America Has an Electability Problem
With President Trump at the helm during a global pandemic, we are headed for perhaps the most extraordinary and uncertain election in America’s history. The Democratic primary election, currently in the middle of its course, has already been derailed by the spread of COVID-19. Several states, including Louisiana and Georgia, have postponed the vote, with more states expected to do the same. In many ways though, the 2020 Democratic primaries were unique even before the coronavirus hit the United States. With the prospect of another four years of Trump in the White House, voters and pundits have been unusually preoccupied with picking a candidate they consider the most ‘electable’ in a general election rather than the one whose platforms they support the most. Conversations on electability, a favorite for pundits and politicians alike, are, however, riddled with problems and have the potential to damage the credibility of the Democratic establishment, especially if the so-called ‘electable’ candidate loses.
Of course, it is understandable for voters to prioritize getting rid of a president who says he doesn’t “take any responsibility at all” for the current turmoil. Especially at a moment when society has to adjust to a new set of difficult realities: businesses and schools closing nationwide, social isolation protocols in place, and the uncertainty of getting seriously ill. People rightly feel a sense of urgency to put a stop to the damage the Trump administration afflicts on this country’s most vulnerable, its institutions, and the rest of the world. But he will not go easily. To beat Trump in November, Democrats need to be strategic. It’s therefore worthwhile to take a serious look at the cases made by and for the two candidates left in the race: Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. In doing so, it is equally important to be scrupulous and critical about what we are told, especially when it comes to the topic of electability (for which predictions are so often wrong.) In 2016, for example, we were told that the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, was 99% guaranteed to beat Trump. Clinton, who was perceived as the most electable candidate by a long shot, positioned herself as more moderate and ‘electable’ than both her main opponent in the primary, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump in the general election — but failed to win the race for the White House.
In 2020, the mainstream narrative that the moderate, establishment candidate is the most electable again resurfaced. As pundits and surrogates have doubled down on the electability argument, they have so far successfully propelled their preferred candidate, Joe Biden, to win a majority of votes in the first half of the states, despite running a very poor campaign. His success can hardly be explained by an enthusiasm for the candidate nor has he rallied the masses on a particular vision for the country or on policy. During the debates, Biden has time-and-time again failed to formulate coherent sentences. On the trail, he hasn’t been much better. His speeches have been marked by gaffes, and as I have written, his interactions with voters have been strange and embarrassing. Unlike Sanders, Biden has not built a large grassroots movement of volunteers and donors, instead relying on an influx of corporate money and Democratic establishment surrogates. Nonetheless, after a surprising surge on Super Tuesday and victories during subsequent voting days, it appears very likely that Biden will become the Democratic nominee.
The reason for this, as the pundits will tell you, is because voters see Biden as the more electable candidate to beat Trump in the general. The problem, however, is that the meaning of electability is often left unexplained. And if we don’t know what electability actually means, then these votes are based solely on perceptions of electability. Since most voters are informed by pundits and the media, electability has likely become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, in the primaries at least.
There are several issues with electability. Fundamentally, the phenomenon is problematic because it is a tautology. A study by Data for Progress found that voters defined electability by phrases such as “can be elected” or “able to win” — suggesting there are little actual qualities attributable to the term. As the title of the study suggests: “electability is whatever you want it to be.” Since people are unlikely to absorb all of the information available to them, voters will invariably view electability through the prism of their own beliefs.
Secondly, it is impossible to accurately measure electability. Take a quick glance at how the most ‘electable’ Democratic candidates have fared in previous presidential elections, and you might become a bit more skeptical. There was the upset in 2016, when Clinton was viewed as the safe bet against ‘radical socialist’ Bernie, and subsequently lost against far-right figure Trump. During the 2008 primary, Hillary was also viewed as the most electable candidate, that is until Barack Obama received more delegates and went on to capture the presidency. In the 2004 and 2000 presidential races, the Democrats nominated John Kerry and Al Gore, respectively — both moderates in the primary field, both losers in the general election.
Since there is no hard data that could conclusively determine who will win the general election, the question is how voters have decided — and are deciding — on which candidate is most electable to them. The average voter may form opinions on electability through anecdotal evidence or by echoing what pundits on TV are telling them. In each case, however, their conclusions can fall short of reality. All together, these patterns can create self-fulfilling prophecies in the primaries and lead voters to pick candidates that might not have been best positioned to win in the first place.
Anecdotal evidence can greatly distort reality and lead people to succumb to psychological biases. If I took a straw poll of my friends before Super Tuesday for example, and believed my echo chamber on Twitter, Bernie Sanders seemed poised for a historic victory, and Biden wouldn’t have won a single state. Deferring to the so-called experts, like media pundits and pollsters isn’t much better. Jeff Weaver, Bernie’s former campaign manager for the 2016 election, accused the media of engaging in a “Bernie write-off” this cycle, citing polls that show Sanders doing poorly. After the senator won in Nevada in February, former MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews likened his success to “to the shock of France falling to Germany during WWII”, prompting CNN (who themselves face accusations of an anti-Bernie bias) to publish a piece titled “What is MSNBC’s problem with Bernie Sanders?”
The perceptions we form of electability are undoubtedly influenced by the media and by polls — which alone are often self-fulfilling — and create what Nate Silver calls, a feedback loop. When a candidate is hailed by prominent figures as electable, they suddenly become electable in the eyes of voters. For example, after Biden won South Carolina (his first win in three presidential races) on February 29 — shortly before Super Tuesday — the media was quick to pronounce Biden as the only candidate who could beat Trump. In other words, winning begets winning.
When the media sets a narrative, it impacts the way people poll; in turn, undecided voters use polls as a way to fill in information gaps. This form of narrative infilling, is yet another example of the potential for voters to pick candidates that don’t necessarily win in the general election.
Another major issue is that the media’s fascination with horserace politics distracts voters from judging candidates based on their policies. This has arguably helped Biden, who has campaigned not on policy but on his status as a former vice president. Contrarily, it has hurt progressives like Sanders and Warren, who have tried to make their case for a different policy vision in the country.
None of this is to argue that it is futile to debate who is best positioned to win in the general election. Tulsi Gabbard, who dropped out earlier today, has had no realistic path to the nomination for months and could therefore correctly be labelled as unelectable (although the media might have played a role in this — deeming her unelectable from the moment she began her campaign.) Sure, head-to-head polls in swing states and national polls do tell part of the electability story. The big issue, however, is that this election has been dominated by a fascination for a concept that can’t be fully explained or accurately measured. If people’s votes are predicated on flawed assumptions, then the Democrats could again lose with their ‘electable’ candidate, and give Donald Trump a second term.
