Electability

While Clinton's campaign made some very public mistakes, her team did an excellent job positioning her, bouncing back from defeats, reinventing the candidate and broadening her base.

While Clinton's lost me on the character front, I still have issues with Obama in terms of overall electability come November 4th.

1964 was the last time a Democratic nominee for President carried majority of the white working class vote, measured by either income or education.

The word "electability" is another term for "voter racism." The Clinton camp keeps talking in code about Obama's race and then squeals in red-faced outrage when they're called on it.

The hand-wringing about whether Barack Obama is "electable" has reached the point of absurdity. The claim that Hillary Clinton's 9-point win over Oba...

She started with a lead of almost 20 points. But her final margin of 9.2% fell far short of what was needed to stop Obama's nomination. Here's why.

With a win in PA, Clinton's question to the superdelegates will be, "Are you better off with me or Obama against the Ruthless Republican Attack Machine." This Realisticrat already knows the answer.

Political scientist John B. Judis has a New Republic piece which seems to say that Obama surely cannot win the presidency against McCain -- especially after his San Francisco comments.

There are many reasons why Hillary's argument is fallacious, including the fact that Obama would put many marginal states into play that Hillary would have no chance to win.

In 2000 and 2004, there was quite a bit a criticism directed at Nader for attacking the Dem's nominee, and driving up their negatives. This time around, the wounds seem to be quite-self inflicted.

Hillary Clinton -- the person who became First Lady because of a major change in the electoral map -- is nonetheless arguing the map can never change,

On the other side of an exceptional month for Obama, one thing has become clear: the loss in New Hampshire proved ironically valuable.

Clearly, what we need, what the Democratic Party needs, are fewer silly amateur liberal activist voters and more sophisticated, professional, liberal activist superdelegates.

Will the Clintons decide to go negative? Will they insist on seating Florida and Michigan at the convention? Either one or both of those and they put democratic unity in peril.

Most of the time, electability is a parlor game for insiders, who shift from (irrelevant) past polling to the titillating speculation of (even less reliable) projection polling.

Hillary's "35 years of experience" is primarily in policy, not executive functions. That's a good role for a vice president.

If Hillary unifies the Republicans, loses independents, and loses the progressive left, her chances of winning the general election are slim indeed.

A growing share of Democratic voters say choosing the most electable candidate is more important than the issues...I think electability is a strategically flawed and morally vapid way to pick the next President.

Las Vegas, home to as many boxing matches as showgirls, may prove the perfect venue for the next-to-last in a series of bouts that have gotten bloodier.

Electability is a concept that makes many progressive voters uncomfortable, as it should. It usually means excruciating political compromise and it's so often for nothing.