I hate the word "unelectable"

(ahem..gets on soap box)

How many Democrats were elected from "Republican safe" districts last fall? Have we forgotten so quickly how events can change in an election season, even within days of hours? I really hate the way that pundits , and some of us here even, pre-judge candidates by calling them "unelectable". Frankly, even Biden is "electable" given the right set of circumstances. Same with Clinton, Obama, Kucinich or for that matter (shudder) Brownback, Guiliani or Gingrich. We may believe, and even have good reasons for believing, that someone can't win their partys nomination or the Presidential race, but don't fool yourself.

Now I am sure someone can come up with people who are truely unelectable. But I am talking about well known, experienced pols here. And we are trying to write them off before the season even begins.

Let the candidates campaign. Listen to what everyone has to say. Decide who to support based on their positions, strengths and weaknesses. But please don't tell us that someone is unelectable.


(gets off of soap box)

For example, Kucinich is as unelectable as Nader. I know that might sting to hear, especially since he stands on the right side of many issues, but it's just quite simply the truth anyway.

without accuracy or the numbers to back it up.

And let's say, for instance, that Hagel was the Republican nominee...

1 week before the election it comes out that Hagel has been a closet pedophile. Do you still think Kucinich would lose?

or...

a month before the election a major news organization breaks a story showing that the electronic voting machine company that Hagel was CEO on was proven to have thrown the 00 and 04 elections. And Hagel knew about it and approved it. Do you still think he would be elected?

People thought Foley was a shoo in. People thought Pombo was a shoo in. People thought Allen was a shoo in.

And let's say, for instance, that Hagel was the Republican nominee...

1 week before the election it comes out that Hagel has been a closet pedophile. Do you think Sponge Bob would lose?

or...

a month before the election a major news organization breaks a story showing that the electronic voting machine company that Hagel was CEO on was proven to have thrown the 00 and 04 elections. And Hagel knew about it and approved it. Do you still think he would be elected?

People thought Foley was a shoo in. People thought Pombo was a shoo in. People thought Allen was a shoo in.

Sponge Bob, given the right circumstances, could be a shoo in too!

Dennis is a real politician who has been repeatedly re-elected. To a higher office that I will ever have hope of attaining.

I am not saying that some candidates will have an easier time of it than others. What I am saying is that we should not let ourselves be herded into supporting someone because the Media tells us that the other candidates are "unelectable"

People thought in 1966 that LBJ was untouchable, a juggernaut. 2 years later he was gone.

Bush 41 had a 90 percent approval rating in 1991. a year and a half later, he was gone.

Why not see the possible?

If Kucinich were the democrat nominee. Biden or Dodd on the otherhand are entirely unelectable.

Biden and Dodd have won many elections. Granted, Biden at least has run before and not done well, so there we have some data on him. But as the saying goes "you know what chance you have if you don't run"

But "unelectable" means that there is no chance, no confluence of events, that could lead to him being elected. I am not willing to completely ignore him based upon that premise. I may not (and am unlikely to) support either Dodd or Biden, but if they somehow convinced voters to support them for the Democratic Party nomination, I will vote for them.

Any of them is likey electable if they get the nomination IMHO, depending on message and resources.

But it bugs me that Kucinich is regularly slagged as unelectable, when honestly I believe him to be much more dynamic and charismatic and hence electable than uninspired stiffs like Biden and Dodd.

OK, I know your aren't the only one who does that, but I'm just saying...

:hi:

down the road?

By that reasoning, Bill Clinton was "unelectable."

So your opinion is just that. An opinion. And you are intitled to yours. But please don't confuse it with truth. That would be a mistake.




:hi:

Shhhhhhhh... Hey, don't tell nobody, cause no one really noticed, but like, Kucinich already ran in 2004. Clinton didn't run in 1988.

opinion?

Reagan ran for the Repo nomination and lost. Then he ran again and won.

Your opinion, is just that. An opinion. It isn't truth.

But you seem quite confused on the two concepts, so I 'll let you have the last word now, because it's my opinion that you can't see the difference between your opinion and truth.

bye bye!

people on either extreme are unelectable. Someone like Pat Robertson has about as much chance of winning this election as Al Sharpton. Tell me you actually think either one of those is a viable candidate. The only democrat to be in office of late did actually have some crossover appeal. You have to have those moderate middle of the road and Independent votes to win. And if you are usuing the midterm elections as a example, there were still plenty of Republican wins. And that was more about anti-Bush than anyone else. I think that should it be Giuliani vs. Clinton (as has been speculated on) I think Giuliani wins in a landslide because he is actually considered very close to center and that many dems even I know would vote him because Hilary is hated by many (and not just the right). My goal is a dem in office whether he shares all my opinions or not. I personally think electability is a big issue having watched my candidates fall short in presidential politics year after year. (usually the ones that I feel are unelectable I personally don't care for either to tell you the truth). As much as I hate the Repubs I don't believe for the most part that one should not always vote strict party lines unthinkingly no matter what. Thats what the right does. Thats my opinion anyway. And yes, I won't mention names there are democrats that I would have to strongly consider voting for based on who was running agaisnt them because I would have a hard time in concience voting for them period.

'unelectable' is a Corporate media meme, used to control our elections.

We need to tell the liars that this time WE ARE THE DECIDERS!

The problem is we are told Hillary is electable and Kucinich isn't. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

Any logical person can see Hillary has an uphill battle. The independents and cross over republican voters will not vote for her. She is not our strongest candidate and I don't think she can win in the end. She is the favorite of the corporations and she has the biggest budget.

The mid term elections showed us where the public is coming from. The polls show us where the public is coming from. They want this war over. Kucinich has the right message.

It's a shame.

and I think he'd make a hell of a President. I'll also be voting for him in the primary. But do I think he can win? Hell, no. People elect Presidents who are more photogenic in this age of television, and Kucinich is funny-looking. Thank god there weren't any televisions around when Abe Lincoln was running.

LOL.

Bush isn't exactly good looking and he got elected president. He is funny looking to say the least. Nixon wasn't good looking. Neither was Bush I. The idea that someone has to be good looking to be elected president is non-sense. That is just what the MSM wants us to think.

I just think the person should look more like a regular guy or gal. How many times have they shown DK's picture on tv and then cued the Star Trek music? Kucinich also has a few personal quirks that seem flaky to a lot of people. He's a vegan, his religious affiliation leans toward Eastern religions (although he was raised Catholic), and I think he's on his third marriage. He's basically the Jerry Brown (who I supported in 1988) of the 21st century. I don't have any problems with any of those traits, in fact I share most of those with him. But a lot of people think I'm funny-looking and kind of flaky, too.

their favored candidate, but Kucinich really IS unelectable.

In a poll just a few days ago in OHIO (where people know him best) he garnered 2% of the vote for the Dem nomination.

Further, in Ohio, he has an 18% approval rating and a 37% disapproval. Among Ohio Democrats, he only has a 26% approval rating.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1009


For good or ill, people don't vote solely on issues.

Please see post number 20, above.

quickly climbed above that percentage and did well in the primaries.

Kucinich has ALREADY run once, and barely broke 3%, if I recall.

Dennis Kucinch has a far better environment this time around.

For one thing, he's the only candidate who voted against the IWR, and has voted against funding the war.

Dennis is also the only candidate with a single payer fee for service universal heath care bill.

Dennis is also the only candidate speaking up for barring the DEA from interfering with the rights of medical marajuana users, speaking up for farmers who would like to compete in the hemp market, and speaking up for injecting some reality back into our so-called war on drugs.

As time goes on and his views become better known, I expect the Kucinich will move up well in the polls.

Now all this could change if Gore enters the race.

But Kucinich is certainly not unelectable. Even if some of the other candidtaes or their supporters wish he were.

the environment is better. He might break 6% this time... in a couple of states.

We have to stop letting the Corporate media control US.

loosing an election , especially a close one, does not make one "unelectable"

The Faint Hoofbeats? That’s the Dark Horse

By JEFF ZELENY
Published: January 28, 2007
WASHINGTON


HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON dashed to Iowa this weekend to hang an open-for-business sign on her new campaign operation. Barack Obama is besieged by admirers begging to join his team. And John Edwards has already dipped his toes into each of Iowa’s 99 counties — and started his second lap.

So is the Democratic stable too full for a dark horse presidential candidate to emerge?

The current thinking suggests that only famous candidates, Democrat or Republican, can seize their party’s nomination. But it has never been a wise bet to rule out the dark horse, a staple of American politics since James K. Polk went to the Democratic convention in 1844 and became the presidential nominee by accident after the favorite, former President Martin Van Buren, lost Southern support.

snip:

But even before the rules and the calendar take shape for the 2008 race, dark horse candidates have one piece of storybook history to hold onto: Jimmy Carter, 1976.

After Mr. Carter declared his candidacy on Dec. 12, 1974, a Harris poll listed 35 prospective presidential candidates. Mr. Carter, a one-term Georgia governor, was not among them. Yet 13 months later, after spending day after day traipsing from the Missouri to the Mississippi, he won the Iowa caucuses, that all-important first test of a candidacy. The victory replenished his bank account and sustained him through the rest of the primary campaign.

snip:

“A lot can change in a month,” said Senator Tom Harkin, also of Iowa, who in 1992 sought the Democratic presidential nomination. “One of the problems of being a front-runner like Hillary and Barack, if they make a mistake, it will be magnified way beyond its own dimensions. If others stumble, it’s not a big deal.”

As he left the Senate floor to begin a weekend of campaigning, Sam Brownback of Kansas, one of many Republican candidates in the field, stopped for a moment to chat about his prospects. After describing himself as the “true conservative in the field,” he acknowledged finding solace in the legends of Democratic dark horses.

“You have people like Jimmy Carter, who came out of nowhere. And Bill Clinton! They were not household names when they started this process,” Mr. Brownback said. Asked when he was heading to Iowa, he paused for barely a beat and replied, “Next week.”

more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/weekinreview/28zeleny.html