Taking Evan Bayh Seriously (Well, Half-Seriously)

24.03.2008

I am grateful to Chris for the Tom Lehrer interlude. I also agree with Chris that, insofar as Evan Bayh's argument about electoral votes is a trial balloon from the Clinton campaign, it's both patently self-serving and ultimately self-defeating. Among other things, it's not clear that the candidate who wins a state's primary is actually more likely to win that state in the general election. Shortly after Clinton's big win in Ohio, for example, hypothetical general election matchups showed Obama doing just as well--apparently because, despite defections among blue-collar white voters, he still picked up some independents and Republicans. Arguments like these are one reason why the Clintons have such a hard time getting political traction even when they're right on principle.

Having said all that, I am not prepared to dismiss entirely the idea--floated on a few occasions by Clinton supporters--that she might be stronger in the states that matter most for the general election. If Obama's problems with Latino and blue collar whites persist, he might have a harder time than she would in Florida, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennyslvania -- all states where Pollster.com has Clinton running stronger right now. (Obama also seems to put New Jersey into play.)

That's a lot of electoral votes to cede. Even if you assume, as some Obama supporters do, that he'd run stronger in the Pacific Northwest and Mountain states, she'd come out ahead.

The huge, elephant-size caveat here is that predicting November matchups this far out is very hazardous business. The new Gallup poll suggests Obama has already made up much of the ground nationally that he lost becuase of the Reverend Wright controversy. And if Obama supporters decide to stay home on election day because they decide Clinton came upon the nomination illegitimately, I assume the poll numbers we're seeing now will look a lot worse for her.

So, as I've said many times, the best strategy is probably not to weigh electability much--if at all. (And that goes for the superdelegates, too.)

--Jonathan Cohn

Posted: Monday, March 24, 2008 5:34 PM with 3 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

adamvaught said:

Electoral votes, eh?

In 2000 the then First Lady said ""We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago. I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president."

www.cbsnews.com/.../main248645.shtml

March 24, 2008 1:30 PM

Rhubarbs said:

It cannot be stated loudly enough: Democrats should _never_ base candidate decisions on predictions of "electability." In particular, any Democrat who supported John Kerry in the 2004 primaries and now argues in favor of any candidate on the basis of "electability" should be shot. Well, not literally shot, but laughed out of the room and fired from any position of punditry. If you are a Democrat, and you are basing your decision among the candidates on a calculation of "electability," then you are almost certainly a fool. I don't say this from a high horse, either; I am extraordinarily skeptical of my own judgment on this particular point too. (So much so that I do not actually believe there is such a thing as a personal trait of "electability." The obverse negative personal trait of "unelectability" does exist, and can be shown to exist sufficiently to allow for testable predictions to be made among candidates, but I have never seen evidence that there is such a thing as a meaningful, comparable trait of "electability" in the positive sense.)

March 24, 2008 1:41 PM

roidubouloi said:

I agree with Rhubarbs. Elections are very unpredictable. But to the extent we can look to the history of the past 50 years it is that wonks lose to charismatic politicians fairly consistently, all the arguments about "experience," etc. somehow failing to persuade the voters.

I also feel more confident with a candidate with demonstrated political ability to a candidate with a demonstrated lack thereof. We don't know what is going to happen, but to face the unexpected give me the guy who just has the native talent every time. Give me the guy who can move a crowd. Give me the guy who can inspire people.

If either Hillary or Obama were stupid -- as I truly believe Bush is -- that might change the calculus for me. If either were not genuinely of the left (I do in fact have such doubts about Hillary although not about Obama) that would change the calculus too, but in this case it cuts in the same direction.

Poise, the skill to use advisers effectively, judgment, and a keen sense of what public opinion will or will not support is what it takes to be president. I could be an effective president in the managerial sense. But I would never have close to sufficient ability to manage opinion, of both the public and the political classes, effectively. The most charitable view that I can take of Hillary is that she suffers from the same deficit.

Withal, when the going gets tough politically, give me a Bill Clinton, a Ronald Reagan (if you are of that persuasion), or a Barack Obama any day. You can keep Kerry, Gore (as much as I admire him), Mondale, Carter -- and Hillary.

March 24, 2008 5:39 PM