Sirotablog
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
-
March 9, 2008 1:45 PM
The False Assumptions In the "Electability" Arguments
It seems the longer the presidential nominating contest goes on between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the more idiotic the pontificating and candidate spinning - especially when it comes to the so-called "electability" argument.
The Clinton campaign, as exemplified by surrogate Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) this morning on Meet the Press when he said:
"She's clearly the strongest candidate in the states that Democrats must win to have a chance. Look, it's great that Barack Obama is doing wonderfully well in Wyoming and Utah and, and places like that, but there's no chance we're going to carry those states. Whether he gets 44 percent as opposed to 39 percent doesn't matter, but we're not going to carry those states. We do have a chance to carry the big four. We've got to in three of the big four. Hillary Clinton's the strongest candidate to do that. That's been proven by the voters in the--those states and hopefully by Pennsylvania as well."
Let's put aside the fact that the Clinton campaign is insulting the importance of a huge swath of the American heartland - a talking point that has been repeated throughout this campaign by Clinton surrogates. Let's just take a look at the two questionable assumptions inherent in this "electability" claim.
Assumption 1: The Map Can Never Dramatically Change
The first assumption relates to the topography of the national electoral map. In talking about states that are "significant" and "insignificant" based on how they voted in previous elections, the Clinton campaign is assuming the basic map of the last 16 years automatically has to stay the same, and that there cannot be a map-changing candidate. This argument comes despite periodic elections in our history that have seen such shifts. For example, take a look at this animated image derived from Wikipedia's maps - it shows how the national political map changed between the 1976 election and the 1980 election (note - on the maps, Dems are blue and Republicans are red):
Yes, those parts flashing between red and blue are the regions of the country that shifted in just one election cycle. Perhaps even more relevant to the Clinton argument today is the map change between 1988 and 1992 - the year that one Bill Clinton benefited from a major map change:
So, in other words, Hillary Clinton - the person who became First Lady because of a major map change - is nonetheless arguing the map can never change, and her campaign is making such an argument at the very moment one of history's most unpopular president is atop the Republican Party. The logic is positively ridiculous.
Assumption 2: Primary and Caucus Victories Directly Relate to General-Election Viability
The other assumption in the Clinton campaign's "electability" argument is that that because Clinton is winning Democratic primaries in big Democratic states like California, New York and New Jersey and other big states like Ohio, it means that she is the best candidate to win those states in the general election.
This rationale makes positively no sense at all, because it suggests that Obama in a general would do worse than Clinton in already Democratic states - and there's no proof of that. Winning a Democratic primary among Democratic voters says almost nothing about the candidates' abilities to win general elections as we unfortunately saw in the Connecticut Senate race in 2006.
In fact, looking at what evidence we do have - general election matchup polls - we see that Obama would be a stronger general election candidate than Clinton, racking up more electoral college votes than Clinton. Though the polls show Obama losing Florida, New Jersey and Arkansas where Clinton would win, it shows Obama winning Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota and Michigan where Clinton would lose (the latter of which the Clinton campaign continues to hilariously insist it "won" in the primary, despite no other major candidate being on the Michigan ballot).
The differences, of course, go back to the underlying argument about maps. Right now, polls show Obama picks up electoral votes in states that the Clinton surrogates say "don't matter [because] we're not going to carry those states." And what's particularly absurd about the Clinton campaign making this argument is that former President Bill Clinton is insisting that in a general election Hillary Clinton can win back "the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president." In other words, the Clinton campaign is arguing that the map has to remain the same as it has been for two decades - with the same states in play and not in play - at the same time they argue that Hillary Clinton is the candidate who can win back Reagan Democrats that created that map in the first place.
I never thought I'd see the day when someone could say with a straight face that Hillary Clinton was the Democrats' best candidate to win back the Reagan Democrats alienated from the Democratic Party by, among other things, a job-killing lobbyist-written trade policy that Hillary Clinton championed for a decade. It's just a ridiculous assertion on its face - and it's even more ridiculous when you look at what evidence we have, which is current public opinion polls.
More generally, the attempt to cite the geography of primary wins as proof of general election viability is straight-up silly. And yet, the whole meme has bled into almost every analysis of what is going on in the race. As I said to start, the longer the presidential nominating contest goes on between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the more idiotic the pontificating and candidate spinning.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
About David Sirota
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Hostile Takeover. He lives in Denver, Colorado. His daily blog can be found at CREDO Action. He contributes regularly to the Denver Post's Web site, is a senior editor at In These Times magazine and is working on his second book. He has been profiled in Newsweek and the Rocky Mountain News and is widely known for his reporting on political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties. Sirota serves as co-chair of the Progressive States Network, a 501(c)3 organization that supports state legislators and that is a partner of CREDO.
You can subscribe to Sirota's e-mail newsletter by going to davidsirota.com and signing up in the lefthand corner. To find out more about Sirota, download his official biography or see his recent media appearances. You can e-mail him at sirota@credoaction.com.
The views expressed on this blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of Working Assets (publisher of CREDO Action) or the institutions Sirota works for.
-
Recent Sirotablog entries
- The Real Center vs. the Fake Center
- The View From the Grassy Knoll
- NYT's Egan Discovers The Race Chasm - Then Seems to Justify It
- Lou Dobbs & the Double-Edged Sword of Populism
- GOP Brags That McCain Will Continue Bush's Economic Legacy
- Paterson makes great move on food stamps in NY
- The Homogenization of American Politics
- Getting Rolled Is A Wake-Up Call For Progressives
- More on McCain and right wing health care "reform"
- McCain's latest great idea: throw more money at a broken system
-
More David Sirota
-
This Modern World
-
July 15, 2008 -
July 8, 2008 -
July 1, 2008 -
June 24, 2008 -
June 17, 2008
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
david,
the first thing you might want to change is that the colors red and blue are not showing the expected thing on the 1976 map. red is republican in 1980, but it's democratic in 1976...
that was a quick fix!
Opinion polls showed Kerry winning before Nov and he still lost. They are pretty much useless when the electorate can be swayed by the right attack ads as in the case of the Swiftboaters.
And BTW McCain is getting ready for some dirty politics as he has hired Bo Harmon - the man put Max Cleland out of a job. If you think the fights between Obama and Hillary are bad, wait until McCain unleashes Harmon on the winner.
The fact is this campaign is looking to be a replay of 2004 replete with another Democratic centrist with liberal social issues trappings.
My money is on McCain pulling off a upset. Because every time the Democrats run a centrist they lose.
MS is a complete joke even if it's finally in play. I can't stand the way black voters go on television especially Faux News and let the media dictate that they're voting for Obama just because he's black. Ask them questions about experience and they stand mum until the anchor man/woman speaks for them. All they had to say was something like this "Well, look at all the presidents and candidates who had lots of years of 'experience'. That didn't translate into helping the country where it fucking counted !!!" Sometimes I wonder if folks like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, etc ... are full time racists allowing the corporate media to play the RACE-BAITING card?
Speaking of Mccain, most people out here are ready to vote for Mccain even if he ain't Konservative enough.
Speaking of putting a centrist candidate, even Mondale and Dukakis were centrists back in the 1980s though not quite as centrist as Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, and now Obama and Hillary. I would love to see Ralph Nader EATING into the blue states and even putting strong ones into play.
Did you know that Hubert Humphrey actually won the popular vote in the 1972 Democratic Primary but that George Mcgovern finally got the delegates needed to clinch the nomination? The only way Democrats will stop relying on the same old states and actually start going 50 is to FORCE them to lose all 50 states this year and in 2012 !! Then they'll be so FUCKING LOST that they'll be forced to PAY ATTENTION to all states and stop writing us rural and even some urban voters off ! Besides, for the past 7 years, well make that 30, the Democrats have kept giving the GOP nearly everything they wanted. FUCK, they can't even unite on the social issues. To hell with Gene Taylor and Bennie Thompson ! And I look forward to voting against Ronnie Musgrave AGAIN even as the same weasel who was RECALLED in 2003 is trying to run for Senate again as a centrist !
Please forgive me for my uncontrolled anger but the Democratic Party is driving me too fucking crazy. How many voters will keep having to quote RAYGUN on "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me" before the party finally actually gets it?
spankinrankin wrote:
You cannot be serious! According to you, Jesse, Al & Barack are "full time racists" because of the way the media frames the support of "black voters" and because the "black voters" themselves aren't outspoken enough, for your taste, about why they support Barack O.
Then, you actually typed Barack's middle name in all capitol letters to emphasize what? Your own bigoted feelings about his ethnic background, I'm sure.
lsome,
I am angry at Obama for governing as a centrist once he made it to the Senate. There was no reason to do so but he did. There are black politicians such as Barbara Jordan who I actually think are a hell of a lot better than the current centrist puppets such as Obama and Artur Davis. In any case, Obama isn't much different from Mccain on most non-social issues that actually matter.
It would behoove the superdelegates that remain uncommitted, as well as the hacks of the Democratic Party, to keep in mind the strong negatives assigned to Senator Clinton. I, for one, would never vote for Hillary. Lest anyone think I am alone in this, I would have to say that I would use up all fingers and toes and more to list the others (mostly women, not all) I know who feel the same. Hillary carries a very visceral negative with us (as does Bill). To discount that is close to committing suicide for the party. If anyone things that Gore lost because of Nader, then they better think long and hard about Hillary losing because of Bill and Hillary. I really do not like either of them one whit, and much less so in the past week to 10 days. Frankly, she disgusts me.
"Did you know that Hubert Humphrey actually won the popular vote in the 1972 Democratic Primary but that George Mcgovern finally got the delegates needed to clinch the nomination?"
_________________
That is absolutely correct. In fact McGovern barely edged out Wallace for 2nd place.
Regards,
By the way, here's where I got the results on HH vs GM in 1972.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_1972
I will never, ever, ever vote for a Clinton for anything.
Not even George.
3rdoption,
Neither Obama nor Clinton have anything for you or me. If you want real substance, give Nader a try.
Join the Discussion