I have a new column up at The Federalist, “What Is The Electability Debate Really About?” The debate Democrats are having about it is quite different from the traditional debate about “electability,” which usually centers around experience, charisma, etc.
One thing I didn’t fully internalize until I emailed it to editorial is that the debate Dems are having is partly built into how they have been thinking about elections during this century, but also partly influenced by an era where governing experience seems less important to voters. Trump is Exhibit A of this phenomenon, but in 2008, both nominees were senators, not governors. Hillary Clinton was never a governor. And as has been observed by many, Congress is increasingly a parliament of pundits whose members are not particularly interested in building a legislative record. Although being a governor does not fully prepare someone for the presidency, it seems like the trend of preferring those without it on the resumes is probably not a good one.
The upside of realizing this belatedly is that I may be able to turn it into a column sometime in the coming months.
PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter. Thanks for reading and sharing.