With nine candidates running for the Dem nomination, there’s been plenty of room for debates and disagreements. That’s to be expected. Each of the nine believes they should win and the other eight should just get out the way.
Like most campaigns, electability — the idea that a candidate is better suited to win the general election than his or her rivals — is huge this year. That’s not a big surprise nor is it particularly unusual. Clinton used in effectively in ’92, Lamar Alexander used it ineffectively in ’96, and McCain used to get his supporters on his feet in 2000 when he’d say, “George Bush can’t win, but I will beat Al Gore like a drum.” (It didn’t work, but it was a good applause line)
Because the party appears poised to nominate Howard Dean, electability is once again at the forefront. Most Dems’ desire to beat Bush in November borders on desperation. This isn’t about winning on principle; it’s about winning in reality.
In the last couple of months, as Dean has been the focus of more intense criticism, several Dems have been hammering away about electability — arguing that a governor of a small state, with no foreign policy experience, with a propensity for saying dumb things, who flip-flops with some regularity, and is perceived by most as being more liberal than the electorate-at-large won’t stand much of a chance. Dean and his supporters have argued that the electability debate should effectively be off-limits because of its long-term implications.
The New York Times’ Paul Krugman seeks to lay out some ground rules in a column today. It’s not a bad suggestion.
“[W]hile it’s O.K. for a candidate to say he’s more electable than his rival, someone who really cares about ousting Mr. Bush shouldn’t pre-emptively surrender the cause by claiming that his rival has no chance,” Krugman wrote. “Yet Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have done just that. To be fair, Mr. Dean’s warning that his ardent supporters might not vote for a ‘conventional Washington politician’ was a bit close to the line, but it appeared to be a careless rather than a vindictive remark.”
While I disagree with Krugman’s overly-generous analysis of the last part, I can appreciate the rest of the argument. The Dems should say they’re the most electable candidate, not that they’re the only electable candidate. Got it.
The problem is all the serious candidates have already done the opposite. Even Dean.
Daily Kos, for example, has some harsh words for Wesley Clark today because Clark said he’s the “only candidate positioned to actually win the election because I am the candidate best able to stand up to George W. Bush and win the debate about who will best be able to make our country secure over the next four years.”
Kos, who is a major Dean supporter, calls this tack “obnoxious” and “wrong.”
Dean’s supporters, however, have largely failed to realize that their favored candidate has been doing virtually the same thing for months. For nearly a year now, Dean has said, with minor rhetorical variations, that “Bush-lite can’t beat Bush,” that “Washington Democrats” can’t beat Bush, and that the only way to win the general election is to nominate someone with his passion and base of support — namely, him.
In November, Dean was answering questions in a moderated Washington Post online chat. A participant from New Hampshire said many of his friends and family liked Dean, but were worried about his general election prospects. Dean defended his electability.
“I think I may be the only Democrat that can beat President Bush,” Dean said (emphasis added). “We have a huge and growing army of supporters and we have raised more money than any other Democratic candidate — mostly in small donations averaging $75 a piece. People all over this country need jobs, health insurance and are demoralized by the President’s arrogant foreign policy. What we represent is change. What the President represents is more of the same.”
How is this substantively different from Clark’s statement? As far as I can tell, it isn’t. Dean added the “I think” qualifier, but that’s about it. Clark said he’s the only one who could win and Dean said he’s the only one who could win. Frankly, I don’t expect anything different from either. As far as I’m concerned, both are entitled to make these arguments, as are the other candidates.
Far too much is being made about the inherent dangers of these electability charges. It’s now a standard feature of most presidential campaigns — if you want to win, vote for me because I’m the one hope you have of beating the bad guy. To hear Dean’s supporters complain about the alleged “trap” of this argument, it’s unprecedented to have candidates offer such dangerous attacks. It’s not. Every primary race features similar rhetoric and it’s never really mattered much on Election Day.