New Poll Suggests McCain's "Electability" Problem -- Will Pundits Talk About It?
April 19, 2007 -- 2:52 PM EST // //
So is it possible that John McCain has the same "electability" problem -- or even conceivably a worse one -- than Hillary does? A new poll suggests that it's time to at least ask this question. But will the pundits ask it?
As you all know, the notion that Hillary is so polarizing and disliked that she may not be electable in a general election is etched deeply into the sacred tablets bearing the Pundit Codes of 2008. Here, for instance, is a very partial list of all the pundits/commentators/reporters who have raised the "electability" question about Hillary:
Stuart Rothenberg, Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, Kenneth Walsh, Karen Tumulty, Charlie Cook, Adam Nagourney, etc.
But now check out these numbers buried in the new Washington Post/ABC News poll:
44. If (NAME) wins the (Democratic/Republican) nomination for president would you definitely vote for (him/her) in the general election for president in 2008, would you consider voting for (him/her) or would you definitely not vote for (him/her)?Hillary Clinton: Definitely would, 27%; Would consider, 26%; Definitely would not, 45%
John McCain: Definitely would, 12%; Would consider, 39%; Definitely would not, 47%
As you can see, McCain has edged higher than Hillary in the "definitely would not" category. WaPo comments that McCain "has become significantly less acceptable as a general-election candidate. A year ago, 28 percent of Americans said they `definitely would not vote' for him if he were to become the Republican nominee." That's a jump of nearly 20 points.
I'm not saying that questions about Hillary's electability aren't valid; they are. Nor should we conclude too much from this one McCain number. But here's my question: If more numbers suggest that McCain's support for the "surge" is creating an "electability" problem for McCain in the general election rivaling the one Hillary's presumed by some pundits to have, will those pundits discuss his candidacy in such terms?
My bet is they won't. While McCain has endured some rough press of late, there really seems to be a kind of invisible line that pundits and commentators won't cross in his case. Whether it's because he's a vet, or because he was tortured, thus rendering him an unassailable patriot, or whether it's because he's always presumed to be acting on principle, or whether he's merely well liked by the pundit class, there's a certain type of criticism directed at other pols that you rarely if ever see aimed at McCain. Pundits seem to squirm at the thought of questioning McCain's sincerity. They just won't go there. And my bet is they'll be similarly reluctant to discuss his unelectability -- as if it's somehow untoward to raise such a possibility about someone who's suffered so much for his country.
I could be wrong. But if numbers like this keep coming, we'll find out soon enough.
To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.
*******************************************************************************
Update: TPM Reader JR writes: "There is nothing here that 'suggests' his support for the surge is increasing his unelectable numbers -- it could be any number of other things: support for gun rights, spot on his head, etc." Fair point; however likely it seems that his support for escalation is the thing sinking him, I shouldn't have assumed the direct connection between that and this particular number.
Update II: Don't miss this analysis of these numbers by Mark Blumenthal (a.k.a. "Mystery Pollster").