We hear a lot about “electability” being a key criterion in choosing a presidential candidate. There is polling data showing that many Clinton supporters are voting for her, less out of ideological conviction than a belief that a more centrist candidate is likely to win the election in November.
Is this actually true? What does the historical evidence say on the subject?
I’ll rank each year’s nominee’s ideological positioning — as perceived by the media and presumably the public at that time — relative to their chief rival that year. Just who counts as “chief” rival is naturally a bit subjective, but I’ve tried to pick the leading insurgent to an establishment nominee, or vice versa.
”Relative ideology” doesn’t mean that the nominee was actually left- or right-wing — it refers to the nominee’s positioning relative to their rival. This may not reflect their true beliefs, merely how they tried to position themselves during the primary campaign. Years when an incumbent president was unchallenged for the nomination don’t count.
DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES BY IDEOLOGY
YEAR |
NOMINEE |
RIVAL |
NOMINEE’S RELATIVE IDEOLOGY |
OUTCOME |
1968 |
Humphrey |
McCarthy |
Right |
Lost |
1972 |
McGovern |
Muskie |
Left |
Lost |
1976 |
Carter |
Udall |
Right |
Won |
1980 |
Carter |
Kennedy |
Right |
Lost |
1984 |
Mondale |
Hart |
Left |
Lost |
1988 |
Dukakis |
Jackson |
Right |
Lost |
1992 |
B. Clinton |
Brown |
Right |
Won |
1996 |
B. Clinton |
- |
- |
Won |
2000 |
Gore |
Bradley |
Right |
Lost |
2004 |
Kerry |
Dean |
Right |
Lost |
2008 |
Obama |
H. Clinton |
Left |
Won |
2012 |
Obama |
- |
- |
Won |
So the left-wing candidate has won once and lost twice, a 33 percent success rate, while the right-wing candidate has won twice and lost five times, a 29 percent success rate. That isn’t really a large enough difference to form a clear conclusion. And if you limit it to races involving the modern primary system (basically since 1976) both left and right have an exactly 50 percent win rate.
Now let’s consider whether a candidate is an establishment or an insurgent candidate. An establishment candidate has the backing of the majority of the party’s elected officials and other decision makers as the primary race begins. An insurgent doesn’t.
Races where a sitting president is running for re-election and faces no opposition are a third case, which below are labelled uncontested.
Jimmy Carter is a special case. In his 1976 campaign, he was seen as a dark-horse outsider, while the smart money was first on Mo Udall, then on others like Frank Church or Jerry Brown. In 1980, though, as a sitting president Carter enjoyed the prominence while Ted Kennedy was that year’s insurgent.
And notice that insurgent doesn’t mean left. Carter in 1976 and Gary Hart in 1984 were both insurgents from the right, for example.
democratic nominees by type
Year |
candidate |
type |
outcome |
1968 |
Humphrey |
Establishment |
Lost |
1972 |
McGovern |
Insurgent |
Lost |
1976 |
Carter |
Insurgent |
Won |
1980 |
Carter |
Establishment |
Lost |
1984 |
Mondale |
Establishment |
Lost |
1988 |
Dukakis |
Establishment |
Lost |
1992 |
Clinton |
Establishment |
Won |
1996 |
Clinton |
- |
Won |
2000 |
Gore |
Establishment |
Lost |
2004 |
Kerry |
Establishment |
Lost
|
2008 |
Obama |
Insurgent |
Won
|
2012 |
Obama |
- |
Won |
This list shows that insurgent candidates have won twice and lost only once in the past 50 years — a 67 percent win rate. Establishment nominees have a dismal record. With just one victory for first-time candidates, compared to an incredible six losses, their win rate is just 14 percent.
How does this compare to Republicans?
The question is harder because Republicans haven’t actually had an insurgent nominee since 1964, and he lost big. They have had several insurgent candidates — Reagan in 1976, Robertson in 1988, Buchanan in 1992 and 1996 — but Donald Trump is the first who might actually win a nomination. So we can’t make a similar chart for Republicans.
But we can rank them by ideology. Yes, I know it seems weird to use the word “left” to describe a Republican, but remember these are relative labels.
Republican nominees by ideology
year |
nominee |
rival |
NOMINEE’S RELATIVE IDEOLGY |
outcome |
1968 |
Nixon |
Rockefeller |
Right |
Won |
1972 |
Nixon |
- |
- |
Won |
1976 |
Ford |
Reagan |
Left |
Lost |
1980 |
Reagan |
Bush Sr |
Right |
Won
|
1984 |
Reagan |
- |
- |
Won |
1988 |
Bush Sr |
Dole |
Right |
Won |
1992 |
Bush Sr |
Buchanan |
Left |
Lost |
1996 |
Dole |
Buchanan |
Left |
Lost |
2000 |
Bush Jr |
McCain |
Right |
Won |
2004 |
Bush Jr |
- |
- |
Won |
2008 |
McCain |
Romney |
Left |
Lost |
2012 |
Romney |
Assorted |
Left |
Lost |
“Assorted” for 2012 because there were so many short-lived rivals that year, all to Romney’s right.
The results are staggering: the Republican right has won 100 percent of the elections it won the nomination for; while the left has a grand total of zero. You have to go back to Eisenhower in 1952 to find a time when the more moderate Republican actually won an election.
Here we see why the Republicans keep nominating ideologically extreme candidates; because they win. No nominee who takes the primaries by positioning himself as more conservative has failed to win the general since Goldwater’s time, while four nominees — including two sitting presidents — who warned of an ideologically extreme challenger went down to defeat themselves.
The past is not a perfect guide to the future. But if it was, it’s pretty clear whom each party should nominate.