NOVEMBER 5, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The latest Washington Post/ABC poll finds that Hillary has a 62-15-14 lead over Obama and Edwards among Democratic voters on the question of who has the best chance of being elected president. That's up from 57-16-20 in late September and 43-21-26 in June. It's worth pointing out, as the rival campaigns will tell you, that electability numbers often closely reflect a candidate's overall standing in the polls. But I think the two numbers interact in a somewhat less obvious way, too: If you're leading by a comfortable margin, there's less pressure on you to take positions that will excite your party's base, which preserves your centrist bona fides for the general election, and therefore helps make you more electable. If, on the other hand, you're trailing in the polls, you've got to take more risks, which often entail hugging your party's base, which makes it harder to compete in a general election. So it's not just that electability numbers coincide with overall poll-standing because voters use the latter as a proxy for the former (though I'm sure that's a big part of it). There is some way in which the latter actually causes the former.
--Noam Scheiber
4 comments
I don't buy it. The left wing thinks the dems' candidates would be MORE electable if they'd just be more aggressive for lefty positions. I think this one is much easier to understand. All we need is two words: Bill Clinton. People look at her and see him.
- ralphnelle
November 5, 2007 at 1:00pm
I used to think Hillary was electable. I really did. But then I read some of her recent press releases, campaign statements, and surrogate statements (Ferraro in particular). They've really changed my mind on HIllary's strength in a general election battle.
Now I'm convinced that Hillary is a spineless and weak. Her brittle bones are riddled with osteoperosis and she would be knocked over if a flea landed on her.
I mean - I didn't think that before, but her campaign convinced me she is not suited for the political arena, where one occasionally faces attacks. Her campaign's press release, "Men behave rudely towards fragile damsel" was very convincing.
- virginiacentrist
November 5, 2007 at 1:43pm
@virginiacentrist:
I'm the other way around. I used to think Hillary was unelectable. But she's proved to be a highly disciplined and formidable campaigner, organizer and fundraiser, her negatives are steady (ie, not increasing), she's crushing her opposition in all the primary contests so far, and recent polls have her edging out the likely GOP contenders (including Rudy) in the general. Will she win? Hell, I dunno. Iowa and NH are infamous for upsetting apple carts, and a political eternity yawns between now and November 08. But right now I think your charge that she's unelectable flies in the face of the (admittedly skimpy) information we have.
- sullydog
November 6, 2007 at 10:02am
Confusing cause with effect here, or something like that. Hillary's large lead may allow her to take less risks, but it doesn't follow that her lead is understood by the polled to allow her to take less risks. In other words, all these polls show is that Democratic voters think Hillary is more electable because they think she is more electable,
- spurious
November 6, 2007 at 6:51pm