First diary be gentle please - This is not a candidate diary
There is a on going discussion among well known writers in blogotopia(SkyppyTM) about how valuable is "Experience" as a political argument to achieve the presidency of the US of A and of course the debate is related to the CW perception the candidates still on the running , BHO not enough, HRC enough and JMC a lot.
I disagree on their premise, and again this is not a candidate diary, more below the fold
Matt Iglesias take in this issue:
More broadly, though McCain is a formidable candidate in some respects, "experience" is the time-honored election argument of losers. If voters really valued experience, then veteran senators would be getting elected president all the time. Instead, it almost never happens because normal people don't think that long duration in congress -- an institution that's invariably incredibly unpopular -- is an appealing character trait.
Ana Maria Cox
McCain will be out there, holding court on his bus or his plane, providing unfettered access to both reporters and voters, and journalists will no longer be able to ignore Obama's lack of access and lack of interaction with real people. In fact, it'll be the only thing they talk about.
And Ezra Klein opinion on Cox's post
Obama's allergy to taking questions -- both from the press and from voters -- is actually an undercovered part of this campaign. Where Clinton does townhalls, Obama holds rallies. Where McCain constantly hangs out with reporters, Obama has little to do with them. They like him, to be sure, but if they continue to feel frozen out, that could change.
And:
Scott Lemiux
Clinton proceeding from her allegedly greater experience have always been unpersuasive, precisely because if Clinton's rather marginal and contestable experiential advantages over Obama should be decisive any of the other major Democratic candidates would be unquestionably preferable to either
So, "experience" defined as the time in office or the national spotlight could be:
- Irrelevant.
- Irrelevant now and decisive on the GE
- Important if you have the media to amplify your position.
My guess all missed the point because there are not enough voters that perceive experience as the be all of desirable qualities of a President to actually affect the results.
So how many voters are influenced by the "experience" quality and how "firm" are their decisions? I choose these states b/c Iowa was 1st all candidates were in the ballot and expend considerable time and resources there, Missouri a swing state, Wisconsin b/c the field was settled by then and California is just huge. A quick survey of the rest shows 10%-23%
Exit polling by msnbc
- Iowa Dem 20%, GOP 14%
- Missouri Dem 20%, GOP 19%
- Wisconsin Dem 22%, GOP 21%
- California Dem 22% GOP 26%
I tried to find the breakdown of satisfaction with any party nominee but didn't, The figures I saw on TV were between 75%-80% on the electorate as a whole, I will update if anyone direct me to the info.
I have to take a leap of faith and work with Wisconsin's numbers as the nomination race was stable all four remaining candidates compete there.
So for roughly 80% of the electorate "experience" is not the most important quality, the most important quality for Dems is to bring change above 50% across the board, for the GOP is "share his/her values" at about 50%, the most pressing issues for the Dems are the economy 45% a whooping 90% believes that economy is not good or bad and Irak 26%, for the GOP the economy 41% for 58% the economy is not good or bad and Irak 24%
Dems: 8% will be very dissatisfied if BHO is the nominee.
17% will be very dissatisfied if HRC is the nominee.
In the Dem side 95% of those that considered experience most important (out of 22%) voted for HRC and only 8% of the all of her voters are not likely to vote for BHO, we could safely assume that overwhelmingly HRC's voters that choose experience will be satisfied with BHO as the nominee. BHO's support on experience is so small that we could assume the same.
GOP: 14% will be very dissatisfied if Huckabee is the nominee.
7% will be very dissatisfied if JMC is the nominee.
In the GOP side 87% of those that considered experience most important (out of 21%) voted for JMC and 14% of the all of voters are not likely to vote for Huckabee, here a conclusion is muddled by the fact that Huckabee's supporters and detractors are divided by an clear cut issue: Religion in politics, while most of the GOP voters will not have a problem voting for JMC twice as many will not vote for Huckabee.
My best guess is whoever are the nominees their party loyalist will vote for them overwhelmingly (+95%) regardless of the quality of their "experience" and independents given the stark contrast of both parties positions on the issues will vote based on whoever convince them that their plans for the economy and Irak are more to their liking.
Again first time be gentle