|
Edited on Tue Nov-27-07 02:35 PM by Tom Rinaldo
First the disclaimers. We are in the realm of subjectivity here, which is highly vulnerable to the art of "spin". It's not like looking at candidate position papers and voting records, it is guessing how voters will react to a person, their positions, their image, and overall how well they campaign. And electability is not the end all criteria for selecting a candidate either. Reagan was more "electable" than Mondale in 1984, which wasn't a good reason for me to support Reagan. Or more to the point; I would be much happier seeing Al Gore narrowly elected President of the United States than seeing Evan Bayh coast to that same victory. But there is something about avoiding losing the Presidency to yet another reactionary Republican which is compelling. Slippery as it is to get a handle on, electability is an important concept and merits some consideration when choosing a candidate to support.
My second basic disclaimer is this. Any Democrat who can master the political skills necessary to win the Democratic nomination has at least some chance to be elected President of the United States when the race boils down to them vs the Republican candidate, and possibly one or two major Independents. An unpopular Democrat can defeat an even more unpopular Republican; a controversial Democrat can defeat an even more controversial Republican, etc.
Here is how I rate our candidates on an overall scale of electability; from most to least. I fully realize this will be controversial, and how any of us rank our candidates will somewhat depend on how much weight we give to different variables. I also believe that our strongest potential candidates were men who decided not to run:
1)Biden
2)Clinton
3)Richardson
4)Obama
5)Edwards
6)Dodd
7)Kucinich
8)Gravel
Ideologically I personally tend to have more in common with the Democrats who fall lower rather than higher on this list. But in my mind it isn't the left of center ideology of those who I ranked relatively poorly that is the predominant reason for their not being more electable than I consider them to be. I think the candidates of the Left this time around all have individual liabilities that weaken them, liabilities which have relatively little to do with their articulated ideology.
Positions on issues are obviously important, but they are most important to a relatively small minority of voters who are either policy wonks or passionate near or total single issue voters. Many voters start out using Party labels for their initial screens. There are initial guiding presumptions made about those who run under the Democratic "Brand", and those who run under the Republican "Brand". Simply winning the nomination of one of the two major Parties is most (though far from all) of the battle for votes. Then some semi intangibles come into play that make one or another Democratic candidate more or less electable than another that don't always have a whole lot to do with literal ideology.
It is precisely because many of these are so difficult to categorize that they are so subjective and difficult to discuss and evaluate. They include many of the slippery words we see get thrown around like; charisma, stature, vitality, gravitas, and "seeming presidential"; plus variables like poise, passion, intelligence and experience. Plus there is always the matter of the quality of the campaign team that a candidate manages to assemble behind him or her. Here are a few of my observations about our potential candidates in regards to the General Election:
Joe Biden. He increasingly is looking like a grayback in the Democratic Party; that is a seasoned weathered leader who knows what he is talking about and is never in over his head. No one seriously questions Biden's experience or intrinsic qualifications for the job. He is not closely identified with any ideological pole of our Party, which might sap him of some potential support in the primaries but would make him at least minimally acceptable to a wide range of Democrats and likely other voters as well. He has some identified past baggage but nothing so heavy as to make him limp. The surprise upside for Biden's campaign this year has been his nimble use of self humor, while at the same time sharply and even concisely making important points on matters of substance and importance. He is manifesting flair which would compliment his gravitas. If he could get past the Democratic primaries I think Biden would be a winner.
Hillary Clinton. She is a thoroughly political animal having been an unofficial co-pilot to Bill Clinton's entire political career, not just his time in the White House. She well understands both the game of politics and the practice of governance, and germain to the point it shows. None of our candidates come across as having greater poise and/or intelligence than Hillary Clinton, who overall has remained remarkably cool under fire for over a decade. Her baggage is much heavier than Biden's, but she too carries it without limping. But more so than Biden, Hillary Clinton also plausibly gets to carry around a real trophy, intimate participation in a two term Democratic Presidential Administration that a strong majority of Americans undoubtedly would respond in the affirmative to if asked; "Were you better off under the last Democratic Administration than you are under the current Republican one?" Bill Clinton is a plus to Hillary in the primaries but an even bigger plus to her in the General Election, even factoring in "dynasty" criticism which I to a degree find valid. Overall I think Clinton being a woman is a net positive for her, but only because she has been battle tested and rated as "tough". Hillary Clinton does not have to be liked by all those who would vote for her over a Republican, just respected as highly competent, saner than the alternatives, and strong enough for the job. She also has a cracker jack campaign staff which is much more crucial than many are quick to acknowledge when it comes to securing a victory.
Bill Richardson. Somewhat of an electoral enigma, Richardson was always considered the top dark horse candidate in the announced field but he has consistently underperformed expectations of him. He has sufficient gravitas but has fallen flat on charisma. Still, if he somehow managed to win the Democratic nomination that in itself would generate a degree of excitement about him that would to an extent transform his image. Richardson has all the experience bases covered, and is our most well rounded candidate in that regard. Few would argue that he isn't well enough prepared to become President. Richardson is Latino but comes across "white enough" to not set off many racist bells against him. Richardson is also from a swing region of the nation, the South West, that Democrats hope to swing blue. Some rumors about personal baggage may or may not be a factor if he is our nominee, but Richardson can play both the Washington insider and outsider cards simultaneously, which is a neat trick to call on in a General Election.
Barack Obama. Few fail to see enormous potential in Barack Obama. He is obviously an up and coming leader who is clearly highly intelligent and well poised beyond his years. But it is that emphasis on potential and ability beyond his years that is a double edged sword for Obama. The question simply can not be avoided, even by those who conclude that the answer is "no"; is it too early for him to seek the Presidency? Obama has successfully won the mantle of "change candidate" in most voters eyes, with his racial background providing added emphasis to that identification. He has strong appeal to youth in particular, and obvious appeal to minorities. Overall Obama has replaced John Edwards as the "candidate of hope" this time around. Objectively though, his resume is relatively thin for a Presidential candidate. Obama can not compete with some of the others toe to toe on that criteria, he can only make the case that he has enough experience and good judgment to be a good Commander in Chief, which will continue to be subject to debate, and which Republicans (depending to an extent on who their nominee is) will continually seek to exploit. The combination of Barack Obama being African American, and having a relatively thin resume, poses a special potential risk for the General Election. Soft racism could hang its hat on Obama's youthful "inexperience", giving some voters who are still subliminally uncomfortable with electing a Black man President a socially more acceptable excuse to pass on him that someone like Colin Powell, for example, would not give them. There are many wild cards with Obama that can break either way.
John Edwards. John Edwards has consolidated his standing as the most consistently recognizable voice for America's economically disadvantaged in the current field of Democratic Candidates. He has a great deal of strong Union support for one telling example of that. Edwards has also made significant progress in winning over many anti-war voters who felt betrayed by his 2002 co-sponsorship of the IWR. He, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel, have become the Democratic candidates most willing to confront the established status quo in American politics. Like Barack Obama however, John Edwards also has to contend with a relatively thin political resume for seeking the Presidency of the United States, but in his case his past resume is often in conflict with the positions Edwards now takes on major issues facing America. I believe those inconsistencies will be a constant source of Republican attacks on Edwards if he wins the nomination, and there is too much ammunition provided by Edward's record in Congress to simply dismiss that type of charge as unfair political muckraking. There also has been a fair amount of political commentary this year that focuses on perceived major differences in the tone and substance of the 2004 and 2008 Edwards campaigns, which could further play into attacks on his consistency. Edwards is a skilled politician and he certainly is prepared to deal with that type of attack, but it will take up a fair amount of his energy to do so. Edwards clearly has some real charisma, but for whatever reason he did not make a strong impression for many as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate in 2004. He will need to kick it up a level or two if he wins the 2008 nomination.
Chris Dodd. Though arguably Dodd can present as strong a case on experience and competency as any of the Democratic candidates for President this year, unlike Joe Biden, Dodd hasn't gotten over the bar of "seeming Presidential" enough for enough voters this year in order to be competitive. Though, like Biden, the cards were always stacked against Dodd, Biden has consistently played his rigged hand more skillfully than has Dodd. Maybe it's just from having been a guest on Meet The Press about 900 times already, or maybe it's because he chairs a critically important Senate Committee, but Joe Biden has substantially prevailed over Chris Dodd in the race for dark horse candidate this year. I actually like Dodd a lot, and I can't put my finger exactly on what it is, but something seems to be lacking for him as a Presidential candidate and I have to assume that might still be lacking if he were to face the Republican candidate next year.
Dennis Kucinich. To most observers Kucinich is the candidate most clearly identified with the Left in the Democratic field this year, and it is always a double edged sword in American politics to be strongly identified with either political pole. It earns passion both for and against you. Perceived extremes make many voters uncomfortable, so any time a candidate is tagged as being far from the mushy middle they have to be able to sell their position skillfully to the public. The fact that Dennis Kucinich lags so far behind other Democratic candidates in fund raising, even among small donors, does not bode well for Kucinich. Neither does the fact that he was never considered a serious threat to even win his own State primary in Ohio in 2004. Whatever ails the Kucinich campaign, that kept anti-war activists from mostly consolidating around him in 2004 rather than around a then little known Governor from the small state of Vermont, seems to remain unsolved.
Mike Gravel. Gravel has never thrown himself fully into the race for the Democratic nomination and without that type of fire in the belly as pundits like to call it, one simply can not get elected President of the United States. If you can’t get past that hurdle it doesn’t matter what potential strengths a candidate may offer.
OK, that's my view. Like I said, most of this is subjective. I don't claim to be infallible or incapable of allowing personal biases to affect my view point, but that is my honest opinion. I tried to approach it the same way I would have if I were handicapping the electability of Republican candidates, none of whom I can stand.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
