Whether you reside on the left or middle end of the political spectrum, the fashionable way for Democrats to discuss politics these days is to assert that your preferred candidate is the most “electable.” Furthermore, you must posit that anyone who dares to disagree with your electability theory is guilty of the unforgivable sin of supporting ideological purity over removing the most corrupt, bigoted, and incompetent President in history. “If Trump wins, it’s your fault!”
Why the obsession with electability? In part, voters who are exposed to massive amounts of punditry on 24/7 cable news outlets and social media are aping those pundits. Beyond that, “electability” has become the Democrats’ go-to argument because to argue otherwise opens you to being labeled an impractical ideologue indifferent about removing Trump.
But the electability discussion is a massive waste of time and energy. Ten months away from the election in a highly unpredictable environment, being able to divine electability is impossible. Electability is unknowable. Not difficult to know. Unknowable. Gauging who is most likely to beat Trump is akin to gauging a Rorschach ink blot, where we see what we want to see, not the one and only truth.
After all, ten months before the election, how many of the pundits, whether in the mainstream media or your social media feed, were correct about the election victories of Paul Wellstone, Jesse Ventura, Donald Trump, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, or an extremely inexperienced black guy with the middle name Hussein? In all of those cases, the same group of pundits were doing what they are doing now, branding supporters of those candidates unrealistic naifs for not seeing that the winner was sure to be Rudy Boschwitz, Skip Humphrey, Norm Coleman, Jeb Bush, Joe Crowley, and Hillary Clinton.
But getting it wrong so many times doesn’t seem to make either professional or amateur pundits any less confident in their seer skills. Moderate pundits like James Carville, Jonathan Chait, Thomas Friedman, and George Will are once again loudly warning that a progressive nominee will force moderates to vote for Trump against their will, and therefore are unelectable.
Similarly, progressive pundits are warning that a moderate candidate will surely force people of color and young people to stay home or vote for a leftist third party, and therefore are unelectable.
Both sides are correct about the electoral disadvantages they flag. But they also undervalue the advantages of each candidate, and are self-delusional in believing that they know precisely how each candidates’ advantages and disadvantages would net out against Trump on November 3. None of us can know that, but the three words you will never hear coming from an amateur or professional pundit’s mouth are “I don’t know.”
This electability bickering is not only a waste of time, it also carries a high opportunity cost. After all, every moment progressives are yammering about electability speculation is a moment that voters aren’t hearing compelling arguments in favor of progressive proposals and achievements and critical of conservative proposals and transgressions. That’s a big problem.
Rather than continue this self-indulgent electability parlor game, my suggestion to Democrats is to do two things: First, vote for who you would most like to see be your President, period. Stop staring at the electability ink blot pretending that you can see the one correct answer. Stop with the electability guessing game, because it’s a fool’s errand, polarizing, and off-message.
Second, if your first choice isn’t the nominee — highly likely in a field of 24 candidates, by the way–support the Democratic nominee without throwing a tantrum because your electability guesswork didn’t get embraced by your fellow Democrats.
I supported the dearly departed Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, so I’m already resigned to the fact that I probably won’t fall in love with the nominee. But to paraphrase the great Stephen Stills, if I can’t be with the one I love, honey, I’ll love the one I’m with. With the daunting Trump threat hanging over the nation, we Democrats need to do what Republicans do, fall in line even when we don’t fall in love.
I really like what you are asking us to do, and I agree w/ your thinking. I think we underestimate Democrats’ wish to have Trump out of office if voters don’t get their candidate of choice.
Thanks Mary.
100% in agreement! I wish this column would be required reading before anyone votes or caucuses in New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina ,etc., and be prominently featured on each Democratic candidate’s campaign website and social media pages.
The one that is especially difficult for me to take is the ranting of Clintoninte James Carville. His last two picks were Michael Bennett, who put everyone to sleep and couldn’t build any kind of organization, and Hillary Clinton, who was far from a perfect candidate, and he acts as if he is the only person on the planet who is qualified to have an opinion about the next President.
What do you think of the analysis and predictions made by Rachel Bitecofer in Politico magazine? I won’t try to summarize her thoughts other than she thinks turnout rather than swing voters are the key.
Will read, thanks for the suggestion. I agree that turnout matters a lot, not just swing voters, but it would be better if it weren’t an either/or proposition. To your point, 4.4 million 2012 Obama voters — more than one-third black — stayed home in 2016 rather than vote for Hillary Clinton, the candidate moderates assured us was the most electable because she would appeal the most to moderate swing voters.
“Second, if your first choice isn’t the nominee — highly likely in a field of 24 candidates, by the way–support the Democratic nominee without throwing a tantrum because your electability guesswork didn’t get embraced by your fellow Democrats.”
Yes, of course, this is common sense, but many of us do need to be reminded.
It’s getting bad right now. Hillary and Biden not committing to support Sanders, Sanders supporters slipping back into “Bernie or Bust” talk, and supporters of non-billionaire candidates saying they would never support billionaire candidates, the Carvilles of the world ranting about the party losing its mind for considering people like Warren and Sanders, among other hardening stances.
Great examples Joe of past races and how difficult it is to pick a winning candidate early in the fray. Electability is next to impossible to predict. You know that Biden and Bloomberg will be beating that drum loudly in the coming months but ultimately the voters will decide who they believe will make our best new President.
Agree about moderates being one-sided with the electability argument, Rob. But I also wish progressives like Sanders and Warren would work harder at appealing to the middle, such as by pointing out that things like Medicare-for-All are in line with the FDR and Truman roots of the party.
Yes, exactly. And by not letting the “socialism” label define them. Of course everyone knows what socialism is, right? One of those words that everyone interprets according to their own beliefs. If access to healthcare, housing, food, and education is socialism, then I am on board.
Fair enough, Joe. But remember this: If your top priority isn’t beating Trump, then it doesn’t matter what your top priority is.
Agree. If I knew right now which candidate was the best equipped to beat Trump in November, they would absolutely be my candidate. No question. But unfortunately, I don’t know, and I can’t know.
To put a name to it, the Democratic faction I worry most about are the so-called “Bernie bros”. This is the sub-set most likely to calve off (again) in a fury of self-righteousness and throw their energy to the next in a line of “independent” third party “pure virtue” candidates. I can’t say if this is the same sub-set of Bernie’s crowd that was torn between either him or Trump in ’16, but they have a zealot-like commitment to their highly idiosyncratic view of what is right and what kind of “revolution” is required. I certainly don’t see them rolling into the fold supporting a “centrist” nominee.
I strongly agree. This is the part of the electability debate that moderate nags like Carville, Will, Chait, et al don’t want to think about or acknowledge, but is very real.
AMEN!!!!
Another case study about how difficult it is to project electability: When people first were pining for Hillary Clinton to run, Gallup had found that Americans considered her their “most admired woman” 17 years in a row. Then Hillary entered the political fray and, thanks to the GOP reputation-destruction machinery, became a polarizing figure with sky-high disapproval ratings.
Many think Michelle Obama, the current “most admired woman,” is the most electable Democrat. But if she ran, something very similar would happen to her…perhaps even worse, because it would get extra fuel from racism.
The point: Premature electability speculation is pointless because the campaign blenders change everything in highly unpredictable ways.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245669/michelle-obama-ends-hillary-clinton-run-admired.aspx