Should Campaigns Respond to Electability Arguments?

Abstract

Should candidates respond when they are described as unelectable? Although strategic arguments about the viability and electability of candidates were commonplace in the 2016 election, we know little about whether campaigns can effectively rebut these arguments. Assessments of a candidate’s chances in a general election are often complicated by partisanship and candidate-specific factors, and it is difficult to disentangle viability from electability. Our studies are situated in an electoral context without partisan primaries, which complicates judgments by pitting partisan goals against ideological and electability objectives. In our experiments, a Democratic candidate is described as viable in the first round of voting but unelectable in the second round, and Democratic voters are encouraged to strategically vote for a more acceptable Republican to advance. Subjects were then randomly selected to see a press release from the Democratic candidate responding to that description by asserting their electability. We find that when respondents see a campaign respond to the strategic voting argument by asserting their electability, it significantly improves perceptions of that candidate’s electability but does not change voters’ preferences. Candidates should push back when their electability is challenged.