It would make sense if Republicans were having deep debates about electability right now.
Amid President Donald Trump’s falling approval ratings, persistent concerns about the economy and the usual midterm appetite for change, the party has plenty of reason to scrutinize which candidates are best equipped to survive a difficult election.
But recent Republican primaries have featured relatively little soul-searching. GOP voters have tended to nominate the candidates favored by Trump, even when they come with personal controversies or face questions about their appeal to the broader electorate that usually fuel debates about electability.
Electability is at the center of the fight for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Wisconsin.
Democrats, meanwhile, are consumed by the question. Primaries in Texas, Maine and Michigan have all featured arguments over who can actually win in November. And electability is at the center of Tuesday’s fight for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Wisconsin between democratic socialist Francesca Hong and Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley.
Wisconsin Republicans are not having a similar debate. They appear set to nominate Trump-endorsed U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who avoided a primary fight after two candidates who were more established dropped out.
At first glance, Democrats’ fixation on electability would seem to give them an advantage in the midterms. The only problem is that there is little evidence that primary voters are particularly good at determining which candidate is most electable. And even November’s results won’t necessarily tell us whether they got it right.
Voters certainly seem to think they can tell when a candidate has the juice. In one study of competitive 2022 primaries, the median voter thought the candidate they considered most electable was about 30 points more likely to win in the general election than the one they thought was least electable. That’s a massive swing that’s hard to square with history.
What makes a candidate electable? Is it a long record of winning office? Ideological moderation? Strong fundraising? Charisma? Or some combination of all of those?
In Texas, James Talarico won the Democratic Senate nomination by arguing that he was more electable than Rep. Jasmine Crockett because his less confrontational style and focus on economic issues could appeal to voters who don’t normally vote Democratic.
In Maine, Graham Platner won the Democratic Senate primary by arguing that his populist politics and outsider status could win over voters who had soured on conventional politicians. But he later bowed out of the race after an allegation of sexual assault turned the electability argument against him.
And in Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed beat Rep. Haley Stevens in the Democratic Senate contest by arguing that his progressive economic populism could energize disaffected voters and build a broader coalition than the more conventional politics of a Democrat who had repeatedly won competitive House races.
The three races showed why the argument about electability is so hard to resolve. Experience in office could prove that a candidate knows how to win — or show they are beholden to the establishment. Moderation could attract swing voters — or leave disaffected voters at home. A bold personality can generate attention and enthusiasm — or alienate the independent voters they need to win.
Democrats are arguing over what makes someone electable.
Democrats aren’t just debating which candidate is more electable. They’re arguing over what makes someone electable in the first place.
Republicans, meanwhile, have made primary choices that run against some of the traditional tenets of electability. In Texas, they ousted longtime senator John Cornyn in favor of scandal-plagued Ken Paxton. In Louisiana, they rejected two-term senator Bill Cassidy after Trump targeted him for voting to convict him in his second impeachment trial. And in the Arizona governor’s race, they nominated hard-line conservative Rep. Andy Biggs despite warnings from rival Rep. David Schweikert that he would put a winnable seat at risk.
There’s another factor here too. In each of those races, Trump’s endorsement carried the day. Republican primary voters trusted the president’s judgment even though some of his most consequential picks in past primaries ended up losing the general election.
But Trump has reason to be skeptical of arguments about electability. In 2016, his Republican rivals, including John Kasich, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, argued that he was unelectable, and after the “Access Hollywood” tape was released, prominent Republicans such as Paul Ryan canceled joint appearances and refused to defend him. He won anyway. In 2024, Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis again argued that nominating Trump would lead to electoral disaster, and he won again.
Both 2016 and 2024 were good for Republicans for other reasons, so Trump may have just been in the right place at the right time. But the candidates he has endorsed this year are in a much less forgiving environment. Republican voters are betting they are electable anyway.
This is a preview of MS NOW’s Project 47 Newsletter. As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, get expert analysis on the administration’s latest actions and how others are pushing back sent straight to your inbox every Tuesday. Sign up now.
The post Democrats are obsessed with electability this year. But no one knows how to measure it. appeared first on MS NOW.
