The Electability Argument Falls Flat in Ohio

Some folks are saying that it is a no-brainer that Ohio Senate candidate Paul Hackett (D) is more "electable" that Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) in a general election race against Sen. Mike DeWine (R) (didn't we learn our lesson with this argument with John Kerry in 2004?). Besides the fact that Hackett has gotten less than 55,000 votes in one special election race while Brown has won two statewide races and 7 congressional races, are the basic numbers which prove Hackett's "electability" argument wholly false.

A new nonpartisan Rasmussen poll shows both Brown and Hackett coming up exactly the same when voters are asked who they would support in a head-to-head matchup with DeWine. So first and foremost, at the very least, Hackett and Brown are both "electable" as these results are basically showing that DeWine is weak against any serious Democrat.

But dig a little deeper into the numbers, and you can see that it is Brown, in fact, who really could be making the electability argument. The poll notes that "Brown is seen favorably by 48% and unfavorably by 29% of Ohio voters." While "Hackett, with a lower level of name recognition, the numbers are 40% favorable and 30% unfavorable." It is true, Hackett has a chance to grow his favorability numbers as more people get to know him, but frankly, his negatives are ALREADY very high for a candidate who is not well-known statewide. That is a bad sign - and surely proof that the Hackett electability argument is really a bunch of hollow spin, with no statistical evidence to back it up.

COMMENTS: Go to Sirota's Working Assets site to comment on this entry