Normally, my brain shuts down when some political pundit uses the word “electability” — I know what’s coming. That’s what media people say when they’re about to start babbling about who is in the lead in a horserace to avoid having to discuss the substance of their policies. Policy is hard, but regurgitating poll results is easy, and if there’s anything we know for certain it’s that the talking heads on the TV are mostly idiots. Maggie Koerth nails it, though, announcing that You’ll Never Know Which Candidate Is Electable.
Political scientists study electability, but electability ain’t no science. Instead, researchers say, it’s basically a layer of ex post facto rationalization that we slather over a stack of psychological biases, media influence and self-fulfilling poll prophecies. It’s not bullshit, exactly; some people really are more likely to be elected than others. But the reasons behind it, and the ability to make assumptions based on it, well …
“[Electability] is this vague, floppy concept,” said Nichole Bauer, a professor of political communication at Louisiana State University. “We don’t know who is electable until someone is elected.”
Please, could someone tell this to Chris Cilliza or Chuck Todd, just to name two among many who need to be punched in the face and sent back to school and told to learn something before they start trying to influence the electorate?
Suppose we ranked how electable these candidates seemed to be from the viewpoint of a year or so before the election they ran in:
* John Kerry
* John McCain
* Barack Obama
* Mitt Romney
* Donald Trump
* Hillary Clinton
Probably the bottom two on the list would be Obama and Trump. In other words, everything we ‘know’ about electability is wrong.
But we also get Bernie and Pete crowing about “winning” the Iowa caucuses. It doesn’t bleeping matter who got the most votes, they both end up with the same number of delegates (11, if the source I looked at is right, and Warren gets 5). “Winning” is just another manifestation of this “horse race” style of reporting that ignores important stuff.
It’s the political equivalent of most sports commentary and Monday morning quarterbacking after a game.
Iowa is hardly a bellwether. Neither is New Hampshire. It is way to early to decide on a candidate. When that time comes, I will support the eventual nominee.
For now, this is why I support Liz Warren:
https://www.wonkette.com/elizabeth-warren-cnn-town-hall
This week, I’ve been feeling like punching some Sanders supporters who are spreading the idea that there was corruption in the Iowa caucus because Buttigieg did so well compared to what polls were saying…which was in no way helped by the overreaction of media and even some bloggers who shall not be named. cough PZ cough :)
It’s frustrating that these people seem incapable of considering that the polls may have been wrong. (That’s never happened before, right?) I don’t like it that Buttigieg did well, but I also know, from anecdotal experience, that he was popular, especially in the upper middle class neighborhoods of Marion near where I live. I’m also not surprised that he appears to have done well in the rural areas that tend to be more conservative…and even whiter than the urban areas (which are still very white…I had 128 people caucus in my precinct and we maybe had 1 person of color there (2 others showed up, but were confused about when the caucus actually started and how long it would take and went back home)).
@5, there was corruption – of data from a lousy app and receiving service.
Frankly, the reporting hotline should’ve been configured to only accept calls from within the state, which would’ve massively lowered the crank calls made to the line by trolls, professional and amateur.
As for Iowa or New Hampshire, those are precisely two states out of fifty, so that’s not even a prediction based upon small sample size, it is predicting off of binary sampling of two instances.
I only know Chris Chilliza from his breakdown of Trumps speeches, which are hilarious (both the breakdown and the speech lol), and away we go!
But the whole point of the “Electability” pretense is precisely SO these media pundits can influence the election.
@#7 waydude:
He shit out the mother of all BOTH SIDES ARE BAD ramblings regarding the impeachment about a week or so ago: Can Someone Just Lock Chris Cillizza In A Room Somewhere Until America Isn’t Broken? (goes to Wonkette).
I always seem to catch him when he’s not having a false balance stroke, but apparently he’s notorious for this kind of garbage.
Agreed with @8. Electability is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If people believe that someone is not electable, they will not vote for them. If they do not vote for them, they wont’t get elected.
In other words, if you want to vote for someone, they are by definition electable, so go ahead and do it.
elect-ability sounds too much like popularity as in TV personalities when clearly it is issues that are where the rubber meets the road. what do they stand for and for what do they advocate and will they work to do what they say they want to do.
Choosing Elect-ability is like trying to pick the winning sports team when in fact you are not playing the game. Elections are not a spectator sport where you pick your favorite the election is about the electorate the voters we make the government we are the ultimate authority the politicians are there only by the consent of the governed. I almost got in an argument with a friend the other day about this very thing. I did not plow into them I could hear the fear and loathing for the POTUS and did not want to sound like I was being critical of them
Romney got some praise for doing what he believed in regardless of what the consequences were. Who can do less?
I will vote for who I think will be the best in the primary and who comes closest to what I want the see and I will do the same in the general and that will not include that old con-man crock.
uncle frogy
‘“ Please, could someone tell this to Chris Cilliza or Chuck Todd, just to name two among many who need to be punched in the face and sent back to school and told to learn something before they start trying to influence the electorate?‘
What exactly is meant by “ punched in the face”? And why so hostile?
I don’t think polls and the concept of electability are bad necessarily, as much as misunderstood and use badly. A poll about “which one will you vote for” isn’t very useful usually, but how about a poll comparing the various policy and talking points the candidates have, preferably with as many numbers filed off as possible? Those say something about what ideas the voters are willing to accept, and certainly, allow you to conclude at least something about electability, much less influenced by your biases as the usual political commentators just bloviating.