Nicky Berman | Trying to find a winner

In the wake of Super Tuesday, Senator John McCain surfaced from the quagmire that was the Republican field to seize the mantle of presumptive nominee. As for the Democrats, instead of easing anxiety and providing some hints about who might be the candidate with the edge, Feb. 5 came and went, leaving the party no closer to a decision than it was on Feb. 4.

Senators Clinton and Obama emerged neck-and-neck. Each spun the day as a victory for his or her campaign, either by emphasizing the number of states and margins of victory (in his case), or by focusing on the populations of the states won (in hers). More telling was the overall popular vote - a figure not oft-cited in the whirlwind coverage of the horse race. With Clinton winning 7,347,971 votes and Obama raking in 7,294,851, it was a virtual tie.

Unable to crown a Democratic frontrunner, the media has turned to focusing on electability - that slippery concept that's quickly becoming a favorite buzzword. Journalists, pundits and candidates, too, are engaging in the political calculus of finding the perfect electability equation, offering their best arguments about why their candidate is most likely to win the presidency.

As the Democratic nomination battle rages on, those of us voting in the back of the heat are coming to the refreshing realization that our votes might actually matter. Indeed, it's likely that come April 22 - Pennsylvania's day of reckoning - Obama and Clinton will still be wrestling for every vote.

In our new-found state of power as Pennsylvania voters, it's alluring to think that we have a role to play in landing a candidate of our party in office. We can't help but feel tempted to jump on the electability bandwagon, heed the endless debates about who's likely to beat the opposition and rely on this make-believe measure to determine how we will vote.

But there's a problem: The electability equation is not calculus, and there is no reliable way for any of us - including the pros - to identify the more electable candidate.

As Paul Herrnson, a political science professor at the University of Maryland, explained to me, experts generally rely on several indicators to predict electability: image, message, resources, free media coverage, ads by independent groups, voters' predispositions and distribution of supporters in the states. But, he added, these measures are unquantifiable, imprecise and don't offer definite answers.

Georgetown political science professor Jim Lengle echoed this sentiment. "Electability is a useful term," he said, "but any sort of measure of it is inaccurate."

Sure, we can toss around poll numbers that claim one thing or another about the general election. But as we've learned this year more than ever, polls can't be trusted (think Clinton versus Obama in New Hampshire last month). And history agrees: In March of 2004, John Kerry was slaughtering Bush in the general election polls; in July of 1988, former Governor Mike Dukakis was trouncing Bush the Elder. If you haven't heard of Dukakis, take that as an indication of just how unreliable polls can be - especially those conducted months in advance.

Poll data aside, both Democratic camps propose compelling arguments about why their candidate trumps in electability. "Obama's policy proposals, as well as his approach to governing, can bring all kinds of people together - the bluest of blue states, but also independents and Republicans," asserted AJ Schiera, College junior and co-founder of Penn Students for Obama. "He's able to be competitive in all fifty states."

Patrick Bauer, College freshman and Penn for Hillary's membership director, argues that Clinton's diverse coalition of support - which includes Latinos, single women, white men and youth - makes her most electable. "And she's inventive," Bauer added. "Republicans have been throwing attacks at her for 15 years, and she's still standing today."

With all these persuasive arguments swimming around, we can't be sure which holds the most water, what will occur in the nine months before the election to alter these electability equations, or whose theory will bear fruit come November. As such, Lengle admitted, "Basing your vote on electability is a dicey operation."

So I beg you: Do not vote for who you believe to be the most electable; vote for who you believe will make the best president.

Granted, we can't be sure who that will be, either.

But in casting a vote, sorting out your own personal preferences seems to be a much wiser strategy than attempting to predict the voting behavior of the entire American electorate.

Nicky Berman is a College senior from Boston, Mass. Her e-mail is berman@dailypennsylvanian.com. Philly-Bustering appears alternating Tuesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.