The Moderate to Perception of Moderation Ratio

Yglesias articulates something that is crucial in trying to assess candidates for 2008:

This, to me, is the big problem with the Clinton for President stampede. There’s something to be said for a centrist nominee. But one would want the nominee to get credit for being a centrist. One can imagine an Evan Bayh or a Mark Warner or various other people doing that, but not Clinton. The view that something as trivial as a substantive record of moderate stances on the issues could alter the overwhelming presumption that she’s some kind of demented leftwinger strikes me as hopelessly naive. It runs, frankly, against everything we know about how the media and public opinion work.

This is, I think, the best argument against Clinton. The ideal candidate for a national election is someone who as perceived as being more moderate than their actual policy positions would justify (Bush, of course, being a great example.) While it would be difficult to find a Democratic candidate who is actually more liberal than their reputation–this is just an advantage Republicans have in the current context–you can certainly find a much lower M-POM ratio that Clinton’s.

And, to repeat, this is not to say categorically that Clinton cannot win. Al Gore, who had an immense M-POM ratio, won, and were it not for Ralph Nader’s service as a Republican double agent would have had a victory beyond the reach of the Florida election laws. But it’s something you have to consider. The fact that she’s a moderate but wouldn’t get any credit for it is a negative factor when comparing her to the other potential nominees.