Electability May Be Hillary Clinton’s Secret Weapon

[Stuckinthebush]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/electability-may-be-clintons-secret-weapon.html

It's a bit early in the presidential nominating process for "electability" arguments to become prominent. Voters are just now hearing candidates' messages, which do not typically revolve around the ability to win a general election (though that may be a component in the message). Some of the more ideological voters may sense that caring more about electability than about core values or policy goals is unprincipled. But in polarized times like our own, the closer we get to the final choice of presidential standard-bearers, the more we'll hear discussions of their strengths and weaknesses as general-election candidates.

Interestingly enough, entrance polls from Iowa and exit polls from New Hampshire show almost identical percentages of Democratic and Republican participants saying "Can win in November" is the top candidate quality they are looking for (as compared to perceptions of candidates' empathy, honesty, and experience). But how these premature general-election worrywarts distribute their support differs considerably.

...

But among the 20 percent of Iowa Democrats prioritizing electability, 77 percent caucused for Hillary Clinton and only 17 percent for Bernie Sanders.

...

As I noted when listening to her in Iowa, Clinton does spend a good amount of time warning Democrats of the long-term damage Republicans could do if they controlled both Congress and the White House in 2017. That certainly gets people thinking about electability, and also thinking about liberal policies that need to be defended as opposed to less immediate goals like amending the Constitution to ban unlimited corporate-campaign spending or building a majority to impose a single-payer health-care system on a balky Congress.

In any event, Clinton would be smart to explore these themes more often, and see what happens. It's one thing to accuse Sanders of promoting "pie in the sky" policy ideas. It's another altogether to describe him as a high-risk candidate who'll invite catastrophe if he loses and won't accomplish much if he wins. And Sanders would be smart to spend more time talking about the unconventional alliances he put together in and out of office in Vermont. Electability will eventually matter a lot.

[HillDawg]

1. I assume it matters even more..

In a year like this where all the republican candidates are so bat-shit crazy

[72DejaVu]

2. What secret?

No one outside the Borg thinks Bernie can carry Ohio or Florida in a general election.

[Stuckinthebush]

4. No doubt

He has no chance in a GE

[Treant]

8. Hell, I'm not even a hundred percent

sure about Pennsylvania. And I live here.

[72DejaVu]

9. At the very least

He will put Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin all into play for the GOP.

Virginia-gone.
North Carolina-gone.
Colorado-gone.

And that's in a best case scenario. Realistically, Bernie takes the North East and West Coast. Maybe he holds on in Illinois and Minnesota.

[mgmaggiemg]

3. you just hit the nail on the head re electability ;)

[yallerdawg]

5. This is the problem:

"...a high-risk candidate who'll invite catastrophe if he loses and won't accomplish much if he wins."

[72DejaVu]

7. Bernie could put forward the best policy proposals ever

I like a lot of what he proposes.

But, as evidenced by his nearly complete snub by his Senate colleagues, he can't get along with anyone, and he will be coming in as someone who has insulted and alienated the entire political structure. Everything he proposes will crash and burn. He will set back liberalism (fuck progressivism, that's just a meaningless buzzword) for decades.

[Gothmog]

6. I really doubt that Sanders is viable in the general election

[Fla Dem]

10. I'm just concerned that the BS supporters are too far mesmerized to look beyond their noses.

In the end will they do what is good for the country, or what makes them feel good. It certainly won't be good for any of us if a Rethug gets the WH.

[wysi]

11. But, but...

"... it will punish the Democratic Party for being too centrist" or some rubbish like that. Anyone who can remember back to the "election" 16 years ago can attest to the fact that we cannot afford another scorched earth loss.

[Ellen Forradalom]

12. I remember that vividly

And the usual suspects are back to punish the Democrats for another successful eight-year run in the White House.