×
I don't know if I agree with it, but this argument, from Hilzoy, is interesting:
(1) I believe that there is a real chance that significant numbers of people might see through Republican attack politics this year.(2) If they do, that might help to bring about a real realignment in favor of the Democrats, which Democrats would presumably welcome.(3) So one thing we should bear in mind, when deciding who to vote for, is: which candidate is most likely to help that process along?(4) People will be more likely to see through Republican attacks if they are not already predisposed to believe them.(5) People are predisposed to believe them about Hillary Clinton, largely as a result of fifteen years of Republican attacks delivered when people were not ready to see through them.(6) Therefore, other things equal, people will be more likely to see through Republican attacks if we nominate someone else.Assume, for the sake of argument, that the initial premise is correct (I'm not sure it is). What follows makes some level of sense. But I could also imagine the points leading in exactly the opposite direction. So let's begin at 4, and rewrite:(4) People will be more likely to see through Republican attacks if the contradictions are heightened, if there is some reality against which to compare the smears, and against which they are found lacking.(5) Hillary Clinton drives Republicans to particular heights of villainy, and will almost certainly provoke the most mean-spirited, extreme, and socially unacceptable attacks.(6) Hillary Clinton herself comes off as fairly likable and competent to most observers, and does not appear to have horns or a forked tongue.(7) Therefore, other things being equal, the disconnect between the viciousness of the attacks that will be hurled at Clinton and the basically decent and unremarkable figure voters will see on their television will help the greatest number of Americans see through the Republican assault.Is that argument right? I'm not sure. But it seems equally plausible to me. Which largely underlines my belief that trying to game out who is the most electable -- rather than, say, the best proven campaigner -- is a tough game. I can confidently predict that if either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton lose to John McCain, lots of Democrats will bemoan the obviously idiotic decision to nominate a hated, polarizing harpy/inexperienced, urbane black man during a time of anxiety and unrest. Democrats, they'll say, can blow anything.
