![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
womzillaYesterday on All Things Considered, James Poniewozik delivered a short speech on the concept of "electability". His basic point was that when someone says "I like Foo, but candidate Bar is more electable", that person is saying "I understand how the average voter reacts better than the average voter does because I'm smarter than those other chumps."
This isn't completely accurate. For instance, if he were running, I would support Henry Waxman for president, but I think he's unelectable because he's significantly further to the left than most Americans seem to want. My positions are, in general, significantly left of the American center, and I think that the American center is where the votes are. (Well, that's not completely true--I think that the Republican national leadership is significantly to the right of the American center, but they campaign as if they were close to the center.)
None the less, I think that Poniewozik is definitely on to something, and that something can be numerically measured.
This week, Newsweek has a poll which indicates that if the election were held today, voters would prefer John Kerry over Rutherford Bush by 49 to 46 percent. Bush beats Clark by one point and Edwards by three. Statistically, this a dead heat--the voters polled pretty much could go either way with those three candidates.
(Disappointingly, Bush beats Dean 50 to 45, which might just indicate that two months of Pile On the Frontrunner has torn Dean down. Thanks a lot, all those responsible. Joe Lieberman, why don't you just go hang yourself?)
There's lots of other crunchy anti-Bush numbers in there, including a drop in Bush's approval rating following the State of the Union address, which is both surprising and unsurprising--usually, politicians get more approval when they make major speeches, but we are talking about a man who spent more time discussing the defense of marriage (184 words) than unemployment (0 words) or Osama bin Laden (0 words).
However, those polled think that it is very likely (40%) or somewhat likely (38%) that Bush will be elected to a second term of office. Now, "somewhat likely" covers a large terrain, but I'd put it at roughly equivalent to "more likely than not", and that very poll just put him at "more not than likely".
This indicates that, although the voters think that the Democrats (or, anyway,Kerry, Edwards, or Clarke) should win, they don't think they can win. Why do you think that is? Is it, perhaps, because everyone keeps saying that Bush can't lose, even as his approval rating steadily falls, the jobs steadily do not return, and the war in Iraq steadily keeps on warring?
Don't take despair. Don't be defeated. Bush will lose if people act like he will lose.
This isn't completely accurate. For instance, if he were running, I would support Henry Waxman for president, but I think he's unelectable because he's significantly further to the left than most Americans seem to want. My positions are, in general, significantly left of the American center, and I think that the American center is where the votes are. (Well, that's not completely true--I think that the Republican national leadership is significantly to the right of the American center, but they campaign as if they were close to the center.)
None the less, I think that Poniewozik is definitely on to something, and that something can be numerically measured.
This week, Newsweek has a poll which indicates that if the election were held today, voters would prefer John Kerry over Rutherford Bush by 49 to 46 percent. Bush beats Clark by one point and Edwards by three. Statistically, this a dead heat--the voters polled pretty much could go either way with those three candidates.
(Disappointingly, Bush beats Dean 50 to 45, which might just indicate that two months of Pile On the Frontrunner has torn Dean down. Thanks a lot, all those responsible. Joe Lieberman, why don't you just go hang yourself?)
There's lots of other crunchy anti-Bush numbers in there, including a drop in Bush's approval rating following the State of the Union address, which is both surprising and unsurprising--usually, politicians get more approval when they make major speeches, but we are talking about a man who spent more time discussing the defense of marriage (184 words) than unemployment (0 words) or Osama bin Laden (0 words).
However, those polled think that it is very likely (40%) or somewhat likely (38%) that Bush will be elected to a second term of office. Now, "somewhat likely" covers a large terrain, but I'd put it at roughly equivalent to "more likely than not", and that very poll just put him at "more not than likely".
This indicates that, although the voters think that the Democrats (or, anyway,Kerry, Edwards, or Clarke) should win, they don't think they can win. Why do you think that is? Is it, perhaps, because everyone keeps saying that Bush can't lose, even as his approval rating steadily falls, the jobs steadily do not return, and the war in Iraq steadily keeps on warring?
Don't take despair. Don't be defeated. Bush will lose if people act like he will lose.
