Winning and Electability

Electability seems to be the number one issue with voters this year, apparently helping Kerry and hurting Dean so far.  But if Dean wins New Hampshire or pulls a close second, how will his performance affect his perceived electability?

Kerry's big win in Iowa was, in certain perverse ways, about electability.  He ran his biographical ads about serving in 'Nam, while Dean got hammered left and right and got sucked into responding and going negative.  So Kerry the Vietnam hero seemed a lot more electable than Dean, the guy who argues and shouts at old men.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that Dean pulls off a win or a winning spin in New Hampshire.  Then, the media and people will pile on Kerry as the guy who couldn't even ride the momentum of a big win in Iowa into his back yard.  The guy who sat on his lead and lost it.  We'll be reminded of Dukakis' double-digit Labor Day lead over Bush I.

And we'll get all sorts of stories about Dean: Was it his message?  Was it his style?  How did he overcome the screech?!  And then we'll be reminded that he does have far larger grassroots and far better fundraising.  

America loves winners, and at some point in the primary season, electability will cease to be an alchemy of resume and intangibles.  It will increasingly become defined--by most voters, anyway--as who actually wins.