I appreciate the fact that John Edwards sees a need to get a little more aggressive to narrow the gap, but I’m not sure if this is the best way to do it.
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards Sunday warned Iowa voters about what he perceives as the perils of nominating a candidate who down-ticket Democrats in some parts of the nation may decline to appear with in their own campaign events.
Speaking in Carroll, Edwards made the observation after saying there are “three of us who are most likely to be the Democratic nominee.”
“It’s not just a question of who you like,” Edwards said. “It’s not just a question of whose vision you are impressed with. It’s also a question of who is most likely to win the general election. It’s a pretty simple thing. Who will be a stronger candidate in the general election here in the State of Iowa? Who can go to other parts of the country when we have swing candidates running for the Congress and the Senate? Is the candidate going to have to say, ‘Don’t come here. Down come here and campaign with me. I can’t win if you campaign with me.'”
He added later, “I think it’s just a reality that I can campaign anyplace in America.”
I’m fairly sympathetic to the notion that primary and caucus voters should consider electability as part of a broader criterion for evaluating candidates. There’s obviously little value in a party nominating a candidate who is all but certain to lose a general election.
I’m also inclined to agree with Edwards’ notion that the Democratic nominee should be able to campaign nearly everywhere. There will be plenty of Dems in competitive House and Senate races in “red” parts of the country who may need a boost from the top of the ticket. If the nominee is persona non grata, that undermines the party generally.
And yet, I’m still not sure about Edwards’ tactics here.
First, Dems believes they had to vote with electability in mind in 2004. That, as I recall, didn’t work out particularly well.
Second, what makes Edwards so sure that he’d be able to compete in areas that, say, Barack Obama couldn’t? It’s certainly not a regional thing — I can think of plenty of southern Dems who wanted to campaign alongside Obama in ’06.
Third, we’ve seen plenty of hypothetical general-election match-ups in national polls. Edwards does fairly well, but his leads over potential GOP nominees is modest, and in some instances, he fares worse against McCain and Giuliani than Clinton and Obama do.
And fourth, what makes Edwards so sure he’s so much more electable than anyone else? If 2004 is any guide, his track record isn’t exactly exemplary.
This isn’t to knock Edwards directly. His point is certainly worth considering, and I think Edwards certainly has a lot of general-election appeal. But at this point in the race, I have to think he’d be better off making his case without hammering the electability meme too much.