Kerry and Electability

[Dr Ron]

This started out as a comment at The Democratic Daily but I decided to make it a full blog post, and then thought I should repost it here:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1543

Kerry and Electability
January 3rd, 2006

Yesterday we posted the AP article on Kerry as a potential 2008 candidate. Tracking down the liberal blogs which comment on this article is interesting. Those which openly object to Kerry running again all seem to come down to one thing–electability.

Beyond the poor logic in questioning the electability of a candidate who came so close to an incumbent in war time, primarily from people too young to recall McGovern vs. Nixon, I find this amusing for another reason. Back when Kerry began winning the primaries in 2004, supporters of other candidates frequently claimed (incorrectly) that people were only voting for Kerry because they thought he was the more electable candidate, and argued that such perceptions of electability was not a good way to chose a candidate.

So, back then electability was a poor argument to vote for Kerry, and now they cite electability as reason not to support another run by Kerry. Democrats should learn something from European opposition parties which often unite behind their most prominent member even if it takes a few election cycles to go from opposition to governing party. All Americans should learn something from European voters who value intelligent discussion of the issues over show-business style charisma.

I didn’t decide whether to support Kerry in 2004 and this is not my primary consideration in 2008. While winning is important, my primary focus is on what happens after the election. The simple fact of the matter was that, after examining the field, it became clear that there weren’t any other candidates who came close to Kerry in experience, knowledge of the issues, and in the positions he took. (Perhaps it was because of this that his major opponent only appeared to have a chance by falsely claiming Kerry had supported the war to attempt to undermine his liberal support). It is also notable that, while most potential 2008 candidates have been running towards the middle, it is John Kerry who has stated the need to stick to liberal principles.

Of course, we cannot totally ignore electability either. That’s why I’m sticking with the guy who thrashed all Democratic contenders as well as the GOP nominee in every debate he participated in, and who came from behind Al Sharpton in the polls to virtually sweep the Democratic primaries.

[TayTay]

1. I completely agree Dr. Ron

Electibility is a made up isue, btw. It doesn't really exist. It is one of those things that mean whatever the speaker using the phrase says it means at the exact moment they say it. I don't think Kerry won just because of 'electibility.' I thin electibility was the phrase that came after the Dem primary voters had looked at him and examined his record. That was a catch-all phrase that meant, this is a good candidate.

I have no worries about it going forward. Ahm, he was one, very questionable, state away from the goal. And '04 was a very, very difficult race and those who think it should have been a cakewalk have rocks in their heads. (That's just not true.)

[wisteria]

2. Excellent words. n/t

[JI7]

3. great post

you are right. Kerry started gaining in the primary when he started getting out his record more and showing that HE was the one with a history of supporting liberal causes.

the electability thing doesn't really work. only when a person really likes a candidate do people use that as one of the reasons they support that. but you need their support on the issues first. take Joe Lieberman for example. he is the one who campaigined on already having won and played the electibility card based on 2000 the most. but he did horribly because people didn't like him on the issues. if people only went by electibility, Lieberman would probably have had the best case.

[Dr Ron]

4. Kerry vs. Dean on Electability

While I didn't support Kerry initially based upon electability, there were some arguments for Kerry over Dean based upon electability.

The most important one I used back in the primary campaign was citing a Democracy Corps poll which compared repealing all tax cuts (Dean's position) versus repealing the cuts on those making over $200,000 per year (Kerry's posiiton). There was a tremendous swing in support based upon this for Kerry's position.

Then there was the military issue. If Dean was the nominee there wouldn't have been a need to invent the Swift Boat Lies. What would they have done--Aspin Sky Bums for Truth?

[beachmom]

12. Ha -- I like that -- Ski Bums for Truth

I found the TIME magazine with Dean on the cover from Aug. '03 at my local library (people just throw their old magazines in a basket and you just take what you want). It had a section talking about how Dean and Bush were VERY much alike. Unlike Kerry, who worked hard his whole life and served in Vietnam, Dean spent time "wandering through the wilderness" just like Bush. The only difference was Dean snapped out of it quicker, and went to med school. Also in the article, it talked about how Dean skirted the gay marriage issue by making a joke, while Kerry got booed for saying he only favored civil unions. You know, eventually this technique wouldn't have worked for Dean anymore, especially against the Karl Rove machine.

For me, electability does mean something when you vote in a primary. I voted in my first primary last spring, and electibility in the general was on my mind when I went into the voting booth, especially in this red state. I voted for a guy who had a position on abortion I didn't agree with, but I thought he was great on everything else and he also had won an assembly seat in a GOP area, so he had proven that he could woo swing and even Republican voters. He also seemed like a neat character (his name was "Chap"), who I think would win over rural voters. The liberal won the primary, and lost in the general (although to be fair, it was like 50-49). I feel that if my guy had won the primary, we would have had a Democratic Lt. Gov. Easily. Anyway, only 10% showed up for the primary, and the liberal lady got the union guys to vote for her, but she had already lost 3 elections prior and shown she wasn't good at getting elected. She also had worked in the Clinton administration, a definite negative in this state. I stand by who I voted for in the primary. Electability is a definite factor for me in primary voting. But it is in combination with other factors -- experience, a broad understanding of the issues, positions, likeability (yeah, that's a major factor), even appearance. I don't think electability should trump everything else, but to dismiss it would be a mistake for the base of either party.

I'll be honest that Mark Warner has it over Kerry in the electability category, because he was elected in Virginia and leaves office with a 70% approval rating. But in other categories like national security experience, Kerry blows him out of the water. Since we are in a war, Kerry wins for me hands down. But as I have said before, somehow the word needs to get out that he is very likeable. The fact that people think he's a stiff may work to his advantage if he suddenly is shown all relaxed, witty and funny. He should also steal a little from *'s playbook, and laugh about his mediocre grades at Yale -- and mention that he majored in flying senior year. Hillary has none of those pluses -- neither electability nor national security credentials. All she has is the media saying she will be the nominee. If she crashes and burns, it's good that we have a deep field to work with.

[beachmom]

13. More on Kerry, Electibility, and Likeability

This category is make or break for Kerry. I can't overemphasize this. And the key to success is for Kerry to decide to be himself when he goes on TV. And I KNOW he can do this because I've seen it.

His appearance on Face the Nation -- he should watch that over and over to review what NOT to do. Although you all pointed out to me why what he said was intellectually compelling, my first impression (and that's what most people will have) was he didn't do so well. He didn't answer the questions directly, he ended up committing a gaffe by using the word terrorizing (should have said scared), and he came across just like what the naysayers speak about -- stiff and too much senatese. Now before you all come back and talk about what he said was amazing, I'm not disagreeing with all of you on that. What I'm talking about here is style, and that's how people watch TV. People won't hear the substance until they've warmed up to the person.

Second example: Kerry on IMUS 6 days later. Funny, relaxed, made fun of himself a little, did some clever question dodging before answering, and . . . got all of the substance in that he got in FTN. He needs to review that tape, and see how he can present his real self even in a more serious, formal setting. How, I don't know. But the guy is smarter than me, so I'm sure he can figure it out. Maybe he should just skip the Sunday programs and do more liberal talk radio, Jon Stewart, David Letterman, et al. Unlike what the snooty media says, I don't think these alternative venues are necessarily less hard hitting when it comes to substance. Kerry was unfortunately tired when appearing on TDS and too cautious before the election. Next time, he needs to be himself and relax. Imagine he's in a pub or something. This may all sound silly, but it represents the difference between being POTUS or not, so it's not exactly insignificant.

[karynnj]

19. I agree with much that you say

the Kerry on Imus was unbelievably likable. The way he played with dodging the question - by starting totally different bits of conversation but with a smile and a tone of voice that matched the smile AND because he stopped each time Imus re-asked the question and started with something totally new was cute. That one of the people at the table playfully pushed Kerry as he avoided the question the 2nd or 3th time just emphasized how approachable he is. Some how he did convey a sense of respect and friendliness.

I think he addresses Face the Nation and MTP - almost like he did the debates. He was clearly very tense and looking for traps. I think the demeanor he shows in the SBA committee would work well - very serious, very focused, very in command of the facts, but down to earth. If he could leven any of the comments with his humor and those wonderful smiles, those 2 real sides of him would be great.

He did do an incredible interview with Chris Matthews, of all people, covering the same stuff as the Face the Nation interview. It might be better to compare these 2 (rather than FTN and Imus) because they are closer to apples to apples. I really don't know why one went so much better and that comments on the problems of American soldiers going into Iraqi houses was the strongest point in the Matthews one. (The Diane Sawyer one on the Saturday morning was also very good.)

At first I thought maybe it was Schreiber's Bush ties, but Matthews wasn't pro-Kerry and Sawyer, I think, started as a Nixon person (which should really make Kerry her favorite politician). It might be that he clearly hit a nerve with Matthews when he spoke of culture and language differences and so for a while Kerry could have felt that he connected. I the terrorizing mistake happened because Kerry was trying to connect with Schreiber by using stronger less formal language talking about this - where he had been less explicit in all the other interviews.

[TayTay]

20. It was just Rethugs doing their thing.

The Rethugs have a very poor hand to play, so they go back to their playbook of 'How to Blame Dems for Everything' and pulled out a suggestion: No matter what happens, make it the fault of the Dems. Everyone knew what Kerry was saying, the Rethugs just distorted it. It's what Rethugs do and they will do it every chance they get.

[karynnj]

25. I agree completely - and think it was brilliant of Kerry to

counter it as he did - saying that there was no real confusion with what he said - and where - with Imus. (That Imus, who always says the first thing that comes into his head brought it up by asking Senator Kerry, usually described as very cautious and nuanced in what he says whether he thinks before he speaks - let Kerry respond as he did. I liked that Charles reacted afterwards with obvious annoyance that the RW had tried to distort it.)

I think that Kerry had a long string of unbelievably good video and audio interviews - where the FTN one was not bad, but it seemed Kerry had more trouble "taking control" on that one. Beachmom might be right that he was tired or it might be that the host was harder to engage. (He restated the same sentence in at least one later interview using "scareing", so I think he knows (that though more accurate) the word was best not used.

[ginnyinWI]

23. yeah, he's best when relaxed and among friends

--as are we all. I guess being a public punching bag for so many years would put even the best of us on guard.

I think he did feel comfortable with Matthews--because despite his faults I believe Tweety is still a Democrat. Ha--maybe JK told him ahead of time that if he got interrupted, he'd walk out! Because Tweety was "good as gold" that day. :dilemma:

[ginnyinWI]

35. Imus transcript here

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9877442/

This is a good thing to point people to, in case they didn't see it. Even in printed form, it's easy to see how laid-back and friendly it was.

[wisteria]

36. IMO, the problem with skipping the Sunday shows is he misses

reaching a large portion of older Americans who get their political news on Sunday's. I also think he is better on the talk shows and radio programs too, but he needs to be able to conquer both media areas. John McCain has mastered both and basically does it with out saying much of anything very important.

[karynnj]

21. I think that Warner, may not be as electable as the

70% approval rating says. Kerry and Hillary have high approval ratings in their state as Senators. It does say a lot on likability and competence.

But to be electable as President, Warner will have to show that he can make the leap from governor to President. He seems like a smart guy - so he is likely developing what his foreign policies will be. As a one term governor, he has a great reputation, but it's still a pretty slim resume and it also means he's only gone through one election.

Like Edwards, he seems like a very promising politician who may be moving too fast - if he's 50, he could take Allen's seat (gaining lots of credit with the party) and run in 2012, 2016, or even 2020. This could even be an alternative way to get the VP slot - ultimately having 2 years as Senator and a term as Governor. Long term this seems less a gamble, than going for President now.

[beachmom]

24. But the difference is that Warner has 70% approval rating in a solidly

red state that went for * quite handily in '04. Sorry I didn't emphasize that enough. I think that Hillary is a good senator and Warner a good governor, but it's easier to win over a state that is the same party as you. It's largely because of Warner that Tim Kaine was elected in Va., and he even won Virginia Beach, a solidly red city. Such data cannot be easily ignored.

I agree on the thin resume, however. But Warner doesn't want to run for Senate against Allen; he's not doing that for whatever reason. That's done. Maybe he doesn't want to be a senator. I think he has a good shot at V.P., or I think in the cabinet of a Dem WH. He could also go back to the private sector if he wanted. But it's like saying John Kerry should run for governor of Mass. -- it might work, but JK doesn't want to do it. Similarly, Warner has said no to running for Senate.

(He ran for Senate against John Warner and lost, but barely in '96. I know it's bizarre to understand but Allen isn't in trouble in this state, so it would be no sure bet for Warner)

[karynnj]

26. Thanks

That makes sense then - like you I figured that he would in reality be going for VP and if so going for Allen's seat could be win/win. He would lose nothing in desirablity, would earn credit for getting a red seat and wouldn't risk being eliminated for no foreign policy experience. But if beating Allen was iffy, then it's not win/win.

I see the Kerry analogy - Kerry wants to be part of the federal government and foreign policy is clearly very close to his heart. Warner may feel more comfortable in the executive branch (CEO, Gov) than in the legislature.

[wisteria]

34. I agree with your Warner assessment.

Perhaps with a little more experience and some additional time, Warner could be an excellent candidate. Like you, I have to ask what the rush is? He lacks in experience and his knowledge of foreign policy matters is very limited. IMO, Kerry would beat him on knowledge and experience hands down.

[Dr Ron]

29. Depends upon criteria for electability

"I'll be honest that Mark Warner has it over Kerry in the electability category. . ."

There are certainly many arguments for Warner if purely looking at electability, but this isn't certain. Back in Bill Clinton's year this may have been the case, but things have changed. If national security is still a big issue, Warner's lack of experience might make him appear less electable.

While unlikely, maybe the conventional wisdom will change and having experience in a national race will be seen as more important, and perhaps Kerry, Edwards, Gore, and Lieberman will be spoken of as the most electable Democrats.

I suspect none of us really know that much about Warner. It is also possible that there is something in his background which will make him (perhaps unfairly) appear unelectable. The conventional wisdom is that Senators are less electable as they many votes to defend. There's certainly some truth as it is very easy to distort the meaning of a particular vote. (Vote against the final budget bill for a wide variety of reasons, and they can claim you voted against every weapons system in the bill). However, Governors also make decisions which could come back to haunt them. Look at Dukakis and Willie Horton. Also note that both Bush and Dean felt compelled to seal their papers from when they were Governor. If Warner also seals his records, this in itself could be used as an argument against him.

Finally, the specific issues might affect what is considered electable. We might be surprised by what are the major issues in a race this far ahead. There is always the chance he could wind up on the wrong side of a national issue which changes how he appears with regards to electability.

[ProSense]

32. IMO, Warner's experience is very flimsy.

Sure Warner was a governor, but Edwards has him beat in terms of qualifications at this point. IMO, Warner can't hold a candle to Kerry. The stuff being bantered around now is completely fictional.

[ProSense]

5. Well said! n/t

[kerrygoddess]

6. Check out this great comment in Ron's thread from yesterday

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1534#comment-11090

[jillan]

7. Did everyone vote in this poll???? Should Kerry run again?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10692960/

[karynnj]

8. Just voted

28% he's the strongest Democrat - which is really good compared to past polls. Probably higher than he was in Jan 2002. For a primary poll, this is great and better than he gets on DU.

[Luftmensch067]

9. Vote in this if you can!

I want to see his "Yes. He represents the best chance Democrats have." results SOAR!!!!!

[Dr Ron]

30. I voted--Now do we all paint our finger purple? n/t

[whometense]

10. I voted too. n/t

[TayTay]

11. I voted too n/t

[BlueIris]

14. I voted. Despite the obvious and disgusting bias there.

The fact that one of the options is "he lost and he should just accept it" is...grrrr. Way to validate the RW talking points, especially as pathetically swallowed by our own people.

[karynnj]

16. But what I find funny is that you could say that this

category rejects the better candidates category - so they are people inplicitly acknowledging he is the best candidate, but want someone new. This is probably more thought that the voters had - but if so, these can be won back.

An analogy might be when you have something you have to go to - and you go out shopping looking for something new to wear, ignoring what you already have. You may find something you fall in love with or you may decide that there is nothing in the new styles that is better or more interesting than what you already have. Then you realize that one of the things you have would work beautifully and you know it's comfortable and that it fits - and you can make little changes.

If these people are saying that they haven't fallen in love with any of the possibilities, rejecting Kerry as 4 years ago style might soften to realizing that he is a classic with genuine value who was tested under the nastiest campaign in my lifetime and didn't lose his integrity, dignity or his values.

Also, in a divided electorate, if the 28% means they are definitely for him, that is wonderful at this point.

[wisteria]

37. I like your way of thinking! I also found it interesting that only

10% would consider him a weak opponent against a Republican. That small number indicate to me that he isn't viewed as a weak candidate by a good majority.

[beachmom]

15. I voted. Still 28% yes, 34% better candidates. n/t

[ProSense]

17. Done! The way I see it

as many as 68% (34 + 28 + 6) will vote for Kerry if he's the nominee.

[Luftmensch067]

18. Good point but I think this is a Diebold poll

The percentages haven't changed even a POINT since a few hours ago, even though there are lots more votes! Hmmmmm....

[karynnj]

22. I see that - and it is amazing that the last 500 or so

votes came in in the same proportion as the earlier ones. These polls aren't the least bit valid anyway. I think the more important reason to respond is that they can sffect some people's perception.

[zann725]

38. Done!

Kick!

[jillan]

27. What I can't figure out is why all we hear about is Hillary

Talk about playing it safe, the woman has done virtually nothing.
She is making sure there will be no "swift boating" against her - maybe her hubby.
Other than the revamping of social security, what has she done?

It's too bad, I would have loved to seen a woman President. BUT imho, this is someone that has
ZILCH electability. Kerry should beat her in every poll. While she is playing politics, Kerry is busting his cute little behind everyday for us.

[beachmom]

28. Agree with you 100%, Pirhana.

It's really that people want Bill back in the WH. Sorry, not enough. It's HILLARY who will be on the ballot. But actually, maybe this Hillary talk NOW is good, because it keeps JK under the radar for a lot of the smears, and then when he pops up more prominently in '07, everybody will be looking at him with fresh ears and eyes. I am actually more optimistic about him having a chance now than I was before (in '05).

[Dr Ron]

33. Also good if this makes Kerry the liberal alternative

If the Kos-types (who all too often ignore principles for style) should take a close look, they will realize there are not many potential liberal candidates. Hillary has moved to the right. Warner campaigns as being a moderate in between Bush and Kerry. Other than Kerry, who has specifically spoken of the need to maintain our principles, the only other liberal being spoken of as a potential candidate is Feingold. Of course they may never realize this, in having supported Dean and Edwards over Kerry for the 2004 nomination, with both being more conservative than Kerry. (Clark is harder to pidgeon hole as he has said little specific on domestic issues. The other wild card is Gore who could take the liberal vote if he should get in, but I doubt he will).

If Hillary sucks up most of the contributions, Kerry might also be the only one who can mount a viable challenge.

[Dr Ron]

31. Name recognition, obviously

She has a tremendous advantage due to both name recognition and the Clinton connections.

Still, anything can happen. She also has disadvantages in running and I wouldn't be surprised if Kerry blows her away once they start debating.

[jillan]

39. Oh yes! A debate between Hillary and John Kerry -

That is going to be worth waiting for.
Kerry will wipe the floor with her. Sorry Hillary, still waiting to see what you are made of.