Enough with the Electability Test

On Tuesday, November 03, 2009, Virginia Democrats (including myself) voting in the gubernatorial election shouldered the heavy burden of insuring President Obama's agenda against a persistent conservative onslaught. And, with Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds' landslide loss, we awoke the next day feeling like we had let our fellow Democrats down. A lackluster campaign by a less-than-engaging candidate doomed us to four years of rule by a man whose Masters' thesis focused on the threat posed by working women. So this is partly self-serving, an appeal to forgiveness for failing to keep Virginia blue. But it's also an explanation and a call for action; as long as Democrats have a false "electability test" in our primaries--which favors sub-par candidates who appear marketable--we will continually be disappointed.

This "electability test" was apparent in the 2009 Virginia primary. The other Democratic candidates for Governor were Brian Moran and Terry McAuliffe. Moran was a long-time member of the Virginia House of Delegates; he had ties in populous Northern Virginia and received numerous endorsements from the State Democratic Party. McAuliffe, in turn, was Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign manager and former Democratic National Committee chair. The primary reason Moran failed to gain the nomination was due to the perception that he was "too liberal" for a statewide race. Similarly, McAuliffe was rejected for his ties to the national Democratic Party.

Deeds, in contrast, was seen as a safe bet. He is a moderate Democrat with a Southern twang, who would be seen as authentic by Virginia voters outside of the blue island of Northern Virginia. The apparent electability of Deeds led many observers, such as Stuart Rothenberg, to declare Virginia Democrats' choice a smart one.

The wisdom (or lack thereof) of this choice soon became apparent. Deeds struggled with his campaign throughout the summer, failing to connect with voters. He attempted to distance himself from President Obama, going so far as to blame the national party's "agenda" for his campaign struggles. Moreover, his campaign focused on attacking McDonnell's Masters' thesis, the negative tone of which proved counterproductive. This culminated in a Washington Post story in late October, which reported that the White House had become frustrated with Deeds' flawed strategy and refusal to accept campaign advice. It came as little surprise, then, when McDonnell handily beat Deeds.

This "electability test" is a common feature of Democratic primaries, and has a damaging effect on political discourse and ultimate electoral success. A focus on how electable a candidate may be substitutes shallow metrics of marketability for genuine political skill. While occasionally a politician comes along who is both "authentic" and a formidable campaigner (Bill Clinton comes to mind), the former does not necessarily imply the latter. Moreover, the "electability test" distracts Democrats from debating the issues and formulating progressive solutions to the nation's problems. Instead of choosing the candidate who best represents Democratic ideals, values and policy stances become tangential to the marketing strategy.

It is useful to compare this to the 2008 Presidential primary. Some questions arose concerning Obama's appeal beyond the Democratic base. These electability questions, though, ultimately proved secondary to substantive political issues. This allowed for a useful debate among Democrats over the proper course for the party, massive turnout among Democratic voters and an eventual stunning victory.

This criticism of the "electability test" should not be confused with a call for an ideological litmus test, however. The problem with the Virginia primary was not that Democrats nominated a moderate Democrat. One of the reasons the Democratic Party has done so well in the past few elections is its embrace of ideological diversity, making room for moderate candidates who will attract independents and dissatisfied Republicans. The problem is that Virginia Democrats nominated Deeds not because of the power of his ideals, but his presumed electoral appeal.

Democrats should want to appeal to independents and rural voters. But this cannot be accomplished by sacrificing progressive values for the sake of a seemingly marketable candidate. More importantly, it cannot occur through the selection of candidates on the basis of whether or not they seem likely to win in the general election. The "electability test" is supposed to uncover the "authentic" candidate, one who will connect with voters. Unfortunately, authenticity is inextricably tied to the other two aspects of electoral appeal, political skill and conviction. Primary voters should focus on all three of these, not just the first. Until Democrats jettison the "electability test" in their primaries, we will awake to future mornings as sad as Wednesday, November 4, 2009.

 

Follow Peter Henne on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pehenne

Comments

[emncaity]

There is more wisdom in this article for the Democratic Party than in the last ten books written on why they lose more elections than they should, when people poll overwhelmingly in favor of Democratic policies issue by issue.

The fault also lies with an electorate that is too swayed by irrational marketing appeals and impulses--the crowd that would rather vote for a fake like Bush than a true war hero like Kerry, because they "didn't like" Kerry but Bush seemed like a guy you could have a beer with. And also, the crowd that came out and voted for Obama but not for Kerry, when their stated policies were essentially identical, and when Kerry had shown more of a populist bent than Obama had.

[BlackJAC]

You'd be surprised at how unelectable previous Presidents are by today's standards: Washington and Eisenhower are both John Kerry clones, Teddy Roosevelt was the love child of Howard Dean and Ross Perot, Lincoln was a politicall­y-inexperi­enced trial lawyer, FDR was a raging elitist, Ben Franklin was a Bill Clinton-class horndog even though he didn't run for office, and even when you take Sally Hemmings out of the equation Jefferson was a Koran-owning hater of both Christianity and private banks and his pro-gun stance would never negate that.

[Nuyorican21]

Interestingly enough, Jefferson hated the party system because it fudged over the credentials of individuals. In fact, many of the Founding Fathers agreed with him, including Washington. Also, the elections of many of those examples came before women's sufferage and then substantial African-American vote. Personally, I like to blame the party system in general, and close along with it in the back seat, for-profit media and campaign financing.

[rancone]

This election cycle - especially the VA election is a referendum on Tim Kaine DNC Chairperson - and he failed big.
Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine has been chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to head the DNC.

A top Democrat familiar with the move said Kaine first indicated that he was not interested, but then decided to take the post when Obama personally intervened.

Well in hindsight he has displayed insufficient interest to do what has to be done to win elections - most embarrassingly in his home state.

The pick was a bet that an energetic younger leader will help the party capitalize on the historic enthusiasm that swept Obama to his landslide win. A bet that has been lost - don't pick up your marbles, just go home.
__________­__________­_________

[JoanE]

Obama won Presidential votes from Republicans and independentseven in states like VA because the people wanted, and still want, the changes he campaigned on. Why should anyone bother to come out for a supposedly electable candidate who is against those changes? It's truly self-defeating to pick feckless Blue Dogs as Democratic candidates, They don't win votes, they lose them, And when they do get elected, they water down or block the change the public wants. So then what happens? Democrats can't produce wortthwhile change because of them, and Republicans win seats next time, Great plan.

[SheenaVa]

All true. Once the Dems prove that they can deliver whats promised, they'll be able to bring the voters to the polls. Deeds didn't support huge parts of Obama's agenda, so the progressives stayed home.

[BLBass]

I agree on the big picture, especially that the word "electability" becomes ubiquitous right about the time of every Democratic primary, but not that McAuliffe was rejected for superficial reasons. His ties to the DLC and the big fundraising apparatus helped him make a primary push but they would have been a huge liability in the general this year -- look how well Jon Corzine's (Goldman) millions helped him. We just experienced a very anti-business election, but it was small enough in this odd-year that it probably won't be interpreted that way. I'm fairly progressive and I don't think McAuliffe is a particularly good candidate to begin with, but his electability problems are very real.