Why hasn't "electability" worked more in Clark's favor?

[dansolo]

In New Hampshire, a large portion of the primary voters cited "electibility" over issues as their main factor in deciding who to vote for. If that is the case, then why didn't Clark get more votes. It seems to me, in determining "electability", Clark has all of Kerry's advantages (veteran, foreign policy experience) without the disadvantages (IWR vote, Northeastern liberal). This makes me believe that people are being led to believe in "electability" based on media assertions.

[Jack_Dawson]

1. Clark was the Visiting Team in N.H.

competing with a couple of local boys who have been running for 2+ years. Let's see how Dean and Kerry do in Oklahoma and North Dakota, Arizona and New Mexico.

[annxburns]

2. He is too new ...

.... made some mistakes. Good man, not a great politician yet.

[returnable]

3. He was in Kerry and Dean's backyard...

And in the exit surveys, those who said "electability" was a factor favored Clark over Dean.

[TexasPatriot]

13. With Ted Kennedy campaigning for him

and with the Mass Machine invading... this was a home field victory. But Kerry's running entirely on big-mo. He's had virtually no staff in any of the non-retail states. We'll see if he can manage the same sort of GOTV without it.

[girl gone mad]

4. I think he should have competed in Iowa.

Everybody jumped on Kerry;s bandwagon.

When you can't decide, just let other people make the decision for you, or something like that.

[copithorne]

9. In New Hampshire

I don't get it either. It baffles me. If you are going for electability, then Clark, and to a lesser extent Edwards would seem to be far ahead of Kerry.

New Hampshire Democrats like Democrats from Massachusetts more than the rest of the country.

New England temperament is reserved, private, assertive. You speak objectively. I grew up in New Hampshire. I know this. The rest of the country doesn't like this as much. That's why when I moved away, I don't have any friends.

I hope the rest of the country can think for itself and seize the opportunity of Wesley Clark's candidacy.

[Jack_Dawson]

11. LOL I'll be your friend Cop!

That's a sad story!

:cry:

[librechik]

5. Clark has never been elected to anything

so his "electability" is a mystery. His attractiveness as a person, his skills, his experience, his ability to speak and think on his feet are only part of the E factor--we just don't know if this amazing and honorable American can turn his charisma into votes.

All the rest of the candidates have been elected at least once, so we know a little bit about how voters respond to them. We don't know that about Clark.

If you notice, Kerry has been elected by voters in elections many times, more than any of the other candidates. WE know that much about him. That could explain how voters are flocking to him in the clinch, despite all the great candidates available this round.

[Gman]

6. I think probably because

Kerry is doing a better job of clearly communicating his positions.

[Skinner]

7. I think that he made some gaffes recently,

which made him appear unpolished and perhaps not quite ready for the big show. He said a few things that he needed to "clarify" or retract later. Running for president is a tough thing. The fact that he was never a politician is one of Clark's strongest selling points, but his lack of political experience is also a weakness that (IMHO) is leading to a few mistakes that more seasoned pols would not make. That is an electability problem that Kerry and all of the other politicians do not have.

[mmonk]

8. Perceptions propped up

by media types. We just have to deal with and address it directly as possible. It will be overcome.

[janx]

14. In many cases they are not only propped up by media types--

they are defined by media types.

What does "electable" really mean, anyway? If the media would stay out of this and let the democratic process work, the candidate who gets the most votes (and ultimately delegates) will be elected, and thus "electable."

[Armstead]

10. Too enigmatic probably

In many ways Clark has all of the qualities of electibility. However, he's too unknown and too enigmatic in some ways.

Is he sincere or opportunistic? Is he very liberal or a centrist? What is his temprement, really? How could have so many Clintonistas supporting him at the same time as Michael Moore and George McGovern?

I personally haven't been able to get a handle on all of that. He seems one thing one day, and anotehr on a different day. THat may be admirable depth and dimension, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable if he'd been around longer so that I could get a better handle on him.

My hunch is that a lot of others have the same feeling. They like a lot of what they see, but don't really know what they're seeing. So they go to othes who are more distinct.

[tishaLA]

12. The exit polls had him number 2 for electability

but significantly behind Kerry. I think Skinner's post sums it up pretty well, though. He's made mistakes. He's learned from them, I hope. I think he will be rejuvinated after a couple wins February 3.

[bowens43]

15. Because Clark doesn't have it.

a pretty face, a fancy uniform and empty promises aren't enough for most people. IMO Clark is not as 'electable' as many of his supporters would have us believe. As I have stated before, I don't know a single Democrat outside of this forum, who will be voting for Clark in the primaries. The people I've talked with don't trust him. They think that he's a Democrat only because it was convenient. As we have seen from the exit poll data, the war in Iraq and national security are not at the top of the list of concerns for Democratic voters. This puts Clark in an unenviable position, his entire campaign is built around these issues. If the people aren't afraid , Clark has little to offer.

[TexasPatriot]

17. surprisingly enough

i know a LOT of dems that will vote for him.. and would have a hard time voting for some of the alternatives. If you think Clark's appeal is limited to DU you're living in a very strange world

[Jack_Dawson]

18. Still haven't done your homework

Bowens? Tsk tsk tsk. Look we get it you'll vote for Nader over Clark. But narrow-mindedness like yours is what will keep Bush around another 4 years. Sigh.

[CWebster]

16. Because he wasn't the one who claimed the mantle of it

for himself at the expense of anyone else.

[jobycom]

19. Because "electability" means more than the stupid media believes

The media underestimates Americans. They believe we vote based on how a person looks, appears, sounds, and acts, rather than on substance. When they talk about "electability," they are referring to these superficial characteristics, combined with issues like what jobs a candidate has held, how well he or she demographically matches up. Clark is pretty, articulate, has a strong bearing, has a military background which they assume will match up well against Bush's cowardice... Fill in the blanks. These are all superficial. They are important, especially a candidate's background, but they don't prove that a candidate can do a job, or make people believe he or she can do a job.

When the average Democratic voter says "electability," they are looking past image, at character, trustworthiness, and track record in elections. Clark has no political record, so he is weak on election history. He's raised questions-- right or wrong-- about his trustworthiness as a Democrat. And though his character seems basically above reproach, his trustworthiness issue affects perceptions of his character. (Not talking about whether he sleeps around, or any Repub concepts of character, but about how well he would stick to his promises, fight for real issues, etc.).

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Clark in any of these areas, just that his "electability" factor as portrayed by the media is not as strong amongst Democratic voters who find the media superficial and corrupt. He's got all the image stuff, but when it comes to the rest, he's not as much of a standout. So, voters voting on "electability" use their own standards, not the media's, and don't give him as strong an edge. They still chose him third in New Hampshire. To get more, he has to overcome his negatives, just as all candidates do. Since he has so little campaigning experience, he doesn't know how to do this. Yet, anyway. We've had one primary and one caucus, and there was a different winner in each, so nothing is close to decided yet.

[Doctor_J]

20. A little too green

as others have mentioned. Yes, Jennings caught him off guard, but that question was a softball that, IMO, Clinton or even Kerry would have knocked out of the park - "well, Peter, Michael is a journalist who has done some research, and is entitled to say what he believes. It's a travesty that no one in the corporate media has investigated this, especially since Mr. Bush made so much political hay in 2000 by touting his 'character' and 'patriotism'. If I knew for sure that Michael's claims were false, I would be first in line to stick up for Mr. Bush. But until I find out the details, why should I denounce Michael's point?"

He's got about two weeks to get some traction. Oddly, I think he's being handled well by his staff. It remains to be seen whether he has the stomach for campaigning.

[TexasSissy]

21. Same reason Dean will do poorly in the south. It's not his neighborhood.

People seem to think that Clark did poorly in NH. Clark's plan was ALWAYS to place at least third (better if possible). That's a phenomenal feat, considering he's only been running several months, and he's never run for an elected office before.

Clark is right on plan. Dean is not. Kerry is. I suspect that Edwards is (he must win SC, though). Sharpton is doing better than planned. Kucinich is not. Braun didn't.

So I think Dean is pretty much the only candidate whose campaign is not going as was planned this past year.