Electability and perception of electability

Mark Palko writes:

We’ve heard a lot recently about the Republican voters going with less electable candidates (last night in particular), but I [Palko] wonder whether this is less a question of putting less weight on electability and more of having a different perception of electability. Is this really a case of primary voters who supported O’Donnell saying “I’d rather be right than be president” or do a large percentage of them believe she has a better than even chance in November.

My reply:

It’s not so horrible for people to engage in non-strategic voting! Beyond the immediate probabilities of this candidate winning the Senate election in November, primary challenges keep incumbents accountable. The thing I don’t really understand is why there aren’t more such challenges. I suppose they’re unlikely enough to succeed that it’s not usually worth doing it and risking your political career.

But, yes, I’m pretty sure that O’Donnell’s voters overestimated the chance that she’d win in November. That’s just human nature.

The real question here is why little Delaware has 2 seats in the U.S. Senate. . . .

5 thoughts on “Electability and perception of electability

  1. I didn't mean this as a slam against non-strategic voting and I certainly agree that primaries play an important role in accountability. I'm just wondering if this was non-strategic voting or strategic voting based on a different set of assumptions.

    I guess the better question is this: does the electability/perceived-electability gap vary greatly from race to race and, if so, what drivers affect that gap?

  2. "The thing I don't really understand is why there aren't more such challenges. I suppose they're unlikely enough to succeed that it's not usually worth doing it and risking your political career."

    Maybe such challenges are *not* a risk to your career. Many politicians get elected for the first time only after repeated attempts. Moreover, winning is a pretty big payoff and even losing can still be thought of as long term brand and awareness building.

    So I think your question of why there aren't more such challenges still stands.

    Mind you, I watch professional bike racing, and pretty much every day there is a group of riders who make a very long shot gamble on winning a stage by getting in a breakaway, so perhaps my judgment is clouded.

  3. Politics is so political that it skews what we know about it. Even the polling is partisan.

    What if voters wanted smaller government for 40 years, and politicians run on fiscal responsibility but are really porkers?

    Then eventually sincerity or trust might eventually become more important than articulation or 'electability.'

    It would be fun to be a pollster.

  4. "The real question here is why little Delaware has 2 seats in the U.S. Senate. . . ."

    Because the original intention of the framers was for the House to represent the interests of the people, while the Senate represented the interests of the states. Thus, the House was supposed to be equally proportioned by population, while the Senate was supposed to be equally distributed among the states.

    Of course, the 17th Amendment shattered that whole notion.

Comments are closed.