For many people on this board, Dean is viewed as less "electable" than Clark and other candidates because, more often than not, Clark does better than Dean in head-to-head match-ups against Bush due to contemporary national security concerns. For many other people on this board, such arguments are meaningless Dean will be able to counter Bush's post-Super Tuesday ad assault with more money than any other potential nominee.
So, who it correct? What is the bigger advantage in terms of "electability," Dean's money or Clark's military cred?
Here are the ten polling services from 2000 that conducted polls shortly after Super Tuesday and shortly before the Republican convention. These are the Bush/Gore swings between the March and July polls for each outfit:
Zogby: Bush +4
Tarrance: Bush +2
Pew: Bush +8
Newsweek: Bush +2
NBC: Bush +8
Hotline: Gore +1
Gallup: Gore +4
Fox: Bush +7
CBS: Gore +4
ABC: Bush +14
Mean: Bush +3.6
"Juiced" mean: Bush +3.7
Median: Bush +3
Now, the last nine polling outfits that have measured both Clark vs. Bush and Dean vs. Bush show Clark and Dean with the following deficits against Bush:
Zogby: Clark 9, Dean 8 (Dean +1)
Pew: Clark 10, Dean 11 (Clark +1)
Q-poll: Clark 4, Dean 6 (Clark +2)
ABC: Clark 12, Dean 14 (Clark +2)
Marist: Clark 19, dean 8 (Dean +11)
Newsweek: Clark 7, Dean 13 (Clark +6)
NBC: Clark 12, Dean 15 (Clark +3)
Gallup: Clark 3, Dean 9 (Clark +6)
Fox: Clark 13, Dean 13 (even)
Median Clark advantage, relative to Dean: +2 (Mean: 3)
Median Clark advantage, relative to Dean: +3 (Mean: 3.75)
"Juiced" Clark mean advantage: +1.86
Clark's current advantage in match-ups against Bush is almost exactly the same size as the amount that Gore surrendered as a result of running out of money pre-convention. It would appear in this light that neither Clark nor Dean has an advantage in the "electability" argument.
Now, I know that some people view my posts as central to the "wave of empiricist crap" that has gained so much credibility among Kossacks recently. For many of these people, less definable and/or quantifiable candidate characteristics than the ones I have looked at in this post play important roles in determining `electability." The ability a candidate will have to fight back against Republican attacks, the ability a candidate will have to "appeal" to "swing" voters, the way a candidate can or cannot shield himself from "soft on defense" claims, and the number of volunteers willing to work for a candidate are all frequently mentioned in any "electability" flame war. However, it is my belief that relying almost purely on such subjective criteria while making a supposedly "objective" claim that candidate x is definitely more electable than candidate y is what leads us to flame wars in the first place. Making an unverifiable truth claim and then slighting other Kossacks for their inability to accept that truth claim is at the heart of the majority of flame wars on this board. I try to keep my observations "empirical" because I believe it keeps conversation civil (which it turn allows information and ideas to be successfully exchanged).
You hear that schwa? Calling us idiots for not making the same personality assessments as you is completely unproductive.