Electability: Inspiration vs. the Big Machine, and what it could do to Rehberg

by: JC

Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 15:34:11 PM MST

He asserts the following:

Examples abound where the winner of a primary is not the stronger candidate to win a general election. Why? Because the voters who affect the outcomes of general elections are largely different people from those who affect the outcomes of primaries.

He then follows up with a description of who the deciding voters can be:

In general elections, only two groups of people affect the outcome. First are persuadable voters, who always vote in generals, but are switch-hitters. They vote for Republicans in one election and Democrats in the next. And they rarely vote in primaries.

The other group is mobilizable voters. Democratic mobilizables would vote Democratic, but have to be motivated to go to the polls. Sometimes these mobilizable voters can be motivated to vote in a particularly exciting primary. But most don't vote in primaries -- and only rarely in general elections.

He goes on to say that an inspirational candidate (like Obama) can motivate both these voter groups to turn out and vote for him. While other candidates can attract one or the other--persuadables focus on the candidate's qualities, mobilizable voters on the other hand are disengaged, and need to be feel empowered to turn out and vote--Obama is a rare politician that can do both.

Barack Obama's ability to inspire is the quality that makes him such an electable general election candidate. Most candidates are really successful either at convincing persuadables, or motivating mobilizables. Barack Obama can do both

But more important, is the importance of Obama's inspirational approach to the campaign, and its effect on down-ticket candidates.

We all know that here in Montana that we need an outstanding turnout to unseat Denny Rehberg. He's not going to unravel and unseat himself. John Tester's victory in '06 showed that it was the last minute turnout that pushed his victory over the top. While Burns was a horrendously unpopular Senator, he still came close to winning based on his inertia and solid republican base support--similar to Rehberg's.

In effect, Tester empowered the mobilizables to get up and turn out for him. Because Montana was a known swing Senatorial campaign, Tester could make the case that electing him would help swing the whole Senate, and not just add another vote tally to a known outcome. And it worked--veracity of then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's last minute carrot sticks of committee appointments notwithstanding.

As with the GOP's tactic of placing wedge ballots in key states in order to mobilize republican voters to turn out and vote the wedge ballot--whether it be abortion or gay marriage, or what have you--and then vote the ticket, the dems should take heed of this and plan accordingly.

If Creamer's experience plays out, then Obama potentially could turn out an avalanche of voters to support him. And all of those mobilized dems can also vote for Hunt in his bid against Rehberg. Likewise, all of the persuadable voters, when they turn their attention towards Obama, become ripe for the picking by the Dems.

If the down-ticket races are played out properly, then Obama's coat-tails could be very long, indeed. And what a mandate in Congress and with the American people he could have.