By Brian Pruka
February 9, 2004
"Electability" is the buzzword among Democratic primary voters. Driven by take-no-risk fears of losing to President Bush, voters are migrating en masse to the Lincolnesque John Kerry.
But is the "ability to be elected" the same as the ability to defeat Bush one-on-one in November?
Right now voters seem to think Bush will be defeated by the standard presidential resume - a long political career, military service (combat experience preferable), proven foreign policy acumen, and perhaps campaign savvy.
If that's so, why didn't the electable Al Gore defeat Bush in 2000? Gore had the resume to trounce Bush. Even John Kerry says he didn't run against Gore in 2000 because he presumed Gore would win.
Alas, Americans don't vote for resumes and platforms alone. Ask people why Gore lost and they are most likely to offer personality traits. He was too "stiff," too "elitist," a "Washington insider," "not one of us." A sparkling resume counts for naught if the job interviewers are uncomfortable with you.
Bush, on the other hand, skillfully portrays himself as "one of us," a "true American" with "family values," someone with "common sense" who "knows the value of hard work" (not that he ever engages in it). His resume is mainly a list of bailouts from his father and his father's friends. No matter, he gets elected. Add to that incumbency and $200 million and you have quite the home field advantage in 2004.
More at link:
http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/guest/67666.php