Get Herald RSSElectability has become quite a buzzword these days. As the Democratic Party's nomination process continues to unfold, it has become an increasingly important topic. Which of the two remaining Democrats can more effectively defeat the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in November?
Last week, Matt Aks '11 wrote that we should "reject this discussion of electability" ("The trap of electability," Feb. 15). Aks and other supporters of this argument suggest that Democrats should ignore the Republican nominee and choose their candidate based solely on substantive policy differences (of which there are, admittedly, few) or "an additional round of research and vetting."
This makes little sense. After seven years of deception and secrecy, a misguided war and a mismanaged economy, Democrats should have it made. But Democratic voters would be foolish to disregard John McCain and choose their nominee without trying to determine which candidate can best compete against him. McCain is as viable a GOP candidate as there could possibly be in this election cycle. He is perceived as a moderate even though he has shifted all of his moderate stances to the right in the course of the primary. He is a decorated war hero with decades of Washington experience. He poses a serious threat to the Democrats' chances of winning in November, and simply assuming that Democrats will win because of discontent with Bush is ludicrous. (Are you scared of John McCain yet, Dems? You should be.)
It is absolutely critical to consider which Democrat would more easily defeat McCain, and the answer is clearly Barack Obama. Obama has destroyed Clinton among independent voters and self-identified Republicans in the Democratic primaries. In Wisconsin, according to the CNN exit poll, Obama won among voters of all party affiliations, but took Republicans (who made up 9 percent of the voters) by a whopping 44-point margin, and independents by a 31-point margin. In Virginia, the effect was even greater: he took Republicans by 49 points and independents by 39.
Obama has often won by significant margins and he has garnered support in red states that Democrats haven't campaigned in for years (Kansas and Idaho come to mind). He has also shown the ability to win in important swing states, such as Virginia, Colorado and Missouri.
Additionally, Obama has shown the capacity to bring hordes of new voters to the polls. Young voters and students are finally turning out - something that benefits not only Obama, but our country and our generation as well. And while Obama is probably not the only force behind the incredible increases in Democratic turnout, he has shown the capacity to earn more votes than some of the Republican candidates combined. In South Carolina, for example, he had about 295,000 votes to McCain and Huckabee's combined 280,000.
But all of these reasons have been clear for quite some time, and if you've been watching closely, you already knew about them. So, in addition to these easily verified reasons why Obama appears more electable than Clinton, I'm going to suggest one more: Jesus Christ.
One trend that I have noticed as the primary season has developed is that there is a strong correlation between states where Mike Huckabee has done well and states where Obama has done well. Of the eight states that Huckabee has won, seven have held Democratic contests, and Obama has won five: Iowa, Kansas, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana. Huckabee and Obama have both enjoyed significant support from church-going voters. In their respective primaries, Obama won over a larger proportion of voters who attend church regularly than did Huckabee.
Yes, it is true that many of Huckabee's voters are socially conservative evangelicals who take stances with which Obama does not agree. Many would not be impressed by his pro-choice and pro-civil-union stances. But when it comes to many other prominent issues, such as economic justice, protecting our environment, fixing a broken health care system or achieving a greater level of ethics and transparency in government, evangelicals and Barack Obama should have a lot of shared concerns. Given that Jesus himself was an advocate for the poor and the hungry, the crippled and the blind, Obama's challenge with evangelicals is not to find the common ground but to communicate it effectively.
On June 28, 2006, Obama was the keynote speaker at the Call to Renewal conference. He spoke in depth about the profound lack of religious dialogue between conservative and liberal America, and specifically about the discomfort of much of liberal America with even "the hint of religion." When progressives forfeit any and all religious dialogue to conservatives, he said, they "forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice."
Obama already has the potential to shift the electoral map. But perhaps his willingness to reach out to people of faith - to remind us that were Jesus to vote, he just might vote for Barack Obama - could prove another huge advantage.
Max Chaiken '09, a coordinator of Brown Students for Obama, is a progressive Jew who has a deep respect for Jesus' call to feed the hungry and clothe the naked
is a member of the 
