“Electability” rears its head
I’m fascinated by assertions such as this one that the conservative candidates for president such as Cruz, Walker, Jindal or Fiorina are not electable on a national scale, each for somewhat different reasons*.
I’ve only been doing this for ten years (ten years!), but one thing I know is that the right wing of the GOP—call it conservative or Tea Party or whatever else you want—has been criticizing the entire concept of “electability” all that time. The argument against it is has been that it’s a ploy of the moderate establishment wing, used in order to get conservatives to go along with RINO establishment GOP candidates, and that conservative aren’t buying it any more.
During the 2012 election, some commenters on this blog were under the impression I used the “electability” argument to push Romney. My response was that they were incorrect; he was not my favored candidate at the outset of the primaries, and once he was nominated I argued that he was actually much more conservative than the right credited him with being, and that I thought he’d make a good president if elected. In fact, I always felt tentative about his chances of winning (his “electability”), and I was rather pessimistic although I tried to fight that feeling.
So this year we have a bunch of very viable conservative candidates. Initially I liked Walker, and I still do, but right now I’m slightly more in favor of Cruz or Fiorina. Any of them would be fine with me.
The argument of the conservative wing in the past for nominating a conservative always went like this: it’s the establishment who use that “electability” thing to block the nomination of a conservative, but a conservative could and would win if he/she were to be nominated over the heads of the establishment, and could articulate the conservative message properly to the people.
Well, the aforementioned foursome have those characteristics. I think that Fiorina and Cruz are the best communicators, with Walker having a regular-guy appeal and a history of conservative action (also quite important) more than eloquence. Jindal is less appealing as a candidate, but not because of his conservatism, it’s because he comes across as nerdy and he talks too fast.
Now some are even suggesting that it’s Trump who is the “electable” one, because of his populist tell-it-like-it-is anger. I really differ on that—I think he will alienate more people than not. But it seems particularly ironic that “electability” would be the argument anyone on the right would use to justify support of a nominee who is neither conservative nor tested nor consistent nor eloquent nor trustworthy. It is particularly ironic because this is the year we have the best slate in memory of articulate conservatives from which to choose.
[* The commenter also asserts that election fraud makes the candidates unelectable, but that only a populist candidate who appeals to the low information voter, such as Trump, would have a chance against it.]
[NOTE: I’m fighting the urge to write so much about Trump. But the reason I’m doing it nevertheless is that his candidacy gets at some important themes and conflicts that have dogged the right since around the middle of the 20th century. It’s not really about Trump, it’s about that conflict.]
[ADDENDUM: By the way, on the topic of Trump and his consistency on immigration, as well as his “anti-establishment” status, reflect that shortly after the 2012 election Trump had some very interesting things to say about the mean Republicans re illegal immigration:
“The Democrats didn’t have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren’t mean-spirited about it,” Trump says. “They didn’t know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind.”
Romney’s solution of “self deportation” for illegal aliens made no sense and suggested that Republicans do not care about Hispanics in general, Trump says.
“He had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal,” Trump says. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote,” Trump notes. “He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”
Trump is not only mouthing the detested “establishment” line that Republicans should have wooed Hispanics with a kinder gentler policy, but he is wrong about the Democrats as well. When last I checked, Obama’s a Democrat, and in June of 2012 prior to the election he created DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, otherwise known as Dreamers.]
If these former electability opponents are serious, why did they support so many nuts?
Carly got a big crowd and great applause at the Iowa State Fair.
I will see Bobby this week. And, yes, he talks to fast. First time I met him I told him I could see how he won a Rhodes Scholarship.
Too fast. Not “to fast.”
expat: What nuts?
“Electability,” like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Yes, I can see how Trump would appeal to a lot of feed-up-with-them-all voters; but, I also, like you Neo, think that he will turn off more voters than that will gain. I also think the same thing about Christie’s in-your-face attitude. Anger and in-your-face will appeal to some; but they turn off even more.
The four that you mention – Cruz, Walker, Jindal or Fiorina – I see as all having “electability.” If the GOP and the MSM let them get their ideas out and don’t focus on superficial nonsense. (seriously, while I don’t remember which candidate it was I do remember turning off the TV in disgust several decades ago when the “journalist” was discussing the length of a candidate’s hair; I haven’t watched much of the “talking heads” since)
Lastly, and I think this is important, Cruz mentions in his book, A Time for Truth, that Reagan was elected preciously because he stated, without apology, these (conservative values) are my values. Cruz also points out that such an appeal earned Reagan the following fact: “The conservative Reagan is the only President in modern history who has a group from the other party named for him.” Cruz is referring, of course, to “Reagan Democrats.” Now, that is electability.
I agree that what Trump has said “before” about Bush and any number of other issues is alarming and deplorable.
At the same time, absent some hit adds IF Trump is the nominee, none of what he said “before” matters one whit in terms of his “electability.”
Indeed, in the la s week this “electability” has moved up so much I’m willing to wager that when Trump looks at himself in the mirror while shaving he now thinks, “You know, I may just have a REAL shot at this thing.”
vanderleun:
I am convinced, though, that if someone such as Levin pointed this stuff out just like he did in 2011, Trump’s support would go down. Why are he and Rush et al not pointing it out? See this.
What about Rush? For years now, it has been his constant theme that conservatism has not been tried on a national level, that there are many more Americans who would respond to an explicitly conservative message than the media or GOPe know about or would let on.
I can’t prove it, but I think Rush is correct (as usual). Now Rush has abandoned actual conservative candidates, and may very well be a prime factor in obliterating their chances.
I just want to throw this out there about demographics. It is very anecdotal and I forgive folks in advance for making fun of me, but here goes.
I am not a black person, but I do talk to black people on a frequent basis. I feel more comfortable expressing my unvarnished “conservative” views among black people than white people, and I am not talking about just gay marriage.
This is a “demographic” ready to hear the unvarnished message. That may be one thing Trump has revealed. All kinds of people respond to sincerity and expressions from the heart, if they think it is an expression of goodness or common sense.
I do not mean to denigrate the other candidates I like, but I am willing to bet Ted Cruz could walk into any black church (except Rev Wright’s) and walk out a hero.
And not because he is Hispanic, but because he speaks beautifully from the heart in ways where people can see the common sense.
Tonawanda:
Did you see my note to you about that here?
In summary, I believe they are choosing ratings over principle.
Glenn Beck seems to have broken free from the herd re Trump: Hannity defends Trump from Glenn Beck
Only one market test of the electability trope in my lifetime: that wing-nut Reagan.
neo @ 6:13 PM
I have now read your note on Rush and Levin. You have expressed that before and I was reluctant to totally agree, but now I think I do totally agree. But that is not a good thing because of what it implies.
As I stated in another thread, many reputations for integrity are being shredded, the Trump effect.
Let me do the subjective thing again.
I have listened to Rush carefully for many years. He is incredibly professional, admirably so, which means he is great at hiding his personal emotions.
But his discussions of Trump to my ear betray an element of insincerity and nervousness. Obviously, this is how it sounds to me and I can’t prove it.
His voice simply lacks the usual solidity when he discusses Trump. It turns me off a little.
But last week Rush addressed the point you make.
In one of those “casual” remarks he makes as a form of misdirection, he stated that his interest in Trump had nothing at all to do with ratings.
He said that people always have and always will listen to his show for one reason and one reason only – – for Rush himself.
When he said that, with the tone he said that, something my mother always repeated popped into my mind – –
guilty conscience needs no accuser.
Tonawanda:
He may even have somewhat convinced himself that it has nothing to do with ratings.
My opinion has been pretty firm from the start on that. If either of them (Levin or Limbaugh) change their message on this I would change my mind. But so far they haven’t.
I have no illusions about talk show hosts. First and foremost it’s a business. That doesn’t mean they don’t have ideals, beliefs, and principles. But it does mean they can rationalize those things in order to further their bottom line, whether they’re aware that they’re doing it or not.
Confession, if that is appropriate; I used to pay quite a bit of attention to Limbaugh and Levin. I became less enamoured as time went on, and both pretty much lost me in 2012. It seems that Limbaugh will take the most anti-establishment view, no matter what. I don’t know if he does it on principle, or as a marketing ploy. I think Levin is very intelligent, and worth listening to when he talks about constitutional principles. On the other hand he is just so angry that he is a pure negative force politically.
The notion electability, or lack thereof, seems to be used pretty selectively, and as a weapon. Who was more un-electable than Barack Obama in 2008? Or even 2012? I don’t recall hearing that expressed very much.
Of course for media pundits it becomes sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as they pick their pony to ride, and try to freeze every one else out. Just wandered into the family room where Greta was discussing why Trump gets all of the coverage. Really, Greta? That is how you spend your air time, talking about why the media talks so much about Trump? Don’t think she sees the irony. Fortunately, the off button on our remote works.
Oldflyer:
That’s exactly how I feel about Levin.
Furthermore, I think he has really hurt the conservative movement and caused it to eat its own.
Oldflyer: I had to stop listening to Rush today out of disgust. That has never happened before.
At some point Rush used the “casual tone” ploy again, parenthetically, almost under his breath mentioning that Cruz and others understood the immigration issue (I forget his exact words).
He also recognized that the Trump situation was causing “internecine” arguments among conservatives.
The more I think about it, the more disgusted I am.
neo is correct, it is all about ratings and Rush deserves no benefit of the doubt.
IOW no better than GOPe or Trump himself.
Have you looked at Breitbart News recently — they seem to be totally in the tank for Trump. Re that, there’s this: Breitbart Staffers Believe Trump Has Given Money To Site For Favorable Coverage:
Happily, I don’t believe that either Trump or Bush is electable. Sadly, I’m doubtful that Walker or Cruz is electable.
IMO, Carly Fiorina is the most electable of the republican candidates. That is because to the average low info voter (the deciding 25%?) she is the most persuasive. She can excite the base and stand up to the media’s propagandists.
Given the current cultural climate, the importance of her gender is not to be underestimated.
But I judge it unlikely that the GOP will fully support her, even if she won the nomination. At best, their support will be tepid. As the GOP leadership has made it clear that they find conservatism to be an anathema.
They are not fans of Reagan but of Bush Sr. I suspect that they’d rather lose the 2016 election than see an actual conservative be elected. Their loyalty is to the status quo, rather than to the country.
I think the list of electable conservatives is short. Walker, maybe. Cruz…probably no, but he comes closer to electable than most. Fiorina never, although I would cheerfully vote for her if she got the nomination. No Republican woman is electable, no matter how well qualified she is. The lack of any prior political office would be an immediate DQ were it not for the overall low caliber of the Republican field.
I’m so pessimistic about our chances that I’m about ready to vote for the Donald, just for the hell of it,
According to Real Clear Politics, Bush, (Whom I wont vote for) tops the list of Republicans that the general public would choose over Hillary. Trump, on the other hand, (Another Republican I wont vote for), looses to Hillary by a large margin. THAT is what I consider by “elect-ability”. Im a tea party kinda guy (hence the extremist label), and Trump takes issues I care about and by association makes them look like only nuts could support them. Its almost like he’s a democrat plant.
Harry the Extremist:
Maybe you should eliminate the “It’s almost like” part.
GB: unsure why you think the RNC wouldn’t support Carly. They poured a ton of money into her race in California, even though it was essentially a lost cause.
Electability: because of popular culture penetration by legacy media, 40% of voters will not vote for anyone we are discussing here, not ever. More than half of those hate Hillary but will vote for her anyway, because they hate us more.
Therefore, we overvalue anyone who we believe can either a) bring in new voters, b) excite more than one faction of conservatives, or c) are at least somewhat acceptable to the various strains of conservatism.
It is good to keep those general ideas in mind before even considering a single name on the list. Which is to say, don’t watch or listen to any of them for a few days every week. Even the strong of character will be swayed by their emotional qualities, their charm or anger or lack thereof. Get your feelings out of this, Young Padawan.
Additional thoughts: Talk to people from other countries – I am thinking of my Romanian and Norwegian friends – and contemplate how much worse their choices are. They have to hold their noses much tighter to vote. Should the decent people thus just refuse to vote at all, decade after decade? Remember that, you populists and purity conservatives when you consider you perennial boycotts of elections. It’s just real life. Do you feel betrayed and want to show your displeasure (or regard your vote as so holy that only the best may have it)? Of course they betrayed you. They’re politicians. When was it ever different? We make the best of what we have.
The more cheerful candidate generally wins.
KLSmith,
for the reasons already given. California is an anomoly, so leftist that even a conservative is welcomed by the GOP. But while I’d be happy to be proven wrong, the support in the Senate and House for McConnell and Boehner demonstrates where the GOP leadership’s heart lies.
Ken Masugi: Obama and Trump: Playing to Party Strengths
GB: no doubt GOP will go all out to crush any leading conservative in the primaries. If one should win, don’t see how they couldn’t support their own nominee.
Electability revolves around two things, IMO.
The first is the division among voters. According to Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166787/liberal-self-identification-edges-new-high-2013.aspx?version=print
Conservatives = 38%
Moderates = 34%
Liberals = 23%
I consider these numbers a bit suspect, but it’s what we have to work with. In order to win an election a Republican candidate must get all 38% conservative votes and 13% of the moderate (I call them LIVs) votes. In 2012 Obama it appears that Obama won 28% of the moderate vote in order to win. It appears to me that the moderates are more liberal than they are willing to own up to. It also appears obvious to me that no candidate that is seen to be too far out of the mainstream can win those moderate votes. The dems and their communications wing, the MSM, will always cast a good conservative who runs to the right as being too far out of the mainstream. That is why the GOP establishment worries about looking too conservative. The dems never tell the voters what their real aims are. That is, until Bernie Sanders came along. Bernie is preaching the socialist line and appealing to the liberal base. In the general I suspect he would crash and burn among the “moderates.”
The other issue of electability is the Electoral College. The GOP and dems have a certain number of states that they can count on to go their way. Neither party can gain enough electoral votes to win with just those states. They must get the electoral votes of enough of the 11 swing states that determine the winner. The eleven swing states are detailed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_state
With this being the case, both parties will concentrate most of their energy and money on those eleven states because That is where the election will be won.
Electability comes down to those two issues. Can the candidate garner enough moderate votes and can the candidate win the requisite number of swing states. All else is merely a side show.
Jimmy J:
Turnout is also key in determining the winner.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-is-rooting-for-jeb-bush-121452.html?ml=m_t1_2h#.VdJ7wFlViko
As posted before: Jeb Bush couldn’t defeat a baby rattle.
Jeb Bush is the BIG threat to the GOP at the polls.
That’s been obvious from the start.
Trump is being elevated by the MSM — and next year he will be trashed by the MSM.
It’s the way they roll.
What we have are two un-serious — not viable — candidates sucking all of the oxygen out of the room.
I’ve said it, said it, said it, Immigration – LEGAL immigration is the big issue for 2016.
The second big issue is trade with Red China and the Third World generally.
BHO is turning America into Brazil.
%%%
It must be a religious faith: but far, far, far, too many hold to the idea that with some sugar and spices we can turn Third Worlders into highly productive Americans — just like things happened a century ago.
But, Third Worlders come from societies that are at the global norm IQ wise.
This has a direct impact on their economic productivity, how fast they can acculturate, how fast they can pick up American English, how fast they can become wise voters, … everything.
European IQs norm around 95 to 100. The lower number is typical of repressed European societies with lousy pre-natal nutrition and no small amount of in-breeding.
( The large local — immobile villages give the false impression that DNA variability is high when — in fact — everybody is cousin to the other. This was the situation in Japan, Korea, and China right up until their transition.)
The global IQ norms to only 85 — and goes a LONG way towards explaining why the Peace Corps had / has such difficulty in getting economic and cultural ‘traction’ wherever do-gooding has been attempted.
With half-a-century of effort — the same tales keep coming up — and back: the Third Worlders sabotage their own — cousin upon cousin — time and time again.
It’s their crabs-in-a-bucket culture. True Socialism means that NOBODY breaks out into the sunlight.
Prize livestock is routinely ‘assassinated’ by the cousins — as seeing a hard working fellow make a success of himself is really too much to bear.
This culture is PERVASIVE in the Third World. Race, skin, religion — they matter not.
This tic goes a LONG WAY towards explaining why Socialism has such a pull on the emotions inside the US of A. It’s the ancient way.
As any cook could tell you, you dare not toss all of the flour in the pot in a single jolt. It can’t blend in.
But that’s what’s up with unlimited LEGAL immigration. Instead of families adjusting to their new land — they simply transplant everything — culturally — that was backward — from back home.
You end up with enclaves as bizarre as the Beverly Hillbillies – without the jokes, the money, and the comprehension of English.
There is a secondary problem: Americans from the liberal old north west and old north east are out of sync with immigration realities.
They are ALL thirty to forty years behind the immigration wave.
They vote, they think, they opine — about something that they have no direct knowledge of.
The MSM keeps them in the blind.
The MSM never brings up the Latino on Black race war — in the LA streets. That’s strictly a Southern Californian newswpaper story.
The MSM never brings up the absolute insanity of Mexicans running riot all over the police blotter — endless petty crimes — endless extremely violent crimes.
The MSM never brings up the gangster-racketeer schemes to shakedown even legal Mexican immigrants for protection monies — lest something happen to their virginal sisters — or their mother — or their grandparents — back in the old country. This is a HUGE racket for the criminal gangs. It’s also the source of no end of Mexican criminality inside the US of A. For unless the fellow engages in criminal activity – he has not a hope in he!! in raising the protection funds.
This dynamic is setting the stage — EVENTUALLY — for an all out invasion of Mexico — this time by the United States. Such a war will occur as a last recourse — as it finally becomes clear that regime change is a prerequisite to end this soft invasion.
The Muslim powers dream for such a time as they could invade Israel with such softness. Demographic victory in spite of cultural defeat.
blert:
The Trump candidacy has benefited the Bush candidacy, also.
Jimmy J, I am also suspicious of Gallup’s numbers there (and I like Gallup). I like Pew’s more thorough breakdown better.
http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/typology-comparison/
AVI, thanks for the link. Enough different comparisons there to make a statistician desirable as a campaign consultant.
Neo, yes turn out is also key. Especially among the dead and the illegal alien voters. The dems will find as many of those as they can in the swing states. They will also have party operators trolling the streets of major cities in swing states offering “pocket money” to anyone they can get to vote the way they tell them to. That’s how they swing those states into their column. 🙂 On the other hand, the GOP will do no such thing because they will follow the law. Poll watchers is the only weapon the GOP has against fraud as far as I know.
Then there are the disaffected conservatives and evangelicals. How many of those are going to stay home if Trump is the candidate? A lot, is my guess.