Who Will Win the Electability Vote?

Townhall.com ^ | February 19, 2016 | Michael Barone

[Kaslin]

With the likelihood that the Supreme Court vacancy will not be filled this year, voters' minds are going to turn to questions of electability, writes my Washington Examiner colleague David Drucker.

The November elections will arguably determine which side will control all three branches of the federal government, and many of America's strongly partisan voters may put aside qualms about one candidate or another to increase the chances their side wins.

So far electability has not been a major factor. In exit polls, when given four options as the reason for their vote, about 20 percent of Iowa caucus-goers and 12 percent of New Hampshire primary voters picked "can win in November." Nearly 80 percent of Democrats in both states who chose this reason voted for Hillary Clinton.

Among Republicans picking that reason, responses varied by state. In Iowa, 44 percent voted for Marco Rubio, 24 percent for Donald Trump and 22 percent for Ted Cruz. In New Hampshire, 32 percent of them supported Trump, 30 percent Rubio, 16 percent John Kasich and only 6 percent Cruz. In both states, "electability" voters were more likely than others to support Rubio.

Rubio is the one Republican candidate who regularly casts himself as the most electable alternative, although Trump's call to get America winning again and his constant boasts about poll leads perhaps makes that point subliminally.

So what do the polls tell us? Before answering that question, I should note that general election polling nationally and in target states has been infrequent and subject to error. History tells us it can change significantly during an election year.

Voters today know much less about Bernie Sanders or any Republican candidate than they will if and when he is nominated. They know much more about Hillary Clinton, but not whether she or her close aides will be indicted or recommended for indictment by the FBI.

Moreover, national polls and those in most target states do not differ hugely from the close partisan balance that has prevailed in recent decades. Over the last 25 years, no major party nominee has received more than 53 percent of the vote. There is no evidence -- at least not yet -- that any candidate is headed to the 38 percent received by Barry Goldwater or George McGovern.

All that said, the numbers give some support to Rubio's claims. In the RealClearPolitics average of recent polls, he leads Clinton 48 to 43 percent; Cruz leads Clinton 46 percent to 45 percent; and Jeb Bush and Donald Trump both trail Clinton with 43 percent to her 46 percent.

In addition, in polls going back to September, Rubio runs perceptibly better than others in most target states -- better than Cruz in Florida and better than both Cruz and Trump in Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Iowa. Rubio leads in states that would collectively give him more than 270 electoral votes. These numbers should probably be regarded as suggestive rather than conclusive.

Results so far also support Ted Cruz's exaggerated claim that he can bring out many of the 50 million evangelicals who didn't vote in 2012. Extrapolations from exit polls indicate that evangelical turnout in Iowa increased from 69,000 in 2012 to 119,000 in 2016 and in relatively secular New Hampshire from 55,000 to 71,000.

That's one reason -- not the only one -- Republican turnout was higher than Democratic in both target states, the opposite of the case the last time both parties had contests, in 2012.

Strikingly, Hillary Clinton's percentage varies almost not at all against any of the four Republicans: 46 percent against Trump, Cruz and Bush and 43 percent against Rubio. All her numbers are below Barack Obama's re-election percentage (51 percent) and probably below what an ideal Democratic candidate (i.e., a candidate with a higher than 32 percent reputation for honesty and trustworthiness) would get.

Interestingly, current polling doesn't support the 16 percent of Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats who voted for Clinton for reasons of electability. Sanders is actually running better against each of the four Republicans, leading Trump by 6 percent, Bush and Cruz by smaller margins and tying with Rubio.

Most professional Democrats, Republicans and political journalists surely agree with those Democratic voters that Sanders would ultimately be a weaker general-election candidate. That's based on a judgment that his lavish promises won't stand up to scrutiny.

Tentative conclusion: Increased concern about electability would help Rubio and hurt Trump, and it could bolster Clinton -- or spur demand for another Democrat to run.

[20yearsofinternet]

evangelical turnout .... in relatively secular New Hampshire from 55,000 to 71,000

---

But Cruz lost that demographic to Trump.

I think getting out the evangelical vote is great (more good people should vote anyway), but I don’t know if it’ll help Cruz if he’s blown his image as the “trust in politics” guy running a such a nasty campaign.

[Daniel Ramsey]

Who could deliver the best State of the Union address?

Without a teleprompter.

[MNJohnnie]

At this point in 2004 GW Bush was 12 points behind Kerry.

“Electablity” is a myth push polled by the Establishment to foist “moderate” GOP candidate like Dole, McCain and Romney on the base.

Too bad for the Political Establishment, neither party’s Base is having anthing to do with this nonsense this year.

[wny]

the combination of a Trump nomination and a Senate confirmation of Obama’s newest left-wing-judicial hack will spell the end of the Republican party.

[xzins]

Mitt Romney was clean cut, mannerly, temperate, and practiced in all the social graces.

It did not come naturally to McCain or Dole, both of whom didn’t shine at it.

All 3 were destroyed by their opponents. All 3 maintained that so-called ‘presidential’ aura throughout their campaigns. They even required it of their operatives in the field. I remember when talk radio host Billy Cunningham was told by John McCain to QUIT using Obama’s middle name. Cunningham just backed out of McCain’s campaign. I remember that warrior Sarah Palin was backstabbed so many times by the McCainiacs in charge of his campaign that she carried her own Hindu bed of nails around with her.

I remember Candy Crowley and the Mitt campaign mewly response to collaboration between a candidate and a moderator: they ratcheted up the ‘properness’ and coasted on their mannerliness. In the meantime, Obama was subverting Chris Christie and charging Romney will killing cancer-stricken employees.

So, let’s be clear. The boy scout, go-to-church image, nicey-nice image is not electable.

I want someone who will beat the sh_t out of the opposition and let the chips fall where the chips fall.

[Covenantor]

A++

[central_va]

Politics is war without bullets.

[xzins]

The republicans have either intentionally ignored that or been the world’s biggest Dumbasses for going on 40 years now. I’m beginning to think that GW Bush defeated Gore because Gore was such an obvious weirdo and not because Bush put up a fight.

[Buckeye McFrog]

With the likelihood that the Supreme Court vacancy will not be filled this year, voters' minds are going to turn to questions of electability, writes my Washington Examiner colleague David Drucker.

Which only goes to prove that Drucker is smoking crack.

If I were close enough to Vegas I'd walk into a book and put a few bucks down on the GOP caving. I think that's FAR more likely than not.

And in any case voters this cycle are voting populist rage and what's best for their pocketbooks. Not some esoteric theory of who is most likely of giving us the best shot of nominating the next SCOTUS judge.

Perhaps they SHOULD be focused on that, but they're not.

[libertylover]

How would you define an evangelical? What are some of the characteristics of an evangelical?

And I hope you realize that if a liberal refers to someone as an evangelical that's meant as a strong insult.

[Lakeshark]

I was casually reading along, got to the money quote, then saw who posted it.

I have to admit to laughing. Hard.

:-)

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Rubio will win the electability vote.

Cruz will win the conservative vote.

Trump will win the Nationalist Populist vote.

[20yearsofinternet]

Heh, I don’t think I want to get into an argument about what constitutes a “real” evangelical. In the context of this conversation, an “evangelical” is someone who describes themselves that way in exit polls/other polls.

Not trying to get philosophical here. :)

[Jim Noble]

voters' minds are going to turn to questions of electability

These guys crack me up.

Well, you walk into the room
Like a camel and then you frown
You put your eyes in your pocket
And your nose on the ground
There ought to be a law
Against you comin' around
You should be made
To wear earphones

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

[xzins]

Have I used up my cussing quota for the day? :>)

[Lakeshark]

Howard Beale has nothing on you, just put your head out the window and yell......

:-)

I know how you feel.

[DaveA37]

Ask my again sometime in mid November.

[Jim Noble]

So, let's be clear. The boy scout, go-to-church image, nicey-nice image is not electable. I want someone who will beat the sh_t out of the opposition and let the chips fall where the chips fall.

Word.

One of the best posts ever on FR. Kudos.