Kerried Away: The myth and math of Kerry's electability

Slate ^ | 2.10.04 | William Saletan

[ambrose]

Kerried Away

The myth and math of Kerry's electability.

By William Saletan

Posted Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2004, at 9:41 PM PT

By media consensus, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is over. Why? Because John Kerry has won 12 of the 14 primaries and caucuses held so far. And why has Kerry won these contests? Not because voters agree with him on the issues. The reason, according to exit polls, is that voters think he's the candidate most likely to beat President Bush. There's just one problem: The same polls suggest this may not be true.

Two weeks ago, Kerry beat Howard Dean by 12 percentage points in the New Hampshire primary, convincing Democrats around the country that Kerry was their most electable candidate. How did Kerry win? By racking up a 4-to-1 advantage over Dean among voters who chose their candidate because "he can defeat George W. Bush in November." Among voters who chose their candidate because "he agrees with you on the major issues," Dean and Kerry were tied.

Let me say that again: Among voters who picked the candidate they wanted based on the issues, not the candidate they thought somebody else wanted, Kerry did not win the New Hampshire primary.

[ambrose]

Worth reading... basic thesis is that Edwards is doing best among the likely "swing" voters...

[mewzilla]

Kerry's been getting around 50% or less of the Dem primary vote. How are these big wins?

[dirtboy]

Saletan understands what should be obvious but isn't to many on the left and the right:

How well has Kerry done among these voters? In absolute terms, well enough. But in relative terms, the numbers show a disconcerting pattern. By and large, the closer you move to the center and center-right of the electorate, where the presidential race will probably be decided, the worse Kerry does. The opposite is true of Edwards...

If I were a Kerry believer, I'd make three arguments against this analysis. The first is that Kerry's higher score among liberals shows strength on the left rather than weakness in the center. But unless you think liberals wouldn't vote for Edwards against Bush, it's logical to assume that Edwards, as the nominee, would end up matching Kerry's strength on the left. Building support in the center is a lot harder...

Could I be wrong about all this? Sure. We pundits have been wrong before. Punditry is a dangerous game. But according to the exit polls, that's exactly the game Democratic voters have played in nominating Kerry. And if they're as shaky at it as we are, the price isn't just embarrassment. It's defeat.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Money bit, from the article:

All of which raises the $200 million question: Are these "can defeat Bush" voters correct? Is Kerry the most electable Democrat?

It's a hard question to answer, because most of the evidence is circular. If people support Kerry because they think he's electable, he goes up in the polls, which makes him look more electable. The best way to filter out this distortion is to focus on the voters least likely to make their decisions in November based on electability. These happen to be the same voters who hold the balance of power in most elections: independents, conservative Democrats, and moderate Republicans. They aren't principally trying to figure out which Democratic candidate can beat Bush, because they don't necessarily want the Democratic nominee to beat Bush. They're trying to decide which Democratic candidate, if any, would be a better president than Bush.

How well has Kerry done among these voters? In absolute terms, well enough. But in relative terms, the numbers show a disconcerting pattern. By and large, the closer you move to the center and center-right of the electorate, where the presidential race will probably be decided, the worse Kerry does.

[ambrose]

Edwards was always the most dangerous dwarf running insofar as W's re-election is concerned..

Southern, good looking, perceived as moderate, and a friendly and even sunny personality. Reminds me a bit of Slick Willard.

[GailA]

Kerry's winning percentage in Shelby County was even better than his Tennessee tally. Election night snafus kept the final count uncertain until 10:45 p.m., but with early votes and all 283 precincts reporting in Shelby County, results for the top five candidates were:

J. Kerry: 25,910 (50.1%)
J. Edwards: 7,037 (13.6%)
W. Clark: 12,954 (25%)
A. Sharpton: 2,077 (4%)
H. Dean: 1,928 (3.7%)

Of Shelby County's 605,911 registered voters, 64,154 cast votes both Tuesday and in early voting, for a 10.6 percent overall turnout. (VOTER TURN OUT was predicted at 15%)

There were some minor election night snafus: Poll workers at Sherwood Junior High failed to send all of the cartridges containing polling data to the Election Commission on Poplar, delaying the count. In addition, cartridges from polling stations at East Win Christian Church on Hacks Cross and the Soul Winners Baptist Church on Crump had to be read separately after technical difficulties, said Election Commission chairman Greg Duckett.

Dean, once the front-runner, wrote off the state even though it's the home of one of his best known supporters: former Vice President Al Gore.

:-)

[RottiBiz]

Very interesting analysis.

[ovrtaxt]

This nomination of Droopy is an exercise in futility. Can you say 'Bob Dole'?

[DM1]

Dont underestimate Kerry - Ketchup boy is tricky

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

The electorate finally gets a good look at Senator John "Droopy" Kerry:

[jocon307]

David Limbaugh has a column on the Wash Times website today which is along these same lines, Edwards would be harder for Bush to beat than Kerry - maybe!

But it doesn't look like it matters much at this point, I can't see how Kerry fails to get the nomination.

[blanknoone]

independents, conservative Democrats, and moderate Republicans

It always galls me that the 'moderate' wing of the dems is 'conservative' but the 'moderate' wing of the Reps is not 'liberal'. It reveals the media bias so clearly. When have you ever heard of a liberal R (except for Toomey's primary rebellion against truly liberal Spector)? And when people talk about a 'moderate' dem, they mean the center of the D party, not the center of the whole spectrum.

[Gracey]

Excellent points regarding Edwards. He IS a new version of Slick Willy.... both he and wife are lawyers. He doesn't come across as mean, but he's still a leftist. I surely hope he doesn't select Edwards as his running mate. All things considered Kerry is boring and so is Richardson. Richardson is a nice guy but he's boring to listen to.

[FRgal4u]

Wow - The left is worry about the coronation of Kerry. Dang.

Maybe the "Arkancide" is at work. LOL

Seriously, the dems got themselves into a corner here, there are going to be buyers' remorse. Edwards is too slick, too young but an effective campaigner. Kerry has the dems going gaga base on his Vietnam stories.

Maybe this is a setup of a Kerry/Edwards ticket which in my mind is far less threatening than a Kerry/Gephardt, Kerry/Bayh, Kerry/Breaux ticket. Edwards may look good here, but I doubt he can even carry North Carolina for Kerry. In Gephardt's case - Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, West Virginia is in play; with Bayh - Indiana will NOT be in play, but Ohio, Missouri, Wisconsin would; for Breaux - Louisiana, Arkansas, TN will be in play. The best antidote for an Edwards ticket in the South is Zell Miller. Unleash good ole Zell and let him rip with his straight talks in he rural South, maybe this is what the Bush team has been thinking all along.

[bobjam]

Keep in mind that these primaries are not binding. If Kerry wins most of them, he will be crowned the "nominee apparent" by the press, which is dominated by northeastern liberals. The Bush team and other conservatives will then attempt to expose Kerry for what he really is- the one Mass politician more radically left than Ted Kennedy. If they are successful in that endeavor, as well as in highlighting Bush's accomplishments and communicating his vision, the voters may start to have second thoughts about Kerry. By the time the Democratic Convention rolls around, Kerry could be rock bottom and Democratic delegates, faced with a repeat of 1984 or 1972, could look to nominate a fresh face.

[eeriegeno]

The electorate finally gets a good look at Senator John "Droopy" Kerry:

One thing for sure, Kerry has been labelled by quite a few names.

John Effin Kerry

Ketchup Boy

Droopy

Gigolo Kerry

War hero gone bad Kerry

But I like the handle 'Pippy Longface' best......

[Gracey]

Fresh face....like Hillary or Edwards? ugh

[LS]

First, most of this is meaningless becaues Bush hasn't really begun to fight. If Bush is ahead now, even by a little, watch out.

Second, we haven't heard from the elephants in the room, Bill and Hillary. NOTHING can occur without their blessing/support.

Third, it's in the cards for a Kerry/Edwards ticket. Just as Algore tried to "toughen up" on the right with Whiney Joe, so too Kerry will try to "toughen up" with Edwards, which brings us to

4) The Clintons again. If Hillary isn't on the ticket, there is no way they can allow "effing" Kerry to win, pure and simple.

There are SEVERAL shoes out there that haven't dropped yet.

[2nd Bn, 11th Mar]

"On "has the right experience," Kerry routinely whipped the field, and deservedly so, given his military service and his expertise in national security and foreign policy."

I reject this notion that Kerry has 'national security' expertise. He was a Lieutnant, for Pete's sake, and patrolled rivers. Combat experience, sure, but it in no way qualifies him to run a Global War. Indeed, his record in the Senate is abysmal on security issues with national implications.

Semper Fi,