A Reflection On Electability

Does Edwards have a more plausible electability argument?

In national polls, he beats Republicans by a larger margin than Clinton does -- or by the same margin. In the two states holding special elections -- Ohio and Virginia, Edwards consistently outperforms Clinton general election head to heads. And the two new Republican members of Congress did invoke Hillary Clinton in their campaigns. In Virginia's first congressional district, Republicans sent a mail piece headlined, "As we get to know Phil Forgit, we see that he is just another tax and spend liberal like Hillary Clinton." And in Ohio's fifth congressional district, Republicans used a web video to attack Democrat Robin Weinrauch's "extreme liberalism," which they compared to that of Hillary Clinton.

There's no way to know whether these anti-Clinton attacks hurt the Democrats, both of whom lost for more obvious reasons. And because base voters are so important in special elections, there is a premium on demonizing the opposition and firing up your own side.

Comments

Bad move by the Clinton campaign raising the fact that Obama will lose the GE because the GOP will ask if he is a drug dealer. The arguement by Shaheen her campaign-co chair in NH sounds close to racial if you ask me.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1207/Shaheen_Did_Obama_sell_drugs.html#comments

Posted by Kisha | December 12, 2007 5:15 PM

Worth reviewing Matt Yglesias' handy chart of yesterday's CNN general election matchup polls.

Edwards does indeed do better than Clinton or Obama against every single GOP contender.

Only Edwards beats McCain among the Dems, and Edwards beats Romney and Huckabee by 20+ points!

Posted by Petey | December 12, 2007 5:27 PM

Here are the numbers from yesterday's general election matchup poll from CNN:

vs Huckabee

Edwards +25
Obama +15
Clinton +10

vs Romney

Edwards +22
Obama +13
Clinton +9

vs McCain

Edwards +8
Obama 0
Clinton -2

vs Giuliani

Edwards +9
Obama +7
Clinton +6

Posted by Petey | December 12, 2007 5:28 PM

Even though I'm an edwards booster, the state-by-state electability case for Edwards isn't a slam dunk. There are some states where Clinton has polled as well or better than Edwards: Arkansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and in some polls, Virginia. Also a few months ago when the general election polls showed Clinton clean up, she was winning Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri ... pretty much everywhere that's competitive.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | December 12, 2007 5:40 PM

"Also a few months ago when the general election polls showed Clinton clean up"

While general election matchup polls have moved around, Edwards has bettered Clinton and Obama in the vast majority of general election matchup polling during this entire year.

The current Edwards advantage over Clinton and Obama has been the norm, not the exception.

Posted by Petey | December 12, 2007 6:01 PM

Of course he does.

Clinton's argument amounts to her being more electable because polls show Democrats perceive her as more electable. Edwards' argument is that he is more electable because head-to-head polls show he is more electable. I'm skeptical about the predictive value of head-to-head polls at this stage, but at least his argument is grounded in reality as opposed to perception.

It gets trickier when you face off Obama and Edwards, because Obama has data showing that he might be able to draw the best among Republicans and independents (and of course he is newer to the national scene than Edwards). But Edwards versus Clinton is an easy call.

Posted by DTM | December 12, 2007 7:27 PM

Granted, those numbers are intriguing. Let me play devil's advocate, though.

Why do we look at the state primary/caucus numbers more so than the national numbers? The answer I give and that I've heard most often is because the national numbers before the first primary simply reflect name awareness. Its numbers from the early contests that tell us what voters think after getting some exposure to the candidates.

These general election match-ups are mostly national I believe or, if done state by state, include a lot of states beyond Iowa, NH, Nevada and SC.

So could it be that Edwards simply is showing off his better name awareness, having run before and having been on Kerry's ticket?

Of course by that logic, the amazing thing is that Obama - the candidate with the least name awareness starting out - is doing better than Clinton - the candidate with the most name awareness.

Whether you buy the above or not, the simple fact is that Edwards doesn't match the other two in terms of money nor organization, isn't polling well in New Hampshire nor South Carolina, and would have to leap tall buildings to turn all that around.

The only shot he has is for Obama to implode, and then he becomes the anti-Hillary.

Posted by Paul | December 12, 2007 7:30 PM

"So could it be that Edwards simply is showing off his better name awareness, having run before and having been on Kerry's ticket?"

That's an "interesting" argument. You think that as of this week, when that CNN poll was taken, that Edwards has significantly better national name ID than Clinton and Obama?

Ummm...

Posted by Petey | December 12, 2007 7:46 PM

Do I think Edwards has better name awareness now? In some states, sure.

People have heard of Obama, so maybe name awareness isn't the right term. Let's say voters in Oklahoma, Oregon, etc., have more familiarity with Edwards.

I really don't think the match-ups mean too much at this point. And you do. Unfortunately for us, there's no easy way to figure out who is right on this one, lol.

Posted by Paul | December 12, 2007 8:26 PM

They do two kinds of name rec polls -- ones where they ask, 'Do you know any of these names?' and list names, and ones where they ask 'Who's running?' and you have to come up with the names.

In the former kind, Clinton polls well above Edwards and Obama:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27673/Despite-Campaign-Familiarity-Candidates-Has-Changed-Substantially.aspx

I can't remember where I found polls of the latter kind, but those showed Clinton towering over Obama, with Edwards in third.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | December 13, 2007 1:33 AM