For Republicans in 2016, the electability issue

While the political world is breathlessly discussing Donald Trump, let’s take a look at something more relevant to the election of the next president — and that’s electability. Assuming Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, will any of the Republicans be able to defeat her?

{mosads}Electability is a factor in presidential nominations. While many partisans now eschew the idea that they’d ever nominate a candidate based on his or her ability to win a general election, as opposed to being right on the issues, history tells us that, in the end, more than a few primary voters will cast strategic ballots, not wanting to waste votes on eventual losers.

Party strategists — the real ones, not the ones who play them on TV talk shows — are increasingly determined to nominate candidates that can win general elections. We saw it in 2000, when the Republican cognoscenti moved en masse to George W. Bush, and won with him. We saw it in the Democratic Party four years later, when Democrats decided then-Sen. John Kerry’s (Mass.) military background made him their best hope of defeating a wartime commander in chief. Though Kerry ultimately lost, he came within 2 percent of the vote in a single state (Ohio) of unseating Bush.

So which Republican is most electable this time?

Polls provide early clues. A recent CNN survey shows Clinton beating Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) by 1 point, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) each by 3 points, former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.) by 8 points and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) by 9 points. This would make it appear, at least for now, that Paul, Rubio and Walker would have a better chance to beat Clinton than would either Bush or Cruz. (In fairness to Bush and Walker, this poll was taken before either formally announced their candidacies.)

Let’s dive deeper into the demographics of these two-way contests:

• Against Paul, Clinton wins women by 17 points, nonwhites by 37 points, voters under 35 by 12 points and people with incomes below $50,000 by 6 points. Paul wins men by 16 points, independents by 7 points and Tea Party supporters by 74 points.

• Against Rubio, Clinton wins women by 16 points, nonwhites by 35 points, voters under 35 by 20 points and people with incomes below $50,000 by 13 points. Rubio wins men by 10 points, independents by 3 points and Tea Party supporters by 73 points.

• Against Bush, Clinton wins women by 18 points, nonwhites by 36 points, voters under 35 by 39 points and people with incomes below $50,000 by 17 points. Bush wins men by 3 points, independents by 3 points and Tea Party supporters by 54 points.

Paul owes his strength against Clinton to young people, independents and lower-income voters. Bush’s relative weakness is among voters who typically support Republicans: He wins men by only 3 points, as compared to 16 for Paul and 10 for Rubio. Also, while Bush beats Clinton by a substantial 54 points among Tea Party voters (a major component of the GOP base), Paul and Rubio do even better (74 points and 73 points, respectively).

Polling in three key swing states gives us another glimpse of electability. Any Republican nominee who can beat Clinton in all three — Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio — is likely to capture the Oval Office for the next four years. President Obama won all three states twice. In races against Clinton, Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) predictably does best in Ohio, Rubio and Bush predictably do best in Florida and Rubio and Paul, perhaps surprisingly, do best in Pennsylvania. All three states are up for grabs in the general election.

What does all this mean? 

• Paul does relatively well as a general election candidate because he’s stronger than most other Republicans among independents, younger and lower-income voters. Whether that eclectic appeal holds up throughout the campaign has yet to be tested.

• Rubio shows impressive strength both nationally and in the three swing states despite the fact that many voters still don’t know him very well. While he has yet to solidify a strong national base, he seems to have considerable growth potential. Though Walker falls behind Rubio on many of these electability measures, he’s only slightly behind, and he, too, can make a case for having plenty of room for growth.

• Electability is most important for Bush. Creating a perception that he has the best chance of beating Clinton would help him appeal to his party’s most conservative voters, voters who have plenty of doubts about him. Bush cannot make a strong electability case based only on polls. Low favorable and high unfavorable ratings hurt him. But now that he’s an official candidate, with lots of money and political support, he has a new opportunity to make the case by demonstrating presidential stature and leadership qualities, both on the daily speaking circuit and in the debates. If he can do that, the polls will follow.

Faucheux is president of a Clarus Research Group, a nonpartisan polling firm, and is former publisher of Campaigns & Elections magazine.