicans. Obama cannot beat McCain in key states. Further Obama has 51% negatives. Not a chance of winning a general.

[MR]

The best Democratic candidate didnt run -- Wesley Clark.

[MR]

A completely misguided assessment based on typically misguided journalistic misconceptions. First there is not and never was any Clinton fatigue. The fatigue was felt by the press who wore themselves out chasing after Monica's semen stained dress but thankfully took Bush's gross negligence in the 911 attacks and the run up to war in Iraq off so they could regain their strength.
Obama is weak when it comes to the Republicans and his desire to make nice with everyone would only strengthen the Republicans. This is Mr. " I dont want to run against the last 7 years". The last Democrat to take a similar position runnning for President was Gore.
The fear is Democrats seem to always look for and find a way to lose elections and Obama could be that choice.
Here is a much more realistic prognosis:Hillary wins a close election, Obama loses a close election and the only one with a real chance at a landslide is Edwards if he is the nominee.

[CandideinNC]

I cannot fathom how you can look at Obama and his cons and not add his most apparent problem. Racism is still prevalent in the South and in many other parts of the country. Perhaps the Democrats may have a strategy to win without the south, but it is going to be far more difficult. Here in North Carolina we tried for years to get a black governor, Gantt. We have a huge black population, but were never able to mobilize them to vote. I ask otherwise moderate Democratic voters here if they would vote for Obama, and they uniformly say no. Racism has not raised its ugly head much in the primaries, but you can be sure it will be there in the election itself!

[BillCarson]

Interesting article, but I think we should look at the political mathematics of the thing.

First of all, since the 1960's we've had 9 presidents, 4 were governors, 4 were vice presidents and 1 (John Kennedy) was a senator. That means a govenor or a VP has about a 44% chance and a senator has about a 12% chance. Everyone else is screwed. Sorry Rudy.

Likewise, we've never had a woman or a black man as president, so the odds for Hillary and Obama are zero.

Bill Richardson would have the best chance at 44%, but he'll be dropping out soon.

That leaves Dodd, Edwards and Biden fighting for a measly 12%, so that's 4% for each.

On the Republican side we've got John McCain back from the dead at 12%.

The odd couple, Huckabee and Romney, are fighting over the Governor's share at 22% each.

So we are left with the obvious mathematical conclusion, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, When you eliminate the improbable then whatever remains, no matter how absurd, must be the truth: Dick Cheney in '08.

[Ian Welsh - Huffpost Blogger]

Remarkable piece, since many polls have shown, not Obama, but John Edwards, as doing best in one-on-ones against Republicans.

I wonder, indeed, why Mr. Alter is making this assertion.

Odd.

Very, very odd.

[Kane]

Jonathon, I always enjoy your take. I particularly enjoyed your Newsweek article on the Health Care debate, and have linked to it often.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882/page/1

Wishing you a happy & healthy 2008!
LiveStrong

[bethinCary]

Always enjoy your commmentary Jonathon.
(btw you looked very nice on Countdown tonight!)

Hope to see lots of you before the caucus!

[larstein]

I don't think the Democrats are going to make it in 2008, except in Congress where, hopefully they'll expand their control. I think it's going to be McCain. Many of the candidates have something of what it takes, but none make me say "yes". McCain is a holding pattern, but someone the American people can trust. And he hates torture. His amazing story is what will elect him, that is if the Gops can realize he's the only one who can win.

I don't think it's a good year for a Democratic president. Whoever gets in is screwed for four years. This country hasn't even begun to suffer, especially since Bush and bin Laden still have the capability to determine who wins in '08. 2012 is when it all changes and Al Gore becomes the new FDR.