At least that's the theory that I'd like to discuss here.
There has been much talk of Kerry's "electability," much of it generated by the candidate and his campaign.
But what of his "likeability," particularly versus Bush?
(more)
I ask this question because personal observation and actual results indicate (to me) that for most Americans, electability = likeability.
An Iowa Caucus Observation
A preface: The talk of the caucus I attended, prior to voting, had been electing someone, anyone who could beat George Bush in November. In other words, electability was the primary issue driving these people to attend the caucus (a turnout that was 5x as large as the 2000 turnout) and select a candidate.
Edwards had very little initial support. In the first round of voting, he garnered just a few votes, far behind both Gephardt (who had the most) and Kerry. In fact, Edwards trailed Dean in the first round, as well.
In the second round, the Gephardt people -- after much discussion -- moved, en masse, to Edwards. Ultimately, Edwards finished with the most individual votes in the room, though he split the delegates with Kerry with one delegate going to Kucinich(!).
When the Gephardt supporters abandoned their candidate, it was because he was deemed unelectable versus Bush.
So you'd think these folks would have streamed to Kerry. After all, in Iowa Kerry had been hammering on the "I'm-most-electable" argument for weeks, including pounding that message home in his advertising and in phone calls to voters.
Yet here in the caucus, voter after voter talked of Edwards' electability versus Bush... along with his likeability. In other words, these voters connected the two and chose Edwards.
Edwards' surge in Wisconsin presents a similar scenario. Late-breaking voters believed Edwards to be both likeable and electable.
American voting patterns
Much has been written about the Gore-Bush election. But post-election surveys showed that even among many who supported Gore, Bush was more "likeable."
Bush played to his strength... his phony "aw-shucksism" regular-guy, dumbass personna versus Gore's stiff, stuffed-shirt intelligence.
And even though Gore won the popular vote and clearly had a better grasp of the issues, Bush still managed to take the election.
The question is, why did so many Americans choose a guy who had little or no record of accomplishment as a Governor and clearly had no idea what he was talking about on many critical issues over someone who demonstrated a clear grasp of issues and a native intelligence that dwarfed his opponent's lack of intelligence?
Likeability. Enough "swing" voters liked Bush that they believed his good guy personna.
Americans, in general, have proven that they typically choose their leaders on the basis of very shallow impressions. (See: Ronald Reagan)
Granted, in this election, Bush has a record. And Americans (according to recent polls) don't much like it.
But what will the situation be like come November? And of our two remaining candidates (sorry Kucinich and Sharpton backers), who stands up better versus Bush if, indeed, electability = likability?
Bush vs. Kerry, Bush vs. Edwards
First, let's agree that there are a myriad of factors that will influence the coming general election. And Kerry and Edwards each have their respective strengths and weaknesses.
But I would like to focus on the equation at hand:
Electability = Likeability
Weighing our two candidates on this issue versus Bush should be crucial to choosing our nominee.
Kerry has shown flashes of being likeable. But too often, he lapses into his pompous, stentorian personna... one which, while sounding intelligent, leaves this voter (and I suspect many other voters) cold.
Kerry has studiously cultivated the electability argument. He has been able to avoid linking electability and likeability because he hasn't had to link the two. In a crowded field, he just needed to win more than the rest.
But in a two-way race, the dynamic is comepletely different. (This holds for the primaries as well as the general.)
Suddenly, voters can choose the candidate they like the most. Because, according to the theory outlined above, for most Americans, electability = likeability.
I like A more.
Therefore, most other people must like A more.
Therefore, A must be more electable.
So where does that leave Kerry vs. Bush and Edwards vs. Bush?
My opinion is that Edwards is a much stronger candidate vs. Bush on the electability/likeability scale because he's a more likeable candidate than Kerry.
That said, I'm not sure Edwards has either the financial resources or the time necessary to beat Kerry at this point.
But if given the chance versus Bush, Americans (particularly the majority of Americans who are generally disinterested in politics and/or unaffiliated with a major Party) are more likely to choose Edwards over Bush than will choose Kerry over Bush.
I'm not choosing either candidate, by the way. I'm simply making an observation of a phenomenon I have witnessed in the voting public.
Comments?
