washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

Debating Electability

George Stephanopoulos has addressed criticism of his and Charles Gibson’s conduct as moderators in last night’s ABC-sponsored Democratic candidate debate, in the form of an interview with TalkingPointsMemo’s Greg Sargent. And George went straight to the “electability” defense:

Stephanopoulos strongly defended his handling of the debate. He dismissed criticism that it had focused too heavily on “gotcha” questions, arguing that they had gone to the heart of the “electability” that, he said, is forefront in the minds of voters evaluating the two Dems.

Ah yes, “electability,” which makes discussion of any criticism of a candidate, frivolous or serious, instantly relevant, on the theory that the opposition will hit the nominee with all this crap, so we might as well see how they handle its endless repetition today.
There are several problems with this line of “reasoning” that arrogates to journalists (not to mention the candidates themselves) the right–nay, the responsibility–to ape the nastiest hit tactics they can imagine emanating from conservatives later this year.
First of all, why is Stephanopoulos all that sure that “electability” is in the “forefront in the minds of voters evaluating” Obama and Clinton? Maybe he thinks that’s the only significant difference between the two candidates, and maybe he’s tired of hearing their substantive pitches, but that’s not necessarily true of actual voters who have heard far less of their policy ideas lately than any manner of gotcha stuff or “symbolism.”
Second of all, “electability” is a highly speculative concept at this stage of the presidential election cycle. Who knows how “electable” Obama, Clinton or McCain is going to look in October? I don’t; you don’t; George Stephanopoulos doesn’t; and grilling the candidates on their alleged “vulnerabilities” doesn’t cast much real light on that question, either.
Third of all, to the extent that we can measure “electability,” there’s a form of evidence that’s a lot more persuasive than how Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton answer nasty, contrived questions. It’s called general election trial polling. And so far, both candidates remain highly competitive, in roughly equal measure, with John McCain, even though McCain is benefitting from (a) an early nomination win, (b) years of positive media attention, (c) a heavy media focus on Democratic infighting, and (d) relatively low levels of scrutiny of the relationship between his current platform and his record. Unless the entire general election is going to be fought out over Barack Obama’s attitude towards flag pins or Hillary Clinton’s experience one day in Kosovo, then it’s hard to understand why such matters are the key to measuring “electability” for the Democratic voters of Pennslyvania.
And last of all, if “electability” was indeed the focus of ABC’s moderators last night, did it occur to them that asking the candidates how, exactly, they’d criticize McCain and his platform and record on this or that issue might be relevant to the topic? After all, the general election isn’t going to be merely an extended interview of the two candidates by the news media over their personal “stories.” What do they think of McCain’s new tax plan? How about his difficult-to-reconcile position on torture by the military and torture by the CIA? How will they handle his profession of being simultaneously a “maverick” and a rigorous foot-solider of the conservative movement? What if anything will they say about his foreign policy advisors? And on and on.
The more you look at it, the “electability” defense for endlessly superficial debates–and media “coverage” of campaigns in general–doesn’t make much sense. If George just came right out and said his network needed “fireworks” to boost ratings, it would sound more plausible.

One comment on “Debating Electability

  1. bamjaya on

    Here’s something I’d love to see posted around or put into an e-mail to expose the threadbare excuses of ABC:
    Here are questions, including audience submissions, from a previous Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC. Says it all.
    “Obviously, in the light of what happened in Minnesota (bridge collapse last summer), maintaining infrastructure requires spending, and how tax dollars are spent is a matter of priorities. What should we not build, what should we not be funding to see to it that our highways and our bridges and our tunnels and our mines are all properly maintained?”
    “Should state and local and, in some cases by proxy anyway, federal governments subsidize private businesses like sports teams by building them stadiums, when perhaps that choice is being made at the expense of infrastructure and bridges?”
    “You expressed some disappointment that NAFTA, in your words, did not realize the benefits that it was promised — it promised, rather.
    How would you fix it?”
    “28 percent of those surveyed in the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll perceived China as an ally. More than half this nation views China as an adversary. Which do you think it is, ally or adversary, sir?”
    “Congressman Kucinich, what do you do if an Iraq post-America, post-America in a Kucinich administration, is influenced or controlled by al Qaeda.”
    “(from the audience) My question is, as president, what will you do to improve the health and safety in our coal mines and all of our workplaces across America?”
    “(from the audience) I want to know, what would you do to restore the rights of workers like myself who want to form a union?”
    “My 21-year-old daughter joined the Army Reserves after high school at the age of 19. She’s currently a sergeant in the Army and is serving her 10th month in Iraq. With all the billions of dollars being spent on the war, I want to know why my daughter was forced to buy some of her own required uniform and other gear the Army didn’t supply her. Also, in every war, active-duty military normally were deployed for six months overseas. Why is the active Reserves required to spend more than double this time in Iraq?”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.