Posted on 12/31/2007 12:05:51 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
With five Republican and three Democratic presidential hopefuls in double digits in the national polls of their respective parties and with dozens of issues ranging from gay marriage to the war in Iraq, the decisions that voters will be asked to make in the next several weeks might appear quite complicated. But it shouldn’t be. Voters should take only one consideration into account in deciding who to support in their party’s upcoming caucus or primary. That consideration is which of the party’s set of possible candidates is most electable next November.
Electability.
Electability is always a consideration in a nomination contest, but it ought to knock out any other consideration this year. There are three reasons why electability should trump everything else. First, the parties are quite polarized. Whoever the Democrats nominate will be far to more liberal than whoever the Republicans nominate. Big fights over who is the slightly more conservative Republican or the slightly more liberal Democrat look like splitting hairs from the broader perspective of the differences between the parties. Though cynics and extremists like to think of the parties as the Republicrats, the ideological differences between the parties have grown in the last couple of decades and ideological differences within each party have declined.
The second reason that electability ought to rule decisions this year is that the parties are quite competitively balanced. The 2000 and 2004 elections were quite close, party identifications of voters have been quite evenly divided in recent years, and divisions in the House and Senate are quite close as well. Neither party has a lock on the White House. Each needs every edge it can get.
The third reason is that uncertainty is especially great in an open seat election. While Democrats appear to have an edge at this point, they don’t know how strong a race the Republican candidate is likely to run next fall and Republicans have less of an idea than usual about the strength of their likely Democratic opponent. While either party might win the election without running its most electable candidate, taking less than their best shot is running a huge risk.
Two things should be made clear about electability. First, it does not mean that each party should necessarily nominate its most centrist candidate. To win the election, a candidate needs both to build enthusiasm and turnout from his or her base AND reach out to the centrist swing voters. You can’t win without doing both better than the other party’s candidate. Second, preference polls with head-to-head match-ups of the candidates in the two parties do not mean anything at this point in the election year. Even by June, when both nominations have been sewn-up, the frontrunner in the polls is about as likely to lose as win the November election.
If electability should be the key to each primary or caucus vote, who should each party’s voters support? Let’s size up the Republicans here and hold off on the Democrats until the next blog entry.
Who the Republicans Should Nominate.
First, I cannot imagine Mitt Romney being anything but a disaster for the Republicans. The debate with Ted Kennedy video alone in which Romney took outright liberal positions on a number of social issues would smother support in the base and paint him as untrustworthy for centrists. Any Republican wanting to win in November should jump off the Romney ship now.
That leaves four. Rudy Giuliani has a number of strengths, but will have problems with the base on social issues and these are only reinforced by having too many ex-wives hanging around. In family values, the values are plural, but family is singular. He also is very unlikely to even carry his home state of New York.
That leaves three. Mike Huckabee has developed a good deal of momentum in recent weeks. He is conservative on social issues and has a very pleasant communication style. He exudes optimism. On the down-side, he is too closely tied to the Christian Right to effectively reach out to centrists. He has made several intemperate statements, regarding the role of women and also about the Bush administration’s foreign policy, that will haunt a general election campaign. He has even had a run in with Rush Limbaugh. In short, there are a number of signs that he is not a “big tent” conservative.
And then there were two—John McCain and Fred Thompson. McCain certainly has an appeal to centrists and a good deal of respect among Republicans. The record suggests, however, that the Republican base does not trust McCain. Where he has done well in the past is largely in primaries that have allowed non-Republicans to participate. His stands on illegal immigration and on the so-called “nuclear option” on Senate voting on judicial appointments have done nothing to mend these fences.
This leaves Fred Thompson as the Republican presidential candidate who may be most electable. He entered the race late and is fifth in the national polls, but my sense is that he would be more acceptable to the base than either Giuliani or McCain and better among centrist swing voters than Huckabee. He also has a more consistently conservative record than Romney, Huckabee, or Giuliani and is far more acceptable to conservatives on the immigration issue than McCain. Though some have written Thompson off at this point, if he can hold on and the field thins a bit, Republicans should give him a second look and move in his direction.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James E. Campbell is a professor and chair of the Department of Political Science at the University at Buffalo, SUNY. He is a former Congressional Fellow, a former program director at the National Science Foundation, and the president-elect of Pi Sigma Alpha, the national political science honor society. He has published four books, fifteen book chapters, and nearly fifty articles in scholarly journals. His books include The Presidential Pulse of Congressional Elections, Cheap Seats: The Democratic Party's Advantage in U.S. House Elections, and Before the Vote: Forecasting American National Elections. His most recent book is the second edition of The American Campaign, to be published in January 2008 by Texas A&M University Press.
hillary wishes to be prez. and to hell with the victims.
Fool's gold.
electability is top concern for me.
Go Fred.
Still wavering between Mitt and Fred.
He has to finish strong in Iowa because it is part of the heartland.
No, that's Hillary.
If he's $57,000 short, why did his campaign manager send this to me on Friday?
We did it! Dear jelibn,
I just wanted to send a quick note to let you know that we've more than exceeded our goal of $248,846, and raised over $266,000 (total right now is actually $291,744). We issued a bold challenge, and you responded in kind. Our new ad 'Substance,' which began running today, will stay on the air in Iowa statewide through the Caucus on January 3rd. Thank you very much to everyone who contributed. It means a lot to Fred while he's in Iowa campaigning hard.
If you haven't gotten a chance to watch the new ad yet, you can view it here.
Thanks for everything you're doing for the campaign,
William B. Lacy Campaign Manager
With confidence this high, it suggests that Fred’s dropout contract at Intrade would make a good short at 28%. The only other candidate trading higher is John Edwards. And Fred’s volume is the highest of all the offerings for January, so it’s not as thin a market as other dropout contracts.
DROPOUT.JAN08.(F)THOMPSON
Fred Thompson to drop out of 2008 Presidential race on/before 31 Jan 2008 M 10.0 - 28.0 60 0
Also, Fred’s contract to win Iowa is an even better bargain at 0.1.
REP.IOWA.THOMPSON(F)
Fred Thompson to Win M 0.1 1.4 0.1 642 -1.4
For the Iowa caucus, Thompson is at the bottom of the pack, Romney has regained the lead from Huckabee. Ron Paul and Hunter are both embedded together, so there’s no way of knowing if he’s gaining ground, but on the basis of the president.field contract moving 50% today, I’d say he’s probably at ~0.3 and Ron Paul is at ~4.5, which puts Hunter ahead of Thompson.
Caucus
REP.IOWA.HUCKABEE
Mike Huckabee to Win M 45.0 46.0 45.0 1690 +5.0
REP.IOWA.ROMNEY
Mitt Romney to Win M 40.2 54.9 50.0 1960 0
REP.IOWA.THOMPSON(F)
Fred Thompson to Win M 0.1 1.4 0.1 642 -1.4
REP.IOWA.MCCAIN
John McCain to Win M 0.6 4.4 0.2 860 -2.8
REP.IOWA.GIULIANI
Rudy Giuliani to Win M - 0.1 0.1 701 0
REP.IOWA.FIELD
Field (any other individual) to Win M 4.7 5.9 4.8 1384 +1.0
2008.PRES.FIELD
Field (any other candidate) to win 2008 US Presidential Election M 0.2 0.3 0.2 14910 +0.1
.
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
In this Iowa poll Hunter is up 3% and even with Paul and Thompson.
http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=3481ef60-8195-46a9-af04-b87b907bcfdd
Reply to this
OK, so electability isn’t the single criterion.
So, name me another criterion where Fred does not ALSO come out on top.
I don’t know of one.
You missed the point. Electability is ethereal. It changes with such volatility- A booger hanging from a candidates nose during a debate is enough to tank him for good. It changes weekly too. Giuliani was the shoe-in, then Fred, then Huck, now Romney... And then there's the whole problem of what the candidate will do once elected, when his promises no longer matter.
Far better to rely on a candidate with a good record and proven principles. Let the chips fall where they may.
I can..."This guy must be working for Hillary"...
NONE of the above are electable...
There are basically 3 groups of affected voters...There is the majority of Republicans, you followers who will vote for any Republican the establishment tells you to vote for...
Then there's the far right...Many of them are likely to stay at home and 'let God sort it out' if Huckabee is not the choice...
And then you have the fence sitters, the Independants and the conservative (more conservative than many Republican) Democrats...
Those last two groups are the ones that count...Without them, you lose...And neither Fred, nor the rest of the establishment lackeys have anything to offer them...
A vote for one of those five is a vote for Hillary...
TRUE.
I think you missed the point. Electability is not as ethereal as you are trying to imply. Don't confuse it with momentary popularity. "Electable" means that you have a shot at winning. Ron Paul is somebody's darling, but the base knows that he is not electable. Mike Huckabee is somebody's darling this month, but he's not going to get the nomination because he wouldn't be able to win. He would be too polarizing to the party and the country, and wouldn't pull in the swing voters. Rudy is "electable", even though I would have to hold my nose with vise grips while voting. Fred will always be 'electable', even if he happens to be polling low right now, and no booger is going to change that. If you just dismiss "electability" and go with whatever yo-yo you happen to 'feel' good about, you are going to end up with Hillary. She is the fools gold result of your agreement.
agreement = argument
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.