The presidential fields, on both sides of the aisle, are slowly taking shape. Exploratory committees are in place; fundraising is underway; the race for staffers is fairly intense; and we’re already seeing early polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. Voters, activists, reporters, and establishment types are starting to decide what, exactly, is the most important quality in a presidential candidate.<\/p>\n
And a whole lot of them have decided that “electability<\/a>” trumps them all.<\/p>\n For a party long known for subjecting presidential wannabes to a battery of litmus tests, on issues from abortion to trade, Democrats are uniting in raising one big issue for 2008: electability.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It’s not just Dems. In one of the more noteworthy campaign-related blog posts of the week, Red State noted<\/a> the GOP field this week with some disdain — and noted the candidate most deserving of far-right support can’t win.<\/p>\n They all suck. Let’s just admit it. Every one of the thus far announced Republican candidates for President sucks. From the lecherous adulterer<\/a> to the egomaniacal nut job<\/a> to the flip-flopping opportunist<\/a> with the perfect hair to the guy who hates brown people<\/a> to the guy we’ve never heard<\/a> of to the guy who has a better chance of getting hit by a meteor<\/a> while being consumed by a blue whale being struck by lightening.<\/p>\n They all suck. (Well, okay, Brownback doesn’t suck at all, but I perceive no viability for his candidacy.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Obviously, no political observer — at least, one anxious to see their “side” win a presidential election — wants to see their party nominate a candidate who’s certain to lose. But is “electability” really the trait voters should consider during the primary process? And for that matter, are voters any good at figuring who’s electable and who isn’t? The reaction to Senator Barack Obama’s forays into Iowa and New Hampshire last month was nothing short of spectacular. “We originally scheduled the Rolling Stones,” New Hampshire Governor John Lynch quipped, “but we canceled them when we figured out that Senator Obama would sell more tickets.” Still, the better Obama performed, the more one question began to dog him: Was such a young candidate, particularly an African-American one, electable? “I think he’s a serious candidate, but I don’t think he has great potential [to win a national election],” one skeptical New Hampshire voter told The New York Times’ Adam Nagourney. “No track record, and there are too many guys ahead of him in line.”<\/p>\n Of course, electability questions are old hat to Obama’s presumptive rival, Senator Hillary Clinton. Since she first began hinting at a run for the presidency, experts and voters alike have been discussing whether she is capable of winning a national election–with mixed results, at best. “The test,” longtime Iowa Democratic pol Rob Tully explained recently, “will be whether she can beat the image problem– the perception out there [among Democrats] that she is not electable among the general electorate.”<\/p>\n You can understand why Democratic activists, funders, and voters are dwelling on such questions. They want to win the election — and, given everything that is at stake during a presidential election, there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. But will talking about electability actually lead the Democrats to nominate a candidate who is, in fact, electable? Recent experience suggests it may not.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
\nTNR’s Jonathan Cohn recently suggested<\/a> that judging presidential candidates based on how well they’re likely to compete in a general election may not be the best idea.<\/p>\n