Primaries Matter
I want to see if I can pull a couple of threads together here and see if we can’t make something interesting out of them, like why Vice Presidential candidates make such horrible candidates and other pre-primary “presumptive nominees” do so poorly.
Matthew Yglesias poo-poos the value of experience in elections:
[T]hough McCain is a formidable candidate in some respects, “experience” is the time-honored election argument of losers. If voters really valued experience, then veteran senators would be getting elected president all the time. Instead, it almost never happens because normal people don’t think that long duration in congress — an institution that’s invariably incredibly unpopular — is an appealing character trait. [ Doing Stuff
and Scott Lemieux of Lawyers, Guns and Money seems to concur:
It's even less clear that this qualified edge in experience matters very much. Consider not only this year's Dem race but compare Bill Clinton (zero years big time experience by Kevin's cerieria) against the leghty resume of George H.W. Bush, or the latter's son against Al Gore. Either voters evaluate experience in a more nuanced manner than Kevin suggests, or it's a pretty trivial consideration. Perhaps a little of both, but pols from Henry Clay to Robert Dole might suggest that it's more the latter. (Or maybe the things that go along with experience in politics make candidates unattractive for other reasons.) [ More on Experience ]
And then Publius at Obsidan Wings (quote-heavy, I know, but these are the threads I’m pulling on):
I’m a big believer in the “primaries matter” theory. Elections are Darwinian environments – and candidates tend to win for a reason. Tactics matter, as does an ability to tap into the larger Zeitgeist (i.e., structural forces matter too, but good campaigners recognize and tap into those underlying currents). For this reason, candidates who look great on paper (Dole, Rudy, HRC) lose if they run wretched campaigns. Similarly, candidates who don’t look so hot on paper can compensate with superior campaigning skills. In short, people who win tend to run superior campaigns. Not always, but generally. [ The Great Untested John McCain ]
We’ve had some spectacular failures from people who enter the primary season as favorites to win. I can’t remember what the field looked like in 2000 for the GOP, but Bush — who few people took seriously — came out of near-nowhere and walked away with the nomination. Gore, on the other hand, was the Vice President so his nomination to the President ticket was pretty much his. It’s not like he really had to fight for it against Bill “I used to play Basketball” Bradley. Bush had a primary season, Gore didn’t. And when it came time for Gore to put together a campaign he simply fumbled it. Maybe if he’d had a real primary challenger, instead of drifting in on a wave of presumption, that wouldn’t have happened.
In 2004, Howard Dean looked like the golden boy until it the rubber to met the road. (Is that a mixed metaphor? Possibly.) Then Kerry took it away from him. But everyone thought the 2004 election was going to be a walk for Democrats, so Kerry didn’t take his general campaign seriously either and poof, another four years with Bush.
And here in 2008 we’ve had a complete meltdown from GOP favorite front-runner Giuliani who not only never one a contest but also frequently ended up polling behind Ron Paul. Clinton expected to walk away with the nomination. Instead, she found herself caught in a serious campaign fight. That’s exposed several glaring weaknesses in her high-priced consultant strategies which, if you squint, look a lot like the kinds of things that caused the Kerry face-plant four years ago.
I think the point is that you have to campaign to win office, and those people who think the Presidency is something they’ve earned through some other means — military service, political experience, ability to raise large sums on the internets — tend to forget to do the actual campaigning. They put too much emphasis on why they deserve to win that they actually forget about fighting. The HRC / Obama contest is particularly tortoise-and-hare as Hillary shorted her ground-game in expectation of easy victory.
Maybe experience does matter to people, but it matters to the candidates more. And then they pass on the actual campaigning, and lose.