Larry Sabato: Electability is key in '08
Looking at the potential Democratic field in 2008, University of Virginia Prof. Larry Sabato likes a Warner-Bayh ticket:
In the deeply Red Hoosier state [Indiana], Bayh has won two landslide elections as governor and two as senator. These eleven Midwestern electoral votes, possibly combined with the twenty from neighboring Ohio, might be deducted from the GOP and added to the Democratic column by Bayh--making a Republican presidential victory difficult mathematically.The arch tone is uncharacteristic of Sabato; but the point is well-taken. Except...I've heard Warner speak and I'm underwhelmed. And, although I've been expecting a national run by Bayh since, oh, 1992, I'm also underwhelmed by him. But Sabato believes they would be "electable."A Warner-Bayh or Bayh-Warner ticket could be well nigh unbeatable, with Warner adding Virginia's thirteen electoral votes and probably West Virginia's five. The total of forty-nine electoral votes from these four Red states (OH, IN, VA, WV) would be nearly impossible for the GOP to make up, should this come to pass. Republicans need not worry: The Virginia-Indiana pairing makes so much political sense that the Democrats will never actually do it.
Sabato absolutely thinks Hillary would be a disaster, being the furthest thing from electable that the Dems could come up with.
Of course, Democrats played the electability card in 2004 and it got us John Kerry and oblivion. Why would they want to do that again?
Posted by Ara | Link
| Comments
(3)
| digg this
| del.icio.us 
Categories: Democrats
, Politics
Comments
I’d say that Sabato makes a small leap thinking that Warner’s one-term governorship (even a popular one) means he would carry Virginia against any Republican (a smaller leap for Bayh). And I agree, neither moves my soul an inch.
Unfortunately, “electability” is everything. Why? Because voters are lazy and, consequently, ignorant when it comes to the serious policy differences between Democrats and Republicans. And conservative anti-intellectualism has made presidential campaigns little more than likeability contests where knowing things is a liability rather than an asset (another Democrat disadvantage).
OK, so Kerry’s not exactly telegenic and he didn’t run a great campaign. On the other hand, the voters were scared stupid, Kerry was savagely and shamelessly smeared and he still lost by only 3% of the total vote. I’d still like someone to tell me what ticket – out of those who competed for the Democratic nomination – would have done better than Kerry/Edwards (Sharpton/Clarke?).
Posted by: shep![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 18, 2006 03:26 PM
Unfortunately, “electability” is everything.
I'm reading Doris Goodwin's A Team of Rivals, her history of the Lincoln era. And would it surprise you to discover that Lincoln's forces locked up the nomination in 1860 by saying he was the most electable of the bunch (Seward, Chase, Bates, et. al.)? He was. Not only that: he positioned himself to the center.
In the end, of course, the Democrats split in two and the Republicans also ran against a nominee from the Whigs or the Know-Nothings (I haven't gotten to that section yet). Lincoln became the first (and only?) third party President to be elected.
With a whopping 40% of the popular vote.
P.S. I think if there was an alternate ticket in 2004, it might have been Edwards-Kerry.
Stranger things have happened.
Posted by: Ara Rubyan![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 18, 2006 04:17 PM
"Lincoln became the first (and only?) third party President to be elected. With a whopping 40% of the popular vote."
And without even appearing on a southern ballot!
Ah, the good old days.
Posted by: shep![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 19, 2006 10:36 AM