The Circular Logic of 'Electability'

By the fall of 2025 candidates have already declared for the 2026 mid-term elections, and already there are some high profile races. As we continue to plod further into the primary, then general election, pundits will inevitably start pontificating on which candidate is more "electable". Which is a fine topic for the talking heads; how else are you going to program a 24-hour news channel? However, these segments will invariably turn to polling data on voters opinion of the electability of the candidates in the race. After all, how many times can these pundits repeat their opinions and react to their co-panelists well-worn positions? New grist is needed for the political-take mill. There is not all that much salience in the question of electability. In particular, for your average voter the question of candidate electability is circular and incredibly meta. 

Maybe first we should take a step back and define exactly what is meant by electability, however intuitive the term may be. When pollsters are asking if respondents think a candidate is electable they are asking if the respondent thinks a candidate has broad support among voters—is it plausible that this candidate will win at least a plurality of votes cast. Or when they ask which candidate is most electable they are asking respondents to identify which candidate they think has the broadest appeal among voters—there may be multiple electable candidates in a primary race, but the most electable candidate is the candidate which is most likely to win or win by the largest margin.  Importantly what the pollsters are not asking in these questions is which candidate the respondents voted for or planned to vote for. 

One way to answer the electability question would be to put a poll in the field asking respondents to identify which candidate they planned to vote for, the candidate with the most responses is the most electable. Alternatively, pollsters could place a favorably survey in the field. This would identify all the candidates that are electable while also measuring voter enthusiasm which could help determine which candidate is most electable.

To ask voters which candidate they think is most electable is to ask voters to separate their candidate considerations from an evaluation of the preferences of the general electorate. This is just not realistic. People are inclined to think they are rational and well reasoned and so their candidate selection is rational and well reasoned. Furthermore, people want to be a part of a movement that they believe is generally popular and likely to win. This means there is at least some self-motivated reasoning in believing the candidate they support is also the most electable. 

Beyond the self-motivated reasoning, voters are not in a position to make the determination of which candidate is most electable. While an individual voter may have a good intuitive sense of the issues important to their community, there will be implicit biases within that community's preferences no matter how community is defined. In order to mitigate these biases, along with any self-motivated reasoning, one would need an understanding of the demographic data of the makeup of the electorate, voter turnout models, and polling results. It is unreasonable to expect voters to be familiar with and have a good understanding of this data to provide an insightful evaluation of electability. In place of this data voters are responding to signals; signals like name recognition, media coverage, crowd sizes, and fundraising totals. 

Where the logic of electability becomes circular is that media organizations are responding to these very same signals when making programing decisions. Once candidates are in the field and voters have a chance to make initial evaluations the media begins covering the candidates that are ahead in the polls, leading in fundraising, and drawing the largest crowds. At this point, responding to the additional input of media coverage, voters begin to further sort themselves away from the lower performing candidates to the higher performing candidates. When asked "who is most electable" voters will respond with the top performing candidates. Responding to this input the media will cover those candidates more closely, to which voters will respond in kind, and so on. 

This also leads voters t make assumptions about the electorate and candidates that is not relevant to that candidate's ability to perform the duties of the office they are seeking. Lets imagine two nearly identical candidates running for President as Democrats. Both have executive experience at the state level, both generally support the same policies, both speak well publicly and are charming in one-on-one interactions, and neither have scandals in their past. The first candidate is a traditionally attractive, above average height, white, Christian man. The second candidate is a black woman; or a gay man; or is Jewish or Muslim or basically any non-Christian religion; or transgender. Respondents will rarely say that they do not want a candidate with one of these qualities, but that they are not sure the rest of the American people are ready for a President with these qualities. Even though, by any objective measure these two candidates should be equally electable because their relevant qualifications are equal. Of course I recognize we cannot separate racism, sexism, or any of the other -isms from these political considerations but the consideration of electability throws an additional barrier in front of these candidates.

Understanding that people do not want to take time to go to a political rally, donate money, or vote for a candidate they think is ultimately doomed to loose, those candidates are hamstrung from the beginning of the race. Once the media picks up on these signals it will reinforce voter's perceptions and those candidate's unelectability will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Electability is not inherently a silly concept, but the way we talk about it is. Electability is not some stat on the back of each candidates trading card, static and separate from other factors. Electability is what campaign managers, strategists, and candidates are trying to maximize through their campaign strategies. It is a metric that is indirectly moved by direct actions on other aspects of the campaign, like their policy platform. As such, we should not talk about electability directly, but rather we should talk about the other, more relevant, facets of the candidates and their campaigns.