Kerried Away....The myth and math of Kerry's electability.

[windansea]

By media consensus, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is over. Why? Because John Kerry has won 12 of the 14 primaries and caucuses held so far. And why has Kerry won these contests? Not because voters agree with him on the issues. The reason, according to exit polls, is that voters think he's the candidate most likely to beat President Bush. There's just one problem: The same polls suggest this may not be true.

Two weeks ago, Kerry beat Howard Dean by 12 percentage points in the New Hampshire primary, convincing Democrats around the country that Kerry was their most electable candidate. How did Kerry win? By racking up a 4-to-1 advantage over Dean among voters who chose their candidate because "he can defeat George W. Bush in November." Among voters who chose their candidate because "he agrees with you on the major issues," Dean and Kerry were tied.

Let me say that again: Among voters who picked the candidate they wanted based on the issues, not the candidate they thought somebody else wanted, Kerry did not win the New Hampshire primary.

more

http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2095311/#ContinueArticle

[cheezus]

1. how does Dean do on the issues compared to.... ?

say, Dennis Kucinich or Carol Mosley Braun. Or Joe Liberman?

c'mon

[eileen_d]

2. God, I'm starting to loathe the word "electablility"

The "myth and math" of this for Kerry will be decided in November 2004 (assuming he is nominated). I cringe thinking how much these pundits get paid for basically talking out of their collective ass.

[lancdem]

3. Wrong

I saw exit polls that showed Kerry winning among voters who cared about the economy, health care or education as their top priority. Electability and issues are not mutually exclusive.

[windansea]

4. cartoon

[eileen_d]

5. Well, that's insulting. n/t

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

6. From your second paragraph

Among voters who chose their candidate because "he agrees with you on the major issues," Dean and Kerry were tied.

So if Dean and Kerry were tied on the issues according to these voters, and they went with the one they saw as more likely to beat Bush, that sounds like a VERY WISE DECISION to me.

What would be the point of erring on the side of the LEAST ELECTABLE candidate, all other things being equal? Pretty stupid.

People opining about electability being a factor like to extrapolate into that the assumption that it implies people automatically disagree with the candidate on all the issues and see them as otherwise unqualified to be President. Not so. Inherent in electability is an assumtion of being qualified for the position.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. Is it a 'myth' that Kerry has won 12 out of 14 primary elections? lol

[eileen_d]

8. Stop spreading those lies and innuendo!

;)

[helleborient]

11. We still don't know who won Maine...

I seem to remember supporters of Sen. Kerry screaming here that we shouldn't jump to conclusions until the votes are counted...go ahead and endorse the media headlines though...those media are good unbiased folk, right?

[Uzybone]

9. painfully tortured analysis

but its music to the ears of true believers. Saletan is arguing that Kerry barely wins on "issues" and wins in a landslide on "will win in November" so therefore we should vote for someone who we dont think will win in November. Stupid article.

[question everything]

10. That's the way it goes, unfortunately

How much "electability" went into Clinton campaign back in 1992?

Back in 1998, when Bush's name first surfaced I knew that he was going to be the next president. Because of his name, and because the Republicans were aching for a "Bush" to beat Clinton-Gore. It really would not matter what he personally stood for. He was going to be manipulated by the RW for revenge of the Clinton years.

Dean scared me and he scared many. He is against the war in Iraq, as is Kucinic, but the majority of the voters supported it - at least, until recently. According to TIME poll, more than 50% still do.

This is a year where a military experience does count, whether we like this or not. This is why Clark was brought on board.

We do not always vote for the candidate; we vote for his/her ideas and philosophies and I will take Kerry over Bush any day.

Do people here prefer to be martyrs, to cling to a purity of thought, to say that they did not compromise their conviction while Ashcroft marches to Patriot III through X and beyond? Do people would rather venues like this one closed down or dwindled because Big Brother watches who posts here? Do people want four more years of Bush so that he can appoint one, perhaps two Supreme Court justices?

I am not willing to take the chance. The nature of politics is that it is based on compromises. And we have the system of checks and balances. One reason why California ended up in such an economic mess and Davis replaced with the Gropernator was because the Republicans in the assembly shriveled into an insignificant majority and no one was there to check for fiscal responsibility, to force the Democrats for compromises.

I may not like all of Kerry's past actions and future proposals just as I did not like Clinton's. I think that many of us were waiting for a "none of the above" - yet another candidate who would be perfect. But we are stuck with this roster. If Edwards is still viable I will vote for him on Super Tuesday but I will vote for Kerry in November. I have to. The stakes are too high for four more years of Bush.

Especially for Dean and Kucinic and Sharpton followers who, I think, are the most diametrically opposed to Bush. Are you really willing to sacrifice four more years of Bush-Ashcroft-Scalia just to preserve your purity? Are you afraid that if your candidate wins he, too, will end up making compromises? I am not a psychologist but I have to wonder about this kind of an attitude.

[Sagan]

12. that's odd math

Does the author try to put forward the argument that the people who voted for Kerry in the primaries because he could beat Chimpy would suddenly NOT vote for him AGAINST Chimpy?

Votes is votes. It doesn't matter why someone votes the way they do.

This article is merely a study in electoral pedanticism.