In an otherwise smart analysis of the fallout of the Wisconsin primary, Slate’s William Salatan makes the following observation:
Remember, Democrats are as likely to vote for Edwards against President Bush as they are to vote for Kerry against Bush. It’s far more likely that independents and crossover Republicans will determine the outcome. In states where the choices of these groups have been measured, Edwards is matching Kerry among independents and beating him among crossover Republicans.
Fine, you say. But independents and crossover Republicans don’t control Democratic primaries. Democrats do, and they’re voting for Kerry.
That’s true. But the exit polls show that, by and large, Democrats aren’t voting for Kerry because they prefer him on the issues. They’re voting for him because they think he’s the Democrat most likely to beat Bush. What happens if they find out he isn’t? What happens if they realize that Edwards is doing as well as Kerry among independents and is doing better than Kerry among crossover Republicans?
Saletan gets the context right, but I’m not buying that electability is all that has carried John Kerry so far. For one thing, polling results are extremely dependent on the framing of the question, and using the catch phrase “electability” simply taps into media coverage of the issue to date. But more to the point, the goal of voters in any primary, Democratic or Republican, is to elect a candidate who comes the closest to your political positions and yet still has a chance of winning the general election. John McCain very well could have had more crossover appeal than George W. Bush, but Republican voters found him too liberal and in any case felt that a candidate with more conservative views still had a chance to win. This year, Kerry represents a compromise between the Deaniac left and the Clintonian wings of the party - a candidate with a liberal record but whose personal narrative and foreign policy credentials seem like assets in a general election.
Of course, the problem is that Kerry is starting to falter on both counts. His waffling on the war, trade policy or gay marriage makes successive waves of liberals mad without actively gaining support from moderates. And I’m not sure anyone likes his ponderous oratory style. The dynamic that works most in Kerry’s favor right now is that liberals don’t have a great alternative. Edwards has picked up the mantle of economic populism, but at the cost of fiscal soundness. And while it’s conceivable that the Deaniacs (or I myself) might be able to pull the lever for a candidate who supported the war and opposes gay marriage more than Kerry, it’ll be a bitter pill to swallow.
No comments have been added to this post yet.