A while ago, there was a discussion of which candidate was deemed most "electable." Many discussants here tended to suggest that Obama would be the most electable candidate. Indeed, today's news about his massive contributions and the sheer numbers of donors seem to confirm that optimism for Obama.
Yet, despite the fact that I am learning toward him, I have serious concerns about relying on Useless constructs such as "electability," which provide us little real evidence for whether he should be president. I'd even argue that, no matter whom you support for president, the worst reason you can give for why is "electability."
Electability is a useless predictor of leadership effectiveness and suggestive of someone's gaming the electoral process instead of selecting the best candidate. Of course, our sense of whether an candidate can win (is electable) enters into our mental calculations. Winning elections after all is the point. However, we don't want to wake up the day after election 2008 and think we didn't win much.
What I lament is not the use of electability as but one of a number of reasons for selecting a candidate. Rather, I call for the end of its use as the primary, or only, reason. Many a hapless voter relied upon "electability" in 2004 -- and we know how that turned out! When one's reason is so flimsy, all it takes is for a "Swift Boat" attack for voters to shift their focus to another candidate. More often than not, "electability" permits manipulation of our vote by the media and talking heads.
Who's electable is a moving target through the election cycle. And the construct remains so even closer to primary day. Instead of playing odds maker (and looking to go with a "winner"), think of our task as a workplace selection process. Professionals in selection caution against flimsy, vague measures. If we were having to select candidates at work, would we rely upon such nonsense? We wouldn't. Indeed, HR law requires us to do otherwise. So, why, when we make the most important selection we ever make, do we rely on snake oil?
Instead, we should evaluate candidates' track records, voting histories, knowledge of the issues, cumulative resumes, proposals for the future and their correspondence with our views, diplomatic behavior, consensus building, and even the degree to which they behave in an authoritarian manner. Of course, in a republic, we'd want someone low on measures of authoritarian tendencies. We should also consider whether there is too much for potential conflict of interest with individual candidates. [For example, does the fact that Hillary Clinton has the most donations from the health care industry, mean she might provide useless incrementalism and tepid support for meaningful change?]
The above list of considerations is not a complete list pf consideration, but you get the idea. I'll write in more detail about selection issues later in the coming months. This is the most important decision citizens make and it shouldn't be made via seat-of-the-pants or empty predictors. Unfortunately, things such as flawed decision heuristics, "halo," liking, and the extent the candidate is "like me" are typically used. These processes and variables do enough damage. But just about the worst thing we can do is fall for "electability" --AGAIN. And the last two entities which should drive our judgment as to who should win or is "electable" are the GOP (including it's talking head mouthpieces) and the so-called mainstream media (MSM). Those two (along with supporters of specific candidates) are the main sources for the current framing of "electability" of our candidates. Should we fall for it again, using "electability," to select our primary choice is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophesy, which could indeed lead us to gut-wrenching defeat once again. No matter how hard we try, we are all armchair psychologists when it comes to matters of perceiving, evaluating, selecting candidates. But we can make improvements in our decision processes. Let's lead the way and encourage voters to make up their minds based on the record. And if we do so, not only will a Democrat, but also the best person for the job, win in 2008.
I disagree that it was persons concerned with "elect ability" that gave us John Kerry. It was those who assumed that the American people would apply the same logic to the process and use the same reasoned approach that is advocated above. There is absolutely no hope that the voting populace as a whole will apply the same depth of reasoning. The idiotic reasons some people use to determine who they want to vote for is astounding.
This is why I think that electability is not an empty construct. I do believe, as the author here does, that it should not be the only reason that someone supports or labors for a candidate. But this cycle, and this cycle in particular, I believe that electability should be the largest determinant of our support.
WE CAN NOT LOSE THIS ELECTION. If we do, we are totally and irrevocably screwed. It may be too late already.
We all want to pursue our ideal candidate, or the one who most accurately follows our orthodoxy. But this is the real world and the other side won't play by the rules. We must win.
So I humbly suggest that we all quit deluding ourselves about the current crop of candidates we have. So what if some have raised a ton of money. All that means is that some of them are already selling us out to big business.
Look at every single national poll. Look at who beats all the GOP nominees with the most consistency. This is our person. If there is a chance that someone cannot beat any of the people sitting on the other side then they must receive an extraordinary amount of skepticism.
We must do what we can to make sure that the person most likely to beat the GOP is the nominee.
Again, I hope that this does not offend the author. I still believe that she is one of the best posters anywhere. I just felt that this particular post needed a bit of rebuttal.
"What I lament is not the use of electability as but one of a number of reasons for selecting a candidate. Rather, I call for the end of its use as the primary, or only, reason."
(Not one of my better sentences, BTW) I'm not naive. And I am an "old-timer" (not born yesterday, both really and figuratively).
Of course, we want someone who can win. I'm hoping to diminish the hurtful aspects of self-fulfilling prophesy.
And, as I indicated, we will always use "rules of thumb" and other shortcuts to perceiving and making decisions. That's what humans do. But we can at least try not to let our fears and natural irrationality completely overtake us. It's that huge block of voters alluded to in a post below that I worry about, the voters who only care about winning and don't care what the candidate stands for or if hsi or her victory actually means anything in the end.
Sure, I'd rather have a Democrat (any Democrat) in office than a Republican. But we aren't being honest if we don't think it matters which Democrat. There are differences and it does matter.
From the Christian Science Monitor, January 2004:
An 'Electable' CandidateThe latest Newsweek poll finds 78 percent of voters feel Mr. Bush will be reelected. But while about half of Democratic voters would support a candidate who reflects their own views, 39 percent want someone who can simply take back the White House.
Such calculated strategic voting is driven by an anger and dislike of Bush - for the 2000 election anomaly and his actions, such as the Iraq war. Many candidates are focusing on their ability to win rather than how they would govern. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark even held an "electability rally."
But elections are diminished when voters don't choose a candidate who best represents them, putting pragmatism ahead of principles. If every voter simply tried to figure out what other voters want in a president, who would be the authentic voter?
In 2006 I recall many Virginia Democrats agonized over the primary choice between Miller and Webb. The question most often asked : Should I support a "real" Democrat with a Democratic track record..or should I support a "re-formed" Republican, now a Democrat, who appeals to a wider and more conservative voter base.
In 2007, Speaker Howell offered up a Republican candidate (Stuart) whom he believes is a more "palatable"(moderate)choice for the VA 28th Senate District voters. Stuart edged out the 3 "anti-tax" conservatives and won the primary. He will go up against Democrat Albert Pollard. It is THE race to watch.
Also to consider:
Marketable vs Electable:
from the Marketing guru Seth Godin
[http://sethgodin.typ...]
Electable vs. MarketableIt's easy to get the two confused, but if you do, you'll probably regret it.
To be marketable, you must be remarkable. Marketing isn't about getting more than 50% market share, it's about spreading your idea to enough people to be glad you did it..
...Obviously, there are people who are quite passionate. And the media loves to feature politicians that generate passion on the cover of magazines. The challenge isn't coming up with a remarkable story... the challenge for a politician is ensuring that the story is both authentic and appealing enough to spread to the majority.
Electability is important if you want to win elections. Look forward to the future discussions.
I would agree that "electability" should never be the overriding consideration during a primary. However, it strikes me as necessary consideration--and a useful tie-breaker.
In the HR scenario, imagine that there was a third decision maker who chose between two candidates who were chosen by two HR directors with widely divergent views and criteria. If that was the case I suspect the HR director might take the third person's viewpoint and preferences into consideration during the selection process. The third person's viewpoint might not be the overriding factor, but it would certainly be a consideration.
In an even more extreme situation where the two HR director's jobs hinged on the selection, I suspect extreme deference would be given to the third person's viewpoint. Our current electoral system may not be that extreme for most Americans, but I would say that it is probably closer to this situation than the more streamlined and ordered approach that we find in most HR settings.
In 2004 I think the "electability" equation was simply way off the mark. To the extent that people thought John Kerry was the best choice because he was the most "electable" those folks were simply mistaken. I actually liked Kerry as a candidate, but I can think of at least one other candidate in 2004 who would have matched up more competitively with the "W"orst. The problem was with the application of the criteria, not with the criteria itself.
As far as it relates to the 2008 field, I think the top three Democratic front-runners can all run competitively and potentially win. I also think that we shouldn't run away from unpleasant truths. The unpleasant truth as far as the Democratic field goes is that Hilary Clinton faces some serious difficulties in a general election in terms of negative attitudes towards her. I don't think that this should be seen as a reason for not supporting her, but I do think it's a factor that is relevant and needs to be addressed during the primary season. What can she do to reach out to independents? What can she do to turn negative perceptions in her favor? Even if she is unable to turn negative perceptions in her favor, can she still win in a general election?
These may be unpleasant questions, but in my view these are still legitimate secondary questions.