Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TexasBushwhacker

(20,186 posts)
Sun Jan 20, 2019, 03:34 PM Jan 2019

In 2019, Let's Finally Retire 'Electability'

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/what-is-electability-774196/

By Matt Taibbi

"The role of “electability” has always been to convince voters to pick someone other than the candidate they prefer. The idea is to tell audiences which candidate has the broad appeal to win. The metric pundits usually employ is, “Which Democrat could most easily pass for a Republican?” and vice-versa.

“Electability” tends to come up most in election seasons when the incumbent president is violently unpopular with minority-party voters. This is why people should be cautious now. With Democratic voters so anguished by Trump’s presidency they’ll pick anyone they think is the best bet to win, be on the lookout for experts pretending to know the unknowable — how the broad mean of voters will behave nearly two years from now.

“Electability” is how Democratic voters were convinced to pick John Kerry in 2004. Media outlets reminded us over and over that an anti-war candidate like Howard Dean could never win, and that a tall, “nuanced,” fiscally conservative veteran like Kerry “better fit the cold calculus of electability.”

Kerry was the living embodiment of “electability.” His position on the Iraq War was ambiguous and he spent much of the campaign pushing a “tough” image. Upon securing the nomination, the Kerry campaign released a video showing him with an arm around John McCain, and touting his defiance of the Democratic Party to vote for a balanced budget."

He has a point.
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In 2019, Let's Finally Retire 'Electability' (Original Post) TexasBushwhacker Jan 2019 OP
It's a useful metric. Loki Liesmith Jan 2019 #1
Just because a term is sometimes misused qazplm135 Jan 2019 #2

qazplm135

(7,447 posts)
2. Just because a term is sometimes misused
Sun Jan 20, 2019, 03:41 PM
Jan 2019

or even overused, does not render it without any value.

Electability is a valid thing to consider, but it also is a bit of a nebulous term.
At its base, to me, it means the ability to do one of two things:

1. Unite the base of one of the two parties enough to have a chance to win on the strength of that alone. An example of this might be Obama, or to a certain extent even Clinton given the number of votes she actually won by.
2. Able to win enough voters of one of the two parties and enough independent voters to win on the combined strength (which suggests a candidate not necessarily firing up the party but who has unusual appeal with independents). Bill Clinton probably meets this. Carter in 76 maybe as well.

If someone is on a fringe then they aren't electable. So for example, Jim Webb would not have been electable if he somehow managed to win the nomination. I don't think he could have done 1 or 2.

I don't think we currently have anyone "unelectable" but I do think some have a better chance than others.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»In 2019, Let's Finally Re...