Likeability v. Electability

Over at The Fix, Chris Cilizza parses the polls again. This time he makes some significant differentiations between likeability and electability -- differences that admittedly are not especially scientific and surely will fluctuate in the months to come. He reduces his key conclusion as follows:

So what does all of this data really mean? We're simplifying here, but it seems to suggest that the "head" of Democratic voters is with Clinton while the "heart" is on Obama's side. Voters like Obama better but believe Clinton is the stronger candidate due to her deeper -- and broader -- resume.

The fact that there seem to be several strong candidates but no overwhelming ones on the Democratic side lead me to wonder if this might not be the election that sees the party to enter the Democratic National Convention undecided. In two of my classes this semester I lecture quite a bit about American politics. Recently I have discussed some of the many times in American history when going into the conventions the parties had no idea who their nominee would be. Indeed, that was once the function of the conventions -- to nominate rather than to anoint.

The political system has changed immensely in the last century and especially the last four decades. One candidate has always managed to gain early momentum and within just a few weeks has sewn up the nomination for good. Yet what would happen if several well funded candidates with strong but not overwhelming appeal and with some regional strengths. Imagine if the Democrats head into Denver with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards carrying significant numbers of delegates bit with none of them close enough to the number needed to carry the nomination. It may seem implausible, but from the vantage point of a year before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, the Democrats might be on a collision course with the most interesting nominating convention (at least inside the hall) since the Progressive Era.