The problem with electability - Dean, Clark, Braun ,et al.

[Dems2002]

Alrighty guys,

Everyone seems to mutter continuously about electability, which is somewhat of a concern, but there are several points that people seem to miss.

1. The Bush will say --- about --- argument. Guys, when ads go on to state that Senator Max Cleland, a Vietnam vet and triple amputee, is a traitor to his country, unpatriotic and compare him to Saddam, this becomes a ridiculous argument. Rove and Bush et al will say horrible things about every single one of the candidates. What matters in such an instance is not whether it's true, but whether your candidate is covered in teflon or fly paper. Which one of the candidates does the best at not just defending himself, but making the other guy look worse for attacking him? They said horrible things about Clinton, but these things did not stick with a majority of the population. They stuck only marginally with Al Gore, who managed to win the popular vote, but what did Al lack?

2. Al did not inspire folks. Part of this was due to his campaign, the media portrayal of him, but there was no inspiration. Recent election studies suggest that the next race will be determined by whichever side more inspires their grassroots to get out to vote. So, since we're the grassroots, which candidate INSPIRES US? It's definitely not the same for everyone here, but that's THE POINT OF A PRIMARY. The person who inspires you is the person you should be supporting. Because if he inspires you, he probably inspires others. My personal observation is that I like Kerry, I think he's a good guy, a good Democrat, but he doesn't happen to INSPIRE ME. So I'm not going to vote for him in the Primary. I'd be happy to vote for him in the General, but not the Primary.

3. When people talk about electability, particularly the elites, they go with known factors as they apply to each party separately. So Democrats have "liberal failures" and republicans have "conservative successes" What's interesting is that no one seeks to figure out the root causes of each of these things and apply them to the other side. For those that believe a politics of the DLC center is the only way for Democrats to win, I leave you with this final summary of Senator Wellstone’s 1996 election, which he won by a 9-point margin.

“A large minority of voters polled said that they felt I was “too liberal.” Of those voters, 40 percent voted for me. Among voters who considered themselves “moderates” 59 percent voted for me. The politics of conviction is a winning politics. That’s why an “embarrassingly liberal” senator was able to win decisively.”
Senator Paul Wellstone, The Conscience of a Liberal

So guys, stop beating yourselves in the head with the electability stuff and go with your guts. I know I am.

Dems

[Padraig18]

1. I largely agree.

Unfortunately, some supporters want to pick at it like a scab, then wonder why people keep talking about it and then get pissed off because they *do*. :shrug:

On edit: If you don't want people to talk about your candidate's 'electability', then s.t.f.u. about it yourselves!

[Bombtrack]

5. Most other serious candidates electability ISN'T a major issue

We all know every major candidate

It's impossible to deny that 95 percent of republicans who pay serious attention want to face Dean so more than they would Kerry, Edwards, or Clark.

republicans at a grassroots(and god knows if they are at higher ranks) level are cross-registering to vote for him and sending him donations.

You cannot win a national election when you're only sure vote is that of the anti-war movement.

[Dems2002]

9. Did I say Dean's Name?

I don't recall talking about Dean in my initial post, but let me answer you anyway. Any republicans who help Dean to help Bush are stupid. They are so convinced that extreme conservatism is the way to go, they see liberalism as such a great evil, they don't recognize moderation on the left when they see it. They entirely ignore my Wellstone quote and also Reagan's success. Reagan was more conservative than a majority of folks but people liked him. While some folks like Bush, I think he's antagonizing more people every day. And I think that Dean has an extremely positive message. If Dean goes after big business to any degree, and in particular the sickening relationship between Bush and big business he's going to clean up because this is something that poll after poll show the people care about but the media doesn't discuss because they don't care as much.

Dean also has a strong likeability factor among White Men. While he came out against the war he doesn't come across as a wimp. Let's face it, Dukakis came across as a wimp. Who does the Democratic Party do weakest with? White Men. Most meet-ups I've attended have had more white men than any other demographic and that is not common in Democratic Politics. There have also been a handful of republicans who think that Bush is crazy and like Dean.

Dean is a fiscal conservative. Libertarians could be seriously drawn to Dean because Ashcroft is terrifying them.

So far, when Dean gets criticized what happens? He gets more money and goes up in the polls. That looks like Teflon to me. And guess what? He's not afraid of Bush.

Let me say it again. He's not afraid of Bush. Every other candidate except maybe Sharpton, has come across as afraid of fighting Bush. And if we continue to let Bush get away with stating things his way, no one will ever be able to beat him.

Dems

[Padraig18]

2. kick

[Bombtrack]

3. Dean is more of a DLC democrat

than many of the useless washington pols he and his supporters never stop railing on.

Except he's the only candidate who say's/implies he's more of a democrat than all of them. And he and his campaign dismisses all legitimate critism of his record, platform, and person with Iraq when asked legitimatly and fairly.

when 60-70 percent of americans fundamentaly disagree with you and are more inline with you're opponent, you lose.

Dean's campaign is based on emotion over logic, and that's why he's the LEAST electable serious candidate(along with Gephardt)

[Hep]

4. And now from the Edwards camp

It's Operation Make Every Thread About Dean!

And the Dean camp goes wild!

Side note: The Edwards campaign that I've dealt with here in NC has been laughable at best. Sending high school kids to table events, slap stickers on kids and say, "Ummm I really don't know" when questions are asked. No way in NC should the Dean supporters outcampaign the Edwards people.

But sdon't get me wrong! I love how you define what Dean's campaign is based on, even though you show yourself to have NO knowledge of what he or his campaign is about. No doubt you think you know better than the hundreds of thousands of people who have actually taken the time to LEARN about him.

We're just a bunch of morans! We were under the impression that Dean's campaign is about passion and pragmatism and grassroots organizing. If only you had been there to show us The Way (TM) all along!

[Padraig18]

6. Should we drink the Kool Aid now, or wait?

:P

[Bombtrack]

8. I don't know what a "moran" is

and it's great that you believe that if Dean hadn't latched onto the pre-established anti-war movement that he would have any serious chance of the nomination.

I don't deny that Edwards has been successfully stifled for most of his campaign, although third place in NH, double digits and 4th in IO, and double digit lead for first in SC, puts him well placed in contention for an upset.

although you clearly didn't adress any of my critisms before you bashed Edwards and his operation. I'm prepared for Edwards to not win the nomination, because I know when serious candidates do start dropping out(whether Leiberman, Clark Edwards or Kerry) their support isn't going to Dean in any large number

[Hep]

10. reply to post something something

and it's great that you believe that if Dean hadn't latched onto the pre-established anti-war movement that he would have any serious chance of the nomination.

Latched on? You mean by being against the invasion and occupation? I didn't realize it until just now, but apparently I "latched on to the pre-established anti-war movement", too. But that's not why I support him.

I don't deny that Edwards has been successfully stifled for most of his campaign, although third place in NH, double digits and 4th in IO, and double digit lead for first in SC, puts him well placed in contention for an upset.

Let's put responsibility where it belongs. You're use of passive terms is amusing. Yes, I guess it HAS BEEN stifled. Because it is a STIFLING campaign. Two of the most inspiring local dean supporters where I live went to Edwards first. In NC, they didn't appreciate their zeal for participation to be met with a sign up form and a blank stare.

Let Edwards win, I'll vote for him. It's not like he has much of a political career left in NC.

although you clearly didn't adress any of my critisms before you bashed Edwards and his operation. I'm prepared for Edwards to not win the nomination, because I know when serious candidates do start dropping out(whether Leiberman, Clark Edwards or Kerry) their support isn't going to Dean in any large number

Address your criticism? Make a legitimate statement, something other than ignorant claims to know more about us than we do, and I'll address it. You didn't make one, single, valid argument.

[Padraig18]

11. well said. n/t

[Padraig18]

7. Kick