As the presidential nomination campaigns move into high gear for the final four months from Labor Day to the Iowa caucuses, John Edwards has begun to articulate the "electability" argument that I have been suggesting for months now, would ultimately be a key factor in Democratic primary voters decisions.
(Please note I happen to strongly support Edwards for President because he will be the best President of any of the candidates running - but think that electability will be a key reason many Democrats in early Primary states will ultimately give him their votes).
In the Washington Post today, Edwards pointed to his strong support from Mineworkers and Steelworkers (who are not particularly big factors in Iowa and New Hampshire) as evidence that he will be the strongest general election candidate.
I am proud of the fact that [union leaders say] in their endorsements that John Edwards is the candidate who can campaign and win in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in West Virginia, in Kentucky, in all of the places in America where we have to be able
to compete and win to win this election," he said, as a high school marching band warmed up nearby. "I will campaign everywhere in America."
In the current issue of Time Magazine Elizabeth Edwards is quoted making the argument that if Hillary Clinton is the nominee it will motivate the Republican base to come out in larger numbers.
Soon she's pressing the argument that her husband is the most electable candidate, the one who will help other Democrats win in the South and West—and she's managing to attack Clinton while defending her. "I want to be perfectly clear: I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified. I don't know where it comes from. I don't begin to understand it. But you can't pretend it doesn't exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won't energize them, Bush won't, but Hillary as the nominee will. It's hard for John to talk about, but it's the reality."
In the recent edition of C-Span's "Road To The White House" I heard John Edwards (In New Hampshire) make the argument that Democrats are going to start thinking about the question of who they would rather have at the top of the ticket to help pull in more new Democratic Congressman and Senators in close states and districts. "Which candidate would they rather run with and which would they more likely run away from".
Let me be clear that I still support John Edwards primarily because I am convinced he will be the best president of all of the Democrats running for the 2008 nomination (actually I think he will be the best president of my lifetime) but I also think the electability argument is an strong additional reason.
It is more then just whether Obama and Hillary also could get elected, because Hillary makes a strong case (called Kerry + 1) that she can narrowly get elected even with unfavorable ratings in the very high 40's (and sometimes low 50's) simply by winning every state that Kerry won plus one other big state (or a combination of small states) totalling 20 more electoral votes. With the country desperate to end the Iraq War and fed up with Republican hypocracy and incompetence even Hillary might very well be able to win a popular and electoral vote majority BUT SHE IS GOING TO HAVE TO THREAD THE NEEDLE VERY CAREFULLY. If Hillary is the nominee t will be like every other recent election where all of the Democratic resources go into the 8 or 10 states that are deemed to be "in play" and all of the South (except for Florida and maybe Arkansas) are written off right away, along with the West and most of the Mid-West. With Hillary as the nominee there may very well be some additional excitement among women but I seriously doubt there will be any women in any region of the country who will turn out to vote for her who wouldn't also vote for Obama or Edwards. It is very easy on the other hand to imagine voters (not all men either) in all regions of the country who will turn out to vote against Hillary who might have either not voted at all or voted for Edwards.
With Obama as the potential nominee I believe there is likely to be a greater turnout of African Americans especially in the South but an equally (at least) drop off of white voters across the country who will not vote for him because of his race who would have voted for Edwards.
With Edwards as the nominee, I think the Democrats will have the greatest turnout in recent history in many of the close red states (Ohio, West Virginia especially) who have tended to vote Republican for "cultural" reasons, as well as better results in the Southern States (who will trust Edwards especially against Guiliani or Romney). The difference will not only be felt in the size of the electoral mandate that Edwards would get but also in the size of the Democratic majority that he would bring in with him to push his agenda. Look back at all of the very close Senate races that we lost in 2000, 2002 and 2004 and imagine if the Democrats running for Senate and Congress had an additional few points of cushion.