Right now, with impeachment hearings underway, the election environment is very difficult to predict in advance. The 1976 and 2000 elections were both quite close. Impeachment could backfire on Democrats; it could sink the Republicans; it could also trigger one of the periodic breakdowns of the two-party system and lead to a highly unpredictable three or four candidate race. Any of the candidates might win or lose if nominated. In a certain sense, every candidate is electable.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that the popularity of a presidential candidate can also have effects downballot. 11 governors, 35 senators, 435 representatives, and 89 state legislative chambers in 46 different states will be elected in 2020. The stakes are even higher because 2020 is a census year; the state governments in place after the 2020 election will determine how districts are drawn in the wake of the decennial census. Winning the presidency isn’t the only thing that matters in choosing a presidential candidate.

There are nineteen major candidates in the race, by some accountings; this is a big field. One candidate is a governor, two served in the Obama administration, six are sitting senators, five others have had experience in Congress, and five are wild card candidates with a thin political resume.

Joe Biden is the most obviously and clearly electable candidate. If Biden leaves the field due to scandal, health problems, or impending loss, it’s not clear who else in the field might be as electable as Biden appears to be right now. Similarly, for voters who dislike Biden but think that winning is the highest priority, it’s not clear who is a good alternative. The indicators are not bad but not quite as strong for Bernie Sanders, though given his recent heart attack, any voters concerned about Biden’s age have even more reason to be leery of Sanders’s age.

From left to right, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Michael Bennet, and Steve Bullock. (Public domain images.)

If you’re looking for a candidate who might be electable than Biden or Sanders, then there are four clear alternatives to consider: Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Michael Bennet, and Steve Bullock. In each case, there are several good reasons to consider the candidate to be likely electable, even if they are still mostly unknown by the national electorate.

The candidates that have more favorable media coverage within the blue bubble seem less electable outside of it. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris decisively do not appear to be electable candidates, and the indicators are at best mixed for Pete Buttigieg. The historical record provides strong reasons for pessimism about the prospects of sitting senators or the unprecedented case of a mayor running for president. That’s not to say that they can’t win — or that they might have better than even odds against Trump — but their odds look worse than those of other candidates.

Horse race coverage & the blue bubble.

Most of the coverage of the Democratic primaries has revolved around talking about the primary as a race: Who seems most likely to win? Who has an advantage in key early states? Who is raising money and gaining endorsements? What do Democratic voters think about the candidates?

A much more important question, both for Democrats and for others, is this: How well are the Democratic candidates doing at gaining support among the population as a whole? In other words, how electable are they?

While there are some swing voters and sporadic voters inside of the Democratic primary electorate (e.g., see page 9 of this paper; in the general election in 2008, 19% Democratic primary supporters voted for McCain and 5% stayed home), the Democratic primary electorate simply is not representative of the electorate as a whole. A strong candidate, like Barack Obama, will win votes from many voters willing to vote for Republican candidates.

The sixteen candidates who have held public office and where they’ve held office.

For Democrats and for blue media, horse race coverage stays naturally within bubbles where almost everyone is a Democrat. It’s dangerously easy for partisans to believe that voters unlike them don’t matter, or that their opponents are fated to lose in the presidential election. If everybody you talk to thinks the same way as you do, it’s easy to ignore those who don’t.

Blue bubbles are partly geographic and partly communicative; there’s been a significant rise in political segregation into “blue” and “red” areas. Many blue media outlets are either on the Pacific coast or the Acela Corridor from D.C. to Boston; successful candidates usually come from large states, and a home state edge in a battleground state or region may come with an Electoral College advantage.

How to think about electability

Barack Obama (left) and Hillary Clinton (right). Public domain images.

The easy votes for a Democratic candidate to win are usually the Democratic ones. The harder votes to get to tend to come from independent voters and Republicans. This is the difference between stronger candidates like Barack Obama (who won 53% of the vote in 2008) and weaker candidates like Hillary Clinton (who won 48% of the vote in 2016).

There are three ways to think about electability. First, we can look at history to provide examples. Second, we can look at the fundamental basics that influence popularity. Third, we can look at polling of the general population, covering issues and candidates.

Blue media has been concentrating more on polls of Democrats than polls of the general population. FiveThirtyEight has published two articles telling people not to pay attention to head-to-head polls, and they don’t even cover favorability polling of Democratic candidates in their poll tracking.