Shouldn’t the only issue we consider in a nominee be electability?

I’m as serious as a heart attack here. The fate of the whole world hangs in the balance and the luxury of selecting a candidate just because we agree with him needs to be set aside for this cycle so that some semblance of responsibility is restored to government.

Please do not argue the extreme. My point is that the candidate’s views be within the parameters of the Democratic platform and he have no other glaring defects like a secret wife.

. . .I think that there are enough candidates out there that we can first demand that the candidates reflect our Democratic values, but of those who demonstrated that they do, then we should select the most electable. We should not compromise what we stand for.

Where I live the three most active people in the party support three different candidates. We went to the debate together and talked about the pros and cons of each, we didn’t change each other’s mind and there isn’t a speck of anger about the differences in opinion. Each of us agrees that when it’s over our hearts and minds will go with the winner.

My point is that folks in DU seem to forget who the real enemy is and that even the worst Democratic candidate is not in the same league as the criminals now running the country. The competition between the candidates here is becoming a blood sport and has no potential, IMO, of creating the cohesion necessary to win in November ’04.

are wiling to vote for, then fuck Democratic values. There's no point in having a set of principles which are never going to get to be made into policy because the politician holding them won't ever get elected.

Elections are for winning, not for making statements. Obviously, electability is the most important thing. The real question is, do Democrats have an informed sense of who's electable? More often than not, I think most Americans don't understand 5% of what goes on in a political campaign. Furthermore, do Democrats understand what Democratic values are, and how they're expressed in each candidate? I think 50% don't understand. I think on the whole, most Americans don't understand politics very well at all. So electability is key, but I don't even think most people understand what it means to be electable.

Fortunately, I think Democratic values right now are appealing to more that 50% of the American public, and I think the most electable candidates right now hold those Democratic values the closest (and I think the average DU'er has an inverse perception -- the avg. DU'er thinks the least electable candidates have the most Democratic values).

you have to support my candidate because I don't like yours. So my answer is no, electability is not so important. Another version of this is the "<insert candidate> doesn't look 'presidential'"

nominee.

Any one of the Dem candidates would be a massive improvement over President Dumbshit...and it is vital that he be removed.

Get him out of there, and then we can fight about the nuances of actually governing from the White House again.

There are many different elements to it but I think it's a definitely important thing. And I don't purport to know what makes someone electable.

Look, if all you want is to vote for the guy who wins, you can just vote for Bush! That will assure that your guy will win. If you don't care about issues, if winning is everything to you, then Bush can do it for you.

Me, I care about policies and record. I don't care about anything else. I'm smart enough to know that 'electability' is a figment of imagination, a marketing gimmick. Because -- and this is something that everyone should memorise, maybe even have stamped on the back of their hand so they keep it in view -- whether someone gets elected depends on us, not them. There is no such thing as 'electability', there is only 'the will to elect'. Until someone realises that-really realises that-they are not a grown-up no matter how old they are. That is a veritable litmus test for real adulthood, along with the realisation that something can be good to do even though our parents would approve.

This mentality gave us AWOL.

AWOL became pResident because he was electable, not because he is qualified for the job. Every single day he provides more proof that he is not qualified.

Using their tactics will not accomplish anything. I gauge a persons electablity on their qualifications, not how popular they are.

Too bad more people don't look at qualifications.

Cheers
Drifter

But assuming that the candidate is competent, shouldn’t electability be the paramount issue.

And by that standard, Bush is your man.

no one can predict electability. Kennedy was Catholic, and so, unelectable; Carter was a nobady from Georgia, and so, could not be elected; Clinton was the "blow-hard" from Arkansas, and so, was unelectable. The real staement of fact is that candidates who have been elected have, therefore, been proven electable. According to most of the "in the know" pundits the electorate is divided almost evenly between Dems and Repugs, with about 10% "undecided" in the middle.
This past week I have incouraged two unregistered citizens to go and register to vote as Dems - that's two more in our collumn. We need to do as much as we can to get the vote out for our candidate, if we succeed, then our candidate becomes "electable".

was a negative in 60 but lots of knowledgable folks knew Kennedy had the right stuff, so much so that he was touted as a serious vice presidential candidate in 1956.

And Jimmy Carter brough the entire south and it's Electoral Votes to the 76 campaign.

There's more to electability than building a dedicated cadre.

these were issues that "people" said would make these candidates "unelectable" - at that time. Which is why the argument for or against someone's "electability" has more to do with hind sight than anything else.

Making someone's notions of "electability" the only variable is extreme.

Hedging your bet by allowing "the parameters of the Democratic platform" is loose enough that you engage, quelle horreur, an argument over ideas. This is no longer allowing a single abstract electability to determine your choice.

Which one will it be?

a snowballs chance in hell. If so, you have made a judgment about electability even if you support that candidate.

The reason I wanted to take the general topic of issues off the table is to focus on the question of who the real enemy is here. There is potential for Democratic cannibalization here which will give our grandchildren a world none of us will want to visit.

Sure, I have those thoughts. However, I am not the one arguing for consideration of electability (whatever that may mean) to the exclusion of all else. You are.

I am also not arguing to refuse to consider "electability." If I did, your response might have been more germane.

What I am doing is asking you to clarify. You left yourself an out to consider issues other than electability. So ... which way is it? Consider only the one thing, or consider the many?

Preferences on the individual issues are secondary to getting a final nominee who is electable, i.e., can BEAT bush.

To demand a candidate that meets a majority of personal preferences but has no chance of beating bush is an exercise in futility.

candidate characteristics that equal "able to beat Bush". I can't think of one short of "can walk and chew gum at the same time."

then hell, I’ll run. For some reason folks still don’t know how vapid our Chimp is, and they aren’t likely to find out before the election.

this is not about naming "specific" candidates or qualities, but rather a general argument that the issue of electability ought supercede individual preferences on the issues.

And I disagree a candidate that "can walk and chew gum at the same time" is enough to beat bush. On the contrary, bush IS an incurious buffoon, but the Democratic candidate is not going to get away with meager credentials, regardless of how much more qualified they are over bush.

My own observations in DU have been that there ARE many members who are primarily concerned with a personal wish list of platform preferences, knowing full well that the the candidate most closely resembling those positions wouldn't stand a chance in hell of being ELECTED. I'll decline any invitation to name any specific candidates, thankyouverymuch!

I agree with the intention expressed in the original post - that in THIS most IMPORTANT election, electability needs to be the primary and the list of personal preferences secondary.

"electability" is. We say that this or that candidate isn't electable, but what does that mean? Someone with an indisputable insight into the the electorate's proclivities, please tell us - what does electable mean?

but a place to start would be how much popular support and Party support a given candidate has.

For example, if one says they will ONLY support a Green candidate, can we agree that that candidate will not have enough popular support or Democratic Party support to be electable on a national level? So, I think the point being made in the original post is that a personal preference for a more liberal platform ought to be secondary to supporting a candidate that actually has a chance to succeed on a national level.

If you don't agree that a Green candidate would not be electable on a national level then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

you see, the problem is always "He/she is too liberal to be elected".
It returns to a policy/program argument that has everything to do with the direction that the country should be headed. It would not have been too long ago that any candidate who proposed any kind of national health care program would have been deamed too libreal to be elected. Things change and the voting public does come around.
Every Democratic candidate now, except for Lieberman, has a major national healthcare program on their agenda - even the DLC favorites. Sometimes leadership means bringing to the people what is best for the country, and sometimes the people don't like what is best for them/us.

Well god forbid we actually use some sense and look at ALL factors.

Electability is a visceral, intangible quality that no one has yet been able to define. A candidate is considered electable when the individual talking about him thinks he is. Despite the fluid nature of the definition, electability is still something that should be considered, but not above and beyond everything else. Issues and image and vision other intangibles like "leadership" and "likability" all have to be thrown into the mix.

Why do we have to keep doing this "all or nothing" crap? Why can't we look at many factors and consider them together?

The whole notion of Liberalism is freedom of thought. This is what makes us sodifferent from conservatives and also, so hard to become organized into a cohesive political force. Incidentially, I wouldn't have it any other way.

I suspect that some of the other posters above are close to the best answer that it is a multi-step process.

First, sort out those who most closely represent the ideals of the party and then let the process determine the winner because the winner of the political process will also have the wherewithall to win in the general election. However, in the end, the ultimate test of electability will depend on the PARTY ITSELF. We must unify behind our candidate in order to win.

but that isn't what California needs now.

Which would not make him viable in a normal election.

Arnold is electable, and that is the reason he was chosen by the Republican sources that be. Lack of qualifications notwithstanding, from their viewpoint, it is of primary importance that they get someone in the office at any cost.

By the same token, it's just as imperative for Democrats to get a candidate in the White House in 2004. Although fortunately, all of the current presidential candidates are qualified and not just celebrity idiots like Arnold is.

believe their polls and vote based on that alone. Seems pretty scary and undemocratic. As mentionned earlier in this thread, it's a good way to possibly lose winners.

And we should all know enough about politics to know the truth intuitively (based on reason and based on history). Unfortunately, most of us don't know enough about politics and history.

And the game they want you to play is that they want you to get so mad about what they're doing that you lose all sense of reason and yo nominate a person like McGovern who then attacks Bush on one specific issue which Bush, like Nixon, will reverse course on just before the election, then win the election, then return on the original course.

It is only determinable after the fact.

has an equal chance of winning?

It is true that it is impossible to know to a certainty who will win. That is not to say that some candidates don't have a better chance to win than others.

are electable.

I'll make you a bet . The loser donates $100.00 to the winner's favorite charity. And so there's no shenagigans the loser will mail the check to the winner and he can mail it to the charity.

The only way Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Joe Lieberman, and Carol Moseley Braun get to the Inaugaration on Jan 20, 2005 is if they are invited.


To say that electability can only be determined after the fact is plain silly.

I can look at research data and history to make a fairly reliable prediction about electability.

Many former Gore voters are now supporting Bush for "kicking Arab ass" after 9/11. Likewise, many former Bush voters are horrified over the war and disgusted with the deficit. In order to win in 2004 Democrats must keep as many of the first group and attract as many of the second group as possible. The only Democrat running who can conceivably do both is Bob Graham.

There's a place in the Republican Death Star where you can drop a bomb and the whole thing blows up. You don't need the biggest, angriest bomb. You just need to get the right message, which isn't all that complicated, and send it home. Now, you go through the campaign, and the Republicans will do a lot of shit to distract you, and they may or may not know that they have this little weakness, or back door to losing. Now, you just gotta get down in that trench, stay on course, not distract yourself with the goggles, and drop that bomb. OK Red 5?

but you have to way many other issues. Electing the wrong person could do long term damage.

is a struggle for the party between "left-wing" democrats and "right-wing" democrats. Whenever a democratic candidate is seen as "too liberal" or "too left-wing" he/she is dubbed "unelectable". When a democratic candidate is seen as "too conservative" or "too right-wing" he/she is called a "DINO" or "Rethug-lite". This will be the last election where the Democratic Party looks like it does now. If a "left-wing" candidate is nominated and loses the election then "libreals" will be hounded out of the party. If a "right-wing" candidate is nominated and win or lose, the "liberals" will leave the party. So let's just do our best to hold this thing together long enough to kick Bush out of the WH, then the party can kill off it's "left-wing" and sleep better at night.

Hmmmm.... you might be right .....:think:

...in the running wouldn't even be a blip on the radar screen. I for one hope all liberals get so sick of Bush and Co that they start to join forces in a united effort to get rid of republicans throughout this ountry. Not going to hold my breath though.

so how would we know what the majority of Americans will think about a certain candidate. I am no person who can determine the electability of a candidate, also. Everyone's idea of "electability" differs. I think if every democrat voted based on electability rather then issues, we may have the most unelectable candidate. Also, what is the point on running in the issues you believe in because people are just going to vote based on electability.

First of all I will embrace the legal definition of expert. To testify as an expert you must have knowledge in a field beyond that of an average layman.

There are people at large and at this site who have more knowledge of politics than the average laymam by virtue of their experience and education.

I am not tooting my own horn but I have a B.S. in Social Science, a M.A. in Political Science and have done post grad work in Government at Florida State University. I have also been involved in several campaigns.

That experince doesn't make me a political maven or crystal ball predictor but it does give me and others with similar experience an insight infinitely greater than the average Joe who is waxing philosophically about politics on a late Friday afternoon at T. G. I Fridays.

how the voters will react to a certain candidate till November 2004. Which is what I meant, maybe I should of said we are no psychics. I know people on DU have more knowledge about the issues and what is going on in the world then most people in this country. But, alot of people don't vote based on the issues. Dave Chappelle said "I don't vote based on the politics of the man, I vote based on the personality." Alot of people are like that.

I just think some opinions are more informed than others....

We can make inferences based on past elections and voting behavior but even our inferences are ultimately subjective.


The best explantion of voting behavior was at lucianee.com!!!! Heaven help us all...


A poster said the Dems will vote for their guys.... The Reps will vote for their guy .... And the swingers* (swing voters) will vote for the guy they like best....



*actaully swing voting is way more complex...

__Bush Re-Elect Drops to 42%-47% - Tied with Unnamed Dem

"A Zogby poll released today shows that when asked if George Bush deserves re-election, only 46% of Americans said yes and a narrow majority, 47%, said it is time for someone new. The poll, with a margin of error of +/- 3%, on a generic 2004 ballot between Bush and a Democratic candidate, Bush received 47% of support, and a Democratic candidate received 44%, putting the Bush and a Democratic candidate in a statistical dead heat still a year before the Democratic candidate is selected. The second poll, released yesterday by Fox News/Opinion Dynamics and published in National Journal's Hotline showed should the 2004 election be held today, those planning to reelect Bush had dropped to 42%."

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=5528

So I would say, "No."

We should nominate the best Democrat, because the Democrat nominated is going to be the next President of the United States.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

:thumbsup:

Now let's not fuck it up.

his popularity polls, but NEVER mentions his re-election poll numbers which aren't good.