What is “Electability?”
How could anyone vote for THAT guy?
“THAT guy” is no one in particular, but somebody likely immediately came to mind for you. You have thought that about somebody who ran for office and possibly even won. All of us have, myself included (no, I’m not going to say whom, what they were running for, or when they ran). In candidate and party messaging, the opposition is often painted as completely unqualified for the position they are running for and that nothing but doom and gloom will follow if they are elected. In short, the opposing candidate is “unelectable.”
But wait. What in the world is “electability?”
It’s a word you hear thrown around a lot on the campaign trail. The funny thing about electability is that there is no clear-cut definition beyond the nebulous “capability of winning election.” It often just means whatever people in politics want it to mean. (Political people changing the meaning of words to suit their whims? Who would have thought?)
However, there is a general idea of what people refer to when they claim someone is electable or unelectable. So, what does electability entail? There are several basic traits that are often considered, though they may be thought off as separate from overall electability. But before we get to some of the basic components of what the term generally means…
What are the actual qualifications to run for office?
Federal, state, and local laws dictate the basic requirements needed to run for a certain office. All the U.S. Constitution prescribes for president and Congress is the following:
- Presidents must be born in the U.S., at least 35 years old, and a citizen of the U.S. for at least 14 years (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5).
- U.S. Senators must be at least 30 years old, a citizen of the U.S. for nine years, and reside in the state they are running for Senate in (Article I, Section 3, Clause 3).
- U.S. House Representatives must be at least 25 years old, a citizen of the U.S. for seven years, and reside in the state they are running for the House in (Article I, Section 2, Clause 2).
Each state and local office has their own basic age and/or residency requirements, though some may not even have a specific minimum age to reach. Some offices might also require a certain amount of experience in a profession. (More on the experience requirement later.)
Then there are other minutiae to deal with. You have ballot access laws — paying a fee, and/or gathering petition signatures of voters in the jurisdiction of the office one is running for, to get on the ballot. Some political offices will require you to be a registered voter. There may be a requirement that you have never been convicted of a felony. All of these stipulations and more will vary considerably based on state and local laws as well as which office you are running for.
Now, with that out of the way…
Electability and a Candidate’s Political Views
“How could someone vote for a person who believes [insert political view that you staunchly disagree with]?”
Claiming that someone is unelectable is often rooted in partisan and ideological biases, and that is most clear when it comes to criticizing a candidate’s political views. Many Republicans see Joe Biden as unelectable and many Democrats see Donald Trump as unelectable, and much of that is based on their party labels.
But are there political views that are commonly accepted as a dealbreaker?It seems that no matter what the stance is, there is always somebody that thinks the same way. (Well, maybe unless it’s voting to taser seven year-olds.) Even the most obscure candidates almost always get a handful of votes.
That being said, it’s not always about a political observer’s personal political views when they say a candidate in unelectable. That observer may be a political operative for the same party who is concerned that the candidate’s views may turn off some voters in an election. They think about electability in a more strategic sense than the typical voter. In that case, electability depends a lot on voter demographics and how they are projected to vote.
For example, let’s say a Republican is running against a Democrat in a race that is projected to be close. In that scenario, there is a large, religious, conservative base that has a high turnout rate. But at the same time, the liberal base is fired up for this election after dissatisfaction with the previous elected official, who was also a Republican.
If that Republican is strongly pro-life, that is generally going to sit well with most of the religious conservatives, but most of the liberals are going to be against that Republican (though many liberals were not going to vote for the Republican anyway). The conservatives will see the Republican as “electable” while the liberals won’t. But what if the Democratic candidate is also pro-life and/or the Republican is either open to abortion or even calls themselves pro-choice? Now conservatives and/or liberals might sit the election out or vote for a third option. Or there might be enough liberals that are pro-life or enough conservatives that are pro-choice to sway the election the other way.
In which scenario is the Republican (more) “electable”? That depends on the personal investment voters have in the election. Or in the case of campaign professionals, that electability might be based both on personal politics and whether they think the candidate’s strategy can win. Elections rarely, if ever, come down to candidates’ views on a single issue, though whether it has particular importance depends partly on campaign strategy.
But electability isn’t only, or always, concerned with political parties and ideologies.
Electability and a Candidate’s Experience
“Yeah, but does [insert candidate] have any experience doing [insert experience you’d like to see]?”
We all have to start from somewhere. But where should that somewhere be?
One of the general debates over which candidate to pick centers on a candidate’s credentials. Does an election call for somebody with a lot of political experience or some new blood? The 2008 presidential election pitted a seasoned politician, Republican John McCain, against a relatively fresh-faced candidate, Democrat Barack Obama. In 2016, the script was flipped between the parties, with longtime public official Democrat Joe Biden against Republican Donald Trump, who at the time had never held a public office.
Experience isn’t always considered a part of a candidate’s electability (as the photo at the beginning of this article indicates), but often it is. Whether a voter wants a lot of related experience or not depends on a variety of factors, including the party label (sometimes, whether someone wants an experienced candidate or not is based on who their party’s candidate is) and the overall election climate. But we’re typically looking for something that could be applied, even if it’s not necessarily political experience. People aren’t going to just vote for any schmuck that randomly decides, “Gee, I want to hold an elected office,” but brings absolutely nothing to the table.
What those credentials look like, though, depends on the voter and the candidate. Take the 2024 Republican presidential candidates, for instance.
- Ron DeSantis points to his policies and experience as the current 2nd-term governor of Florida.
- Nikki Haley sells herself on foreign policy experience as a previous U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (though she also used to be the governor of South Carolina).
- Vivek Ramaswamy highlights his business entrepreneurship.
- Donald Trump, of course, refers to his previous term as president as well as widespread Republican support.
- Doug Burgum is trying to fill a dark horse lane as he underscores his tenure as the current governor of North Dakota and his business success.
- Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson are both former governors that have cemented themselves as two of the biggest Republican critics of Trump.
- Ryan Binkley features his business experience and work as a pastor.
In a vacuum, those various experiences might appear to be electable. But the perception of electability also depends in part on whether voters perceive the candidates are/were good at their jobs. The type of experience required, and the necessary level of success, are going to differ between people and the office in question. That, too, may be influenced by opinions of other candidates. For example, many ardent Trump supporters probably don’t think highly of Christie or Hutchinson’s tenures in government.
Yet as mentioned earlier, there are certain public offices that do require particular experience. For example, 24 states specifically require their respective attorneys general to be admitted to their state’s bar association. Many judgeships and elected attorney positions also require legal experience. Elected coroners may or may not need to be physicians or forensic pathologists. But for most of the more general positions in government, like a president or governor, there is little if any explicit prescription of what experience they need to be elected.
Electability and A Candidate’s Intelligence
“Isn’t [insert politician you don’t like here] just a complete doofus?”
We’ve all thought that about somebody running for office, but there are always going to be people that see that same person as sufficiently smart or even brilliant. And unsurprisingly, some people on one side of the political aisle often think the other side is stupid and vice versa.
We’d all like intelligent people running things, but what qualifies as “intelligent”? You‘ve probably heard somebody say we should use something like an IQ test or a basic civics exam before people can hold a public office. That may sound all well and good — we’d like people to have some semblance of knowing what they are doing.
But there are a variety of IQ tests, and the effectiveness of each is debated. How those IQ test results would translate to competence in office is also unknown. And what civics knowledge should be mandatory? Sure, we’d like people to understand the basic responsibilities of the job they are trying to get elected to, but there are a lot of nitty-gritty details that you’re likely only going to learn on the job. Should they also know things like the three branches of government, the number of counties in their state, or a general sense of their government’s budget? Ideally, candidates should, but should such knowledge be required? There is no easy answer.
And who would administer these tests? Could these administrators be trusted to not let their personal politics and feelings about the candidates influence the results of these tests? Opinions about the security of elections are already divided, so it may be too difficult to garner enough trust in tests meant to measure intelligence and understanding of a topic.
Lastly, the perception of a candidate’s intelligence also depends on gaffes. All of us have said something dumb at one point or another, especially if you talk in public long enough. (Except for me, of course. Everything I say is, uh…the height of smartness.) But do too many blunders mean you are unelectable? Who’s to say? Highly partisan voters, pundits, and campaign professionals love to highlight slip-ups by the opposition while sweeping goofs made by their side under the rug.
Electability in a Broader Sense
Political views, experience, and intelligence aren’t necessarily the only facets of electability people consider (nor are they always considered to be electability traits), but they are common ones. Those of us involved in politics for a living may also consider relatively obscure data that most voters aren’t going to think about. The ability of candidates to raise funds for expensive campaigns is one example: If you can’t raise enough money to make a reasonable push for a costly run at a big-time office, there isn’t much reason to even run in the first place.
And just like how there are many different conceptions of what electability is, many voters and political pundits don’t even think electability is that important or that it should be a major focus. Should your vote largely or solely hinge on who you think has the best chance to win? That’s for each voter to decide.
In any case, the next time you hear the term “electability” and whether a candidate has it, think twice about what it really means. People with high personal investments in an election that use the word often just use it in service to the goal of beating another candidate that they don’t like. In reality, there is no clear, totally objective meaning for whether a candidate is electable. And if there isn’t a straightforward answer as to what it is, how much should we care about it? Again, that’s a question for each individual to answer.
Follow me on Facebook and LinkedIn!
Check out my website!
Want me as a podcast guest? Contact me on my Matchmaker FM profile!
Check out my book!
