Electability

Ok, I have to go to work, well, about ten minutes ago, but I wanted to ask about this as well.

A lot of people seem to blow off electability like it isn't really important. Like all we have to do is nominate somebody and that's that. But what good does it do to nominate somebody if they get beat by Bush in 2004? And while Bush's numbers are falling now, there is a long time between now and the main election. Things in the economy and the war could change to make him look better and then we have a fight on our hands.

I am willing to support whoever gets the nomination because I feel like any of our candidates are better than Bush. But I have seen people write things like, "I won't vote if Dean gets the nomination." I don't see any of the other candidates mentioned this way, but I am only on two other politically oriented boards and one of them is pretty anti-Dean and the other is pretty pro-Edwards. People could be saying the same thing about Kerry and Kucinich for all I know.

What about electability? How important is it? WHAT is it? Is it having the least bad crap that can be said about you? Or is it having the best plan? I worry about this because Bush had A LOT of bad crap that could be said about him AND he didn't really seem to have a cogent plan for the country and he is in the White House. I know he got in through a back door, but I never thought he stood a chance during the campaign...and there he is.

I would think that the most important aspect of the nomination. Which is why I actively support Senator Graham.

First of all, what does electable really mean? The last time I had this debate, I searched every dictionary in my house and still couldn't find the meaning.

I found the meaning to votable - a decision on a proposal or a choice between candidates which can be made collectively.

I also found the meaning to preferable - more desirable.

winner - one that wins.

I am looking for the most votable candidate in the next election. I am also seeking the most "preferable" candidate...who I believe are Dean or Kucinich, and I am looking for the winner in the primaries.

In the words of Thomas Paine "Ye dare oppose not only tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth."

whom a majority of primary-voting Dems love, or someone they think a majority of people voting in the general election will love.

a democrat whom a majority of primary-voting Dems love, and someone they think a majority of people voting in the general election will love.

"hope" or "wish". And I'm not presumng that my notion of what makes a candidate appealing is shared by everyone.

that we should not presume that your notion of what makes a candidate appealing is shared by everyone. :thumbsup:

The fun part of this is comparing theories, and making persuasive arguments. I'll keep an eye out for your theories and arguments, burr.

but I come out of the Carville school of politics when it comes to who is right, and who is wrong.

He'll use whatever he can to divide the Dems, and if that doesn't work, he'll resort to cheating, I fear. That's why it is so important that the Dems get behind the candidate of the party, and work together as a team to make sure Bush can't steal an election again.

The only Dem that I've seen people say they won't vote for is Lieberman. That would be a very very tough thing for me to do personally, because I don't see Lieberman changing things very much.

worry about who moderates and people without political identificaton will vote.

Incidentally, one of the reason the Republicans hadn't planned their theft well enough in 2000 was because Independants broke heavily for Democrats. Many independants are Democrats who aren't willing to say it. You have to worry about their votes too.

I don't think a lot of independants and moderates would vote for Lieberman anyway. However, the nominee will have to be someone whom you can imagine a lot of middle of the road voters would find appealing.

I think it is important to nominate a candidate that isn't going to bring the Republicans out of the woodwork. If we nominate somebody that can be spun to be a virtual Republican boogie man, then we are going to be in trouble.

or a contrived trope. Anyone can get votes by doing the appropriate thing and being lucky. I believe any Democratic contender will beat bush*sucks in '04. Even (ugh) Lieberman.

In the Democratic primaries you have to build a field organization, raise money, figure out how to get your message out, adapt and adjust, manage the press, make promises, hug babies, shake hands, react to crises, respond to world events, and otherwise figure out ways to win votes.

It's not a perfect test, but it's a darn good one and perhaps the best humans can design.

Moreover, Democratic primary voters aren't stupid. They take "electability" into account in making their voting decisions on the nominee. And an awful lot of Democratic primary voters have participated in many elections, seeing lots of different candidates. They know what it will take to win.

I'll also say that the Democratic nomination contest isn't necessarily fair. (Politics ain't fair!) At the end of the day only one of the nine (maybe ten) will win the nomination, and that will leave eight (or nine) good and decent people perhaps serving as ambassadors, appointees, and/or the VP nominee.

I have absolutely no fears about the nomination process. Democrats will choose a terrific nominee. Then we'll try as hard as we can to defeat Bush in November, 2004.

I don't have a lot of good examples because I am very new to worrying about politics. I only started recently when I realized how bad things can be when people don't pay attention. But haven't ALL the Democratic nominees in history done what you just said? And they don't all win, so what is the difference?

As Rock said, above, it's a reification--it treats an abstract concept as though it were a real thing. In reality, there is no such thing as 'electability', and we can see how nonsensical the concept is by looking at Coup2K: who was more 'electable', Smirk or Gore? 'Obviously' Gore was, since he got more votes. But equally 'obviously', Bush was, because he was declared the winner. So where was the 'electability'? Obviously not in either candidate.

.. is the ability to control the campaign season's focus such that it benefits your own campaign. If the subject matter is something that people like the candidate for, you'll benefit. If it is something a candidate is weak on, he/she'll fall.

A large part of this is media manipulation. Producing memorable visual images, using language that favors one side of the argument, calling attention effectively to a particular topic. Gimmicks are gimmicky, but they work. Originiality in media stunting is even more effective.

I also tend to think that the candidate's ability to present a personal image that inspires confidence is important. If the message and topic are skillfully controlled, and the voters are saying to themselves, "Yes, I like that plan, it sounds like a winner".. and then some wimpy-looking thing comes out to say unenthusiastically, "Yeah.. we're going to do it.." with forced expression (perceived or otherwise), that confidence is not going to be felt, and the voters will doubt the candidate's ability to lead.

An addendum: My own personal belief is that humor is one of the most underused political weapons. When you a candidate get the people to laugh with him/her, they've been won-over to some small extent. And one element of humor is truth; people laugh because "that's so true!" We NEED to get some funny commercials on the air. Current grainy, black-and-white, sinister music and narration commercials of the opponent are tired. A good, funny ad gets attention, it relaxes the viewer, and puts less pressure on them to force a decision that could be uncomfortable; it'd make the decision process easier. I guess I could vote for Candidate A" becomes "Wow.. Candidate A has a point, haha! I just might vote for him!"
Humor adds to electability.. yup.

It's encouraged by the GOP and mass media to stifle hope in any one candidate, imho. A nasty trick played on voters to control elections and candidates.

I think you say that because a lot of people say Kucinich is unelectable in a national election.

I think I've heard or seen it said about every candidate but Dean recently, and even Dean got it in the beginning.

So in response, no it's not because I hear it about my own candidate, it's because I hear it against all of them with one exception and that's only recent. What better way to maintain the status quo than by breaking down the psychological fortitude of all of the opposition? That's what electability is to me, a psychological weapon designed to keep voters from doing what they believe is the right thing. It seems to be working pretty well in some cases.

none of us can predict the future, we won't know how the voters will react to our candidate till November 2004. I haven't seen any of "I won't vote for the democrats unless Dean gets the nomination." but I have seen "I won't vote for anyone who voted for this war." We won't know if the candidate does well with independents and moderates, we don't know how the candidate will do with young and first time voters which is very important to get, we don't know how a candidate will do in his own party untill Election Day 2004. Unless someone can give me a crystal ball, I will endorse the candidate with the best chance to beat Bush.

considering who's more electable, Clinton (who's at 2% in most national polls), Tsongas (who went on to win NH), Brown (the liberal favorite)?

You can practice for 2004 by testing whatever you logic you think predicts electability on the 1992 candidates.

with African-American voters, woman voters, first time/young voters, he did well in his own party, done well with swing/moderate/independent voters. There are so many groups to account for then just swing voters, so people think electability is based on he his half repuke/half democrat, but there are so many groups to account for. Clinton used education and the economy which he improved in the state of Arkansas. Clinton also had personality and he talked the launguage of regular people. Which one of these candidates is the second coming of Clinton? :shrug: I would like to say my favorite candidate Dean, but imo, he isn't Clinton without the "baggage".

Clinton did well with black voters, while attacking Sister (Sistah?) Souljah to make moderate, suburban white men think he was OK. It worked. Clinton went right for that swing vote. He picked Al Gore as his running mate to hold on to moderate, suburban, white voters.

Remember Ricky Ray Rector. Clinton wouldn't stop an execution to make himself seem palatable to law and order moderate, suburban white voters. It was hateful, but it worked.

Clinton did a great job of being electable -- of appealing to reliably voting democrats while pulling a ton of moderates into his camp.

Did anyone read Mark Shields's article?

It's usually that the candidate realizes that they have qualities that make themselves compete really effectively against the other candidates, and it takes the public a little while to understand what those qualities are. It's rare that the early favorite, who is a favorite because of name recognition alone, is able to win on name recognition alone. Eisenhower is probably the rare candidate who won largely because of name recognition (however, it was probably more than name recognition).

I hang out with a lot of people who don't like him.

I thought I had formed an opinion, but the more I read, the more I wonder who I really think has the best idea. That's when I started thinking about electability.

Idea should go first

We need to make sure the Best Candidate get's nominated. By best, I mean the one who has the intent and the plan that can set our country straight.

Personally , I think ALL 9 dems would beat bush.

The electablity issue is just a way for the Republican wing of Democratic party to control it's delagates with FEAR ... just like the fascist wing of the Republican party.

Kucinich in the Primary's ... then whoever, I guess (except Lieberman or Kerry (the skull & bones). Might as well keep Bush instead of either of them.

nominee would always win the general election. That doesn't happen, does it?

I'd venture to guess that the Democrats occassionally fail to nominate a person who could have won the general election in favor of someone who has no chance of winning the general election. Of course, there are dozens of other factors which can make a candidate lose, but, I bet the Democrats have missed opportunities by failing to nominate the most electable candidate (perhaps '72 is the best example of this happening, and I bet a lot of highly electable dems didn't bother running in the primaries in '00 because Gore annointed by the party long before the first primary).

I think any of the nine would beat bush.

Bush lost last time.
And has f'd up the entire world since....

No way is he going to win... unless maybe it's Lieberman and then it makes no difference.

person who can beat Bush by the widest margin.

I see this feeling expressed by lots of Democrats that Bush is so bad that anyone can beat him, so let's run a guy who's really out there even though he might have the smallest margin of victory. I say, leave nothing to chance. Don't take the risk. Nominate the Dem who can get the most votes.

I think that people are kidding themselves about what a shoe in this election is. I have huge respect for the Republican camapign machine. I watched it roll over Al Gore in shock.

There was a segment on NPR just now that said that Bush isn't really campaigning yet..and he is smoking all the Democratic candidates in the fund raising department. I also think that right now, the Republicans are sitting back and allowing the Dems fighting amongst themselves to do their work for them. Once they have a clear cut target, look out. And we HAVE to make sure that our target is smaller than theirs. They will be digging to get their fingernails underneath anything they can. And once they do, they will peel it right open and beat it to death.

naive? I mean, to think that any of the 9 Dem candidates could beat Bush? I think Braun is a wonderful person with incredible qualities, but she wouldn't stand a chance against Bush. That may seem icky, but that is REALITY.

And if IDEAS are so important, how is Bush in the White House? Is there any real proof that he has ever even had an idea of his own? '

I think part of the problem is that the Democratic Party is the party of ideals and idealism, and sometimes idealistic people scorn practicality like it is a dirty word. God, please believe me, I wish this country were color blind, was not more comfortable with a President who is properly married with the requisite 2.4 children and that this country was no subconciously (Or not so subconciously) sexist. But it is. It just is. Based on that, we have got to nominate somebody that will not freak out the lazy Republicans enough to make them care about voting against them and who manages to invigorate the Democratic voter to coming to the polls. That is a hard mix, but we had it with Clinton. We need to figure it out again.

so much that they'll run out and vote against the Dem (even if they weren't inclined to vote FOR Bush).

I like to think there's another category: moderate conservatives who might go back and forth between the parties and can be convinced to lean towards the Dem whose progressivism they don't really understand, but the candidate makes them feel sufficiently optimistic about the future that it outweighs the fear the Republicans invoke.

Dems should nominate a candidate that is acceptable to "moderate Republicans"?!!! Why the hell not just join the Repubs and run a moderate candidate? Then the right-wing Dems would cross over and - voila! - you have your nice, status quo moderate Repub in office, which is what it sounds like you want.

The question is - is the American people more Dem leaning or more Repub leaning? Or do they not give a damn?

If all we are about is the nominating of a candidate that is o.k. with moderate Repubs, then I think the "don't give a damn" vote wins.

...politics is compromise. Democracy is designed to do the best thing for the most people, so the elected representative has to be elected by a majority of people. That means everybody on your half of the field, plus one on the other side has to vote for your person. More likely, it means, a lot of people on your side of the field, and a bunch of people near the middle on the other side of the field. You may not be satisfying people around your own goal line, but you're going to have to accept that so that you can get all those people who stand near the middle. And that's OK because politics is all about doing the right thing for the most people.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, that's the lie the Republicans told about Bush -- he was going to do what Democrats did but with smaller gov't and lower taxes -- to get him elected. And it worked. So why can't Dems do the same thing to win? Run a guy who's a closet progressive, but appeals to people near the middle 'cause his message is that he's going to do what Clinton did (grow the economy by helping the middle and working class)?

One, I have noticed how politics USE to work. You put forward your platform and then educated and/or convinced enough of the people to vote for your platform. Now, you change your stated beliefs to make them more palatable to "moderate Republicans" and hey, presto, you've won an election, but your "mandate" is for ideas and policies that are not so dissimilar from a Republican's.

Two, Republicans cheat, steal, and lie to get elected - I used to think Democrats were made of better stuff. Sure if all that matters is winning, then go for it - lie to the people, steal the election using any dirty trick you can think of, but go ahead and change your candidate's name to "Bush", because except for the name, it's the same guy.

and the people presenting it, all inteligent historians, said that campaigns have always been ugly, manipulated by the media, filled with slanders, etc, and, if anything, there is more of a veneer of civility today than ever before.

And, regardless of ugliness, there's no reason to stop trying to pick candidates who appeal to the most Americans (and most people fall in the middle...you know what a bell curve looks like? Well if you took a survey of political opinion, you'd find that most people fall in the middle, with fewer decribing themselves as radical liberals or radical conservatives).

I think what was said was that there are people in the middle who do not neccessarily vote one way or the other. That those people need to be considered.

The absolute truth is the Middle America is called Middle America for a REASON. They do not tend to lean much one way or the other. They tend to vote common sense and with their pocketbooks. They may fall one way on some issues and in the opposite direction on others. And what is wrong with being that way or understanding the reasoning behind wanting to appeal to this section of voters?

I am a Democrat because I happen to not be Christian, I am pro-choice and pro gun control and I think I have figured out that I am anti-death penalty. Yet, I am not particularly liberal, or at least I don't feel like I am. And while I swing liberal on the issues I mentioned, I am for tougher sentences for repeat offenders, I am all about keeping pornography and drugs away from my kids and in ways that might possibly interfere with somebody's First Amendment rights (if they think they have the right to sell pornography near where children gather) and I do tend to have what are typically considered conservative opinions on matters such as these.

Hey, there are more of us people in the middle than there are you guys on the edges. Maybe we really do need a third party to represent us.

is a fairly mainstream Democratic mindset. You don't have to be "progressive" or "liberal" on every issue under the sun to be "liberal", but you have to be of a mindset that is about freedom, justice, and working as a nation - as a group - to better the lives of all members of that group. But the Democratic Party has seriouly lost it way, if it is going to choose a candidate to run against the Republicans that is most acceptable to "moderate" Republicans.

Look there are many Democrats who hold beliefs that would make them more at home with Republicans - and Republicans more at home with Democrats, as well. Why these folks just don't switch parties, I don't know. But, the Republicans have over the last couple of decades successfully pulled the Democratic Party to the right, to the point that many Democrats actually voted for a tax cut that went almost exclusively to the rich! And they aren't ashamed of it(as they should be)!

For people to talk about constantly molding our party so as to appeal to the "center" and to Republicans points up why the Democrats are now a minority party in power, while having the most registered voters.

they're going to scared of a candidate whom they percieve as running against the middle.