The myth of electability
LINDSEY GRADOWSKI: Despite America’s rising polarization, Democrats have repeatedly nominated moderate candidates with the goal of contrasting radical Republicans and cruising to easy victories. Many voters backed Biden simply because he wasn’t Donald Trump. An experienced political insider with years of wisdom from Washington, Biden presented a safe alternative to more left-wing candidates such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who some feared might alienate moderate and swing voters.
However, there are several underlying assumptions about who is a “safe” candidate that deserve to be examined. Quite often, it seems that “safe” and “electable” are merely euphemisms for “moderate,” “white,” and/or “male.” These “electable” candidates will not rock the boat too much- they do not carry the risk of any radical change to the status quo. Many Americans, particularly moderates, are generally happy with their quality of life, and fear any legislation that threatens to change it, even if in the end they benefit. In our hyperpolarized political system, any candidate who wants to win over moderate and swing voters cannot run on platforms promoting bold change.
Take, for example, the recent Virginia gubernatorial election. The Democratic primary pitted Terry McAullife, a former governor of Virginia and one-time chair of the DNC, against Jennifer Carroll Foy, a Delegate in Virginia’s House of Representatives. From the outset, McAullife had the advantage of being a household name: someone Virginia voters knew could be trusted not to run the Commonwealth into the ground. Foy, on the other hand, was seen as having a more radical, progressive approach to issues such as criminal justice reform and the economy. She also, if elected, would have been Virginia’s first female governor and the United States’ first black female governor. But Virginia voters were scared: they valued having a candidate seen as more likely to beat the Republican nominee above all else.
And how did that work out for them?
On November 2nd, Glenn Youngkin beat Terry McAullife by 63,000 votes. It turns out that the “safe” candidate was not safe at all. Another example comes in the form of the 2016 American Presidential election. Hillary Clinton was seen as more moderate, reasonable and overall safe in comparison to Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist. She lost to Donald Trump by 74 electoral votes (though notably she did win the popular vote).
So it would seem that “playing it safe” has a history of failing the Democratic party. Proponents of electability would likely point to Joe Biden as an example of the “safe” candidate winning. However, Donald Trump represents an extreme case, and playing it safe does not work in other elections precisely because no other candidate is Donald Trump. Republicans have learned to distance themselves from Trump the man while keeping in line with his policies, and therefore maintaining Trump’s base.
Rather than picking candidates with bold ideas that energize the voting base, Democrats have crafted their candidates based on what they are not: conspiracy theorists, insurgents, or unpredictable Tweet-ers likely to start World War III in 280 characters or less. The problem is that in defining yourself as what you are not, it leaves the candidate as just that: nothing. Terry McAullife brought up Donald Trump more than almost any other political figure- but McAuliffe was not running against Trump, he was running against Youngkin (who actively distanced himself from Trump), causing this discourse to come off as needlessly divisive and hateful. Rather than explaining why his policies were better for Virginians, McAuliffe spent his time trying to unsuccessfully connect Youngkin to Trump, and the voters made him pay for his miscalculation.
My inspiration for this article comes from Elizabeth Warren, who visited Georgetown this past Tuesday. I had the pleasure of seeing her on the campaign trail in 2020, right before the start of the pandemic and during the Q&A section somebody asked her, “what do you say to people who don’t think you’re electable?” And Warren responded, “well to make somebody electable, all you have to do is vote for them.”
Herein lies the paradox of electability: by thinking that someone is unlikely to be elected, and therefore not voting for them, you yourself are making it impossible for them to win. In this way, the myth of electability becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. When people allow their perceptions of the biases and prejudices held by their fellow voters to change how they vote themselves, candidates from gender and ethnic minorities end up being boxed out by the very people who would support them, if only they believed they had a chance to win.
The Democratic Party, as well as their voters, need to reframe how they view their candidates. Nominees can no longer win simply by not being their opponent. Rather than waiting for the other nominee to be swamped in scandal, they must proactively tell voters why they deserve their vote. Politicians improve the lives of their constituents by improving the status quo, which inherently involves changing it. Change is scary–– but it is also why we elect politicians to begin with–– to represent us and make our lives better.
Electability has no set definition–– it is up to each individual voter to define it, and once we finally realize that, perhaps we can finally overcome the myth of electability.
Lindsey Gradowski is a Lead Editor for On the Record. She is originally from Arlington, Virginia, and is currently a sophomore studying history and government in the College.