Electability is a Red Herring Issue

[dpbrown]

Zogby says every candidate can beat Bush. Even the Chair of the DNC said after the debate that "every candidate" is electable. Bush is under 50% (while Clinton was at 71% the day he was impeached).

These people who croak about unelectability, whose apparently inchoate fear over the inviolability of the truly soulless kakistocrats in charge of our government blinds them to the idea that "real" people are thirsty for change, are doing the dirty work of the RNC by baselessly lambasting candidates over something as completely subjective as "electability."

The "objective" evidence is in, and it says that Bush is on his way out.

That's why the Republicans have abandoned the high ground of competing on ideas, and have sunk to the lows of competing by attacking the electoral system. Delay's attacks on redistricting, Diebold's attacks on balloting integrity, Gov. Bush's continued refusal to reinstate nonfelons in Florida - all these are indications that the Republicans know they can't compete in the marketplace of ideas any longer, and that they'll do anything to retain power, to keep draining the US Treasury for their rich corrupt friends, and continue to send soldiers to die for oil.

Dennis Kucinich represents the candidate most lucid on the issues that resonate with average citizens. Of course, election consultants and demagogues don't want us to think about ideas. They don't want us to concern ourselves with decisions that will affect not only our lifetimes but the lifetimes of those yet to come. They want us to succumb to the hypnotism of soundbite politics, the allure of slick corporate advertising America - an America that only tells us it's lying in the tiny fine print flashed on the screen for one scant second at the end of the advertisement to keep itself in "technical" compliance with the law.

It's time to expect more than "technical compliance" - not only from our government, but from our politicians. It's time to expect that a candidate can come right out and tell us that as long as we're paying for the government that it's going to serve our interests. It's time to wean the corporations - fantastical man-made creations that were barred from participation in politics for more than the first century of this nation's history, from their undue, unfair, and unjustified intervention in the political workings of our democracy.

It's time for a visionary to bring us beyond the grayness of low expections forced upon us by decades of corporate deregulation, corporate manipulation, corporate malfeasance, corporate misappropriation, corporate misreporting, and corporate political usurpation of our electoral heritage.

It's time for a pragmatist with a proven national voting record of successes, and a proven winning record of prevailing against well-funded Republican incumbent opponents, to vanquish the unelected fraud from Al Gore's house.

It's time for Dennis Kucinich.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[TioDiego]

1. Well, get him a haircut then.

[no name no slogan]

4. Because good hair == good leadership

I'm so glad that we choose our candidates based on their looks, as opposed to their ideas.

Let's go back to watching "American Idol" then. :eyes:

[JohnKleeb]

8. so am I

;)
Seriously this is absurd.

[Maple]

2. Electibility is the ONLY issue

Because without it...you won't ever get to do anything else.

[dpbrown]

3. And Bush, the fraud who stole the White House, won't BE elected

So why don't we just pick the best candidate to pick up where Bill Clinton, the last elected President of the United States, left off, undo the mess Captain Unelected has made, and get on with it.

[molly]

26. AMEN!!!

:yourock:

[OneBlueSky]

5. electability is critical, especially . . .

when Republican companies control all of the voting machines . . . don't believe that Bush can't win . . . elections are determined not so much by who votes, but by who counts the votes . . . and right now, BFEE is doing the counting . . . unless we can stop them . . .

[dpbrown]

6. We stop the hijacking of our electoral heritage by stopping it

Not by "transferring" our anxiety to the race for the nomination (not the election), causing us to make a decision not on the merits, but on sound-bite chipping away at a candidate for no useful purpose other than to bring his or her standing down. "Electability" is a foil used to critique a candidate when that candidate's positions appear for whatever reason to be less vulnerable to attack. In fact, I can't count the number of times I've heard or read, "He's perfect, but....", followed by falling into the electability trap. If everyone who had ever spoken that line (or thought it), would give $20 or $50 to that "perfect" candidate, they themselves would facilitate the change that would erode the foundation underlying that "electability" bugaboo.

Bush can't get elected on the issues. We know that. Fewer than the number of people who voted for him last time will vote for him this time, because he's alienated everyone who crossed over to vote for him or who thought they'd "try something different" because it was safe due to the "good times" brought to us by the Clinton administration. Those people won't make the same mistake again.

We have to stop the Republicans from stealing the next election. That's true. But it's a separate issue from evaluating the candidates based on their vision, pragmatism, national experience, consistency, and proven ability to win contested elections against Republican opponents.

We have to look to the contender best able to show us a world finally free from the corrupt corporate globalization, low expectations, Treasury-raiding, forced upward reallocation of wealth, military adventurism, empire-building, hatred, and fundamentalism brought to us by Reagan, Bush, and Bush. We have to pick the "anti-Bush."

Electability will take care of itself. Bush wasn't elected last time, and he won't be elected this time, either. Let's pick the best candidate going forward.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[diamondsoul]

11. I got on the phone and talked to 20 people

I know. I asked just that they donate SOMETHING to Kucinich if he says what they think. They all said yes.

If he isn't elected, ok, so you spoke your thoughts through this guy. That's a good thing, right? That matters, doesn't it?

I dunno, but f*cked if I'll give up now. I ain't done by a long shot.

[Mairead]

23. There's something a little insane about

saying '"electability" is important' and at the same time 'they control the voting machines'. If they control the voting machines, then 'electability' means 'being the GOP candidate'. What else can it possibly mean?

[Rowdyboy]

7. Electsbility is, indeed, of PRIMARY importance...

I'm baffled that anyone would consider Bush doomed to defeat. I expect this to be a desperately fought race and just pray we win convincingly enough to override the Republicans theft machine.

[dpbrown]

9. Bush won't get as many votes as he did last time, and he lost then

So why should we consider him inviolate? Why should we consider him unbeatable? His approval ratings are 20 points lower than Bill Clinton's were on the day he was impeached. Why do people fear the Republican election-theft machine?

Bush lost by over half-million votes.

There's no way he's going to get that many votes this time. That means every vote out there is a potential Democratic vote. So the only way the Republicans can even come close this time is if they get an opponent to Bush who causes people to stay home.

I prefer, therefore, a candidate who invigorates people, who brings out new voters, who inspires confidence even in the Republicans in his district, who has won contested races against well-funded Republican incumbents, and who has a national voting record to use for evaluation.

We will create that "unassailable" margin by putting up a candidate who will get the votes that Al Gore got, and inspire new voters - an "anti-Bush", not by putting up a candidate who's too close to the "status quo."

[Rowdyboy]

10. We'll just have to agree to disagree...

Incumbent presidents RARELY lose bids for re-election (I know he hasn't won an election yet but the public doesn't see it that way). Only 5 incumbents have lost in the last 100 years. I'm not willing to take chances on Kucinch, Sharpton, Braun, or Lieberman. I'd feel much safer with Clark, Kerry, Dean, Edwards or Graham. Any one of them could make it a race. Once again, this is JMO.

If I were betting at this point, I'd give the slight odds to Bush. I think Democrats will self-destruct during the primary season. They'll tear each other down (just like we tear them down here) and by the time we have a ticket, everyone will hate everybody else.

on edit: Let me add, I really like DK. If he wins the nomination, I'll support him 100%. But it's gonna be a real uphill fight... Good luck!

[dpbrown]

12. 5 of 18 is almost 30% of the 20th Century Presidents, not "rare" at all

Of the Republicans, 5 have been elected as incumbents: T. Roosevelt, Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan. Four weren't. That means that 45% of all Republican Presidents in the 20th Century failed to secure their own re-elections. Again, hardly "rare" for Republicans to lose re-election.

Of those five, only four were actually elected for their first term. Of those four, half left the nation in shambles or fled in disgrace. (Roosevelt left his own party, warning against the rising power of corporations.)

Of the Democrats, only one lost re-election as an incumbent.

So that means that four out of five incumbent Presidents who lost re-election were Republicans. That's 80% of all the Presidents who failed to secure re-election in the 20th Century.

And this "President" has made, arguably, more of a mess of the economy than Hoover, who left the nation in shambles, and more of a mess of the integrity of the office than Nixon, who left in disgrace.

Call it agreeing to disagree if you like, but Bush, the absolute worst "President" we've ever had the misfortune to be stuck with, is not going to - on the issues - pose a threat to whatever Democratic candidate we put up against him.

And it remains my strong opinion that the best candidate we can put up is one who is most consistently the opposite of Bush in every way, painting a very clear, and highly desirable alternative to his failed policies of destruction, hatred, fundamentalism, greed, avarice, and corporate corruption.

I'm glad you like DK, too. Like I said before, send him $20 bucks and we won't have to talk much longer about this silly "electability" issue, anyway.

Cheers,

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[lams712]

13. Electability is a false notion...

....it's basically a media buzzword bandied about to dismiss anyone who doesn't fit a certain mold or ideal.

As far as I'm concerned EVERYONE who meets the constitutional requirements of the office is electable, even you or I.

And how can ayone be considered "unelectable" WHEN THEY ARE HOLDING AN OFFICE WHERE THEY HAD TO WIN AN ELECTION?????????

Bernie Sanders, Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, Carol Mosely Braun, and numerous others were all told that they were UNELECTABLE, and they have all WON ELECTIONS at one time or another.

Let's all stop listening to the media and letting them determine who is electable and who isn't. These questions need to be answered at the ballot box and not by professional pundits, pollsters, advisers, etc.

[dpbrown]

14. Excellent point - winning elections IS electable by definition

And DK won his district with 74% of the vote in his last re-election campaign.

They're all electable. Bush is toast (but watch out for election-stealing, it's all they have left).

[revcarol]

19. Hey, did anyone give you a "Welcome to DU" yet?

Here it is::grouphug:

And I love not only DK and think that if we vote our hearts AND minds, he is electable, but I love Bernie Sanders too.

Both are for the little guy,that's me, the little guy.

[stickdog]

15. Please.

Zogby says every candidate can beat Bush.

Do you really think Sharpton, with an over 50% negative rating among Democrats and no government experience, is an electable candidate?

Zogby wasn't including Kucinich, Sharpton or Moseley-Brown when he said that -- and I think you know it.

Please, show me where anybody who is not a DK supporter says DK is electable. I'd really like to see it.

[dpbrown]

16. You completely miss the point by taking this narrow perspective

And by not reading the points made already.

"Electability" is a lie. It's a bugaboo. It's a made-up "issue" by the corporate media, latched onto by people to apathetic, lazy, or invested in other candidates to actually look at the issues and positions of the candidates, and the tenuous position the Republicans are in, to put two and two together and conclude that Bush is a one-termer who's been a bigger disaster for the nation than Herbert Hoover, and a bigger blow to the integrity of the office than Richard Nixon - both of whom, incidentally, actually won a second term in office, something Captain Unelected can only dream about.

Whoever the Democratic nominee is, that person will be the next President of the United States. The only thing standing in the way is Republican election fraud. So the logical conclusion is that we should pick the best person to be that nominee, not get hung up on nonissues.

[stickdog]

17. A lot of Democrats could beat Bush.

I highly doubt that Kucinich is one of them.

Kucinich's message is so threatening to the status quo that they would pull out every stop.

And far too many voters are too "apathetic, lazy, or invested in other candidates to actually look at the issues and positions of the candidates." So many would believe the way the "objective" media savaged Kucinich -- including many "liberal" mouthpieces who know who is buttering their bread.

Finally, the guy is just a Rep. And he's shrill. He's not very likeable unless you are already with him on the issues. And he "bankrupted Cleveland." I know he had good reason. But it makes for a VERY compelling attack.

His message would be hard enough to get across through the corporate media static if Dennis looked, sounded and acted like Martin Sheen on the West Wing. As it is, the message simply needs a better messenger.

Now, this is not to say that I want Kucinich to drop out or that I want his supporters to stop supporting him. I'd really like to see him make as big a splash as possible on the national scene. But, realistically, that's the best any of us can hope for this time around.

[dpbrown]

20. "Doubt" is a red herring issue

Bush is going to lose. We should pick the best candidate. Barely 45% of Republican Presidents in the 20th Century got re-elected.

"Shrill" is another red herring...another totally subjective thing completely counterbalanced by the people who actually research his issues who find that his positions represent a positive change from the status quo of corporate whoredom, and who find his manner engaging and witty and warm.

And that bogus "bankrupted" crap is a bunch of hooey, too. He saved Cleveland's public power. He was commended by the city, and sent to Ohio's legislature as a state senator on the strength of that victory. And it wasn't even "bankrupt"...the banks, who were investors on the privatization, refused to "roll over" the debt and sent the city into "technical" default. Nothing got cut, no lights went out, the police weren't fired.

Bottom line is you're not offering any substantial reason that Kucinich can't win, and I've already shown that Bush will lose.

The Democratic candidate will beat Bush, just like last time, only with a bigger margin, and all the "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" sown by naysayers isn't going to change that at all.

[stickdog]

22. Ever heard of the verb "to Wellstone", as in

"If Kucinich even got close to the Presidency in 2004, he would be Wellstoned."

Here are the things Dennis needs to work on/overcome:

1) his political profile - Reps don't cut it; he isn't taken seriously
2) his personality and charisma - it's not Presidential.
3) his favorable/unfavorable ratio - among the likely Democratic voter who do know him (less than 50%), more than half view him unfavorably
4) his marital status
5) his eating habits
6) his abortion voting history

and I could go on.

He's not going to win the primary.

If he won the primary, he'd lose the general election.

If it looked like he'd win the GE, he's probably be Wellstoned.

If he won the GE, he'd be probably impeached or assassinated.

As the 2004 President, he wouldn't be able to govern.

JMHO.

[dpbrown]

24. Those are all bogus scare tactics

And imply a threat as well.

Ever hear of "jumping the shark"? As in, Bush jumped the shark with Iraq.

All that other stuff is nonsense. Fluff, except for the implied and actual threats on Kucinich's life embodied in amongst the other claptrap.

1) He's elected, people take him seriously.
2) Simple, his charisma is Presidential, since I believe it to be so, and since you are not the arbiter of such.
3) This is a made-up fake statistic you pulled off the top of your head, and meaningless.
4) We've had other unmarried Presidents, as well as ones having affairs. Kucinich's relationship isn't nearly as scandalous as Garfield's affair, FDR's affair, Kennedy's philandering, Jackson's nearly coming to a duel - the list goes on. You're talking out of your hat here.
5) Vegetables make up the biggest part of the FDA food pyramid. The idea that someone could be faulted for eating them soley is cracked.
6) He voted for contraception, sex ed, and against partial-birth abortion when the life of the mother isn't protected - all anti-Republian positions, even before his so-called conversion. Even then, no one agrees with everyone on everything. His abortion record is a non-issue. He's now got the best pro-choice stance of any of the candidates. This is hooey.

Kucinich may or may not win the primary. But people who don't research the issues, who imply threats, and who toss rumor and innuendo around like it was cold, hard fact do no candidate any favors, and lend credence to the idea that we lose by taking all the color and interest out of our candidates, causing people to stay home.

The only way the Democrat will lose is if Democrats stay home, because Bush won't even get as many votes as he did last time, and he lost then.

[Padraig18]

28. Actually

Hoover only served one term, 1929-1933.

[dpbrown]

30. My mistake - ANOTHER one-term Republican

Bush is toast. Watch out for election-rigging, black-box voting scandals, and vile smear campaigns, because NO REPUBLICAN CAN WIN ON THE ISSUES.

There, I'm glad I got that off my chest.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[clar]

27. Well then I'm not very bright either

Your argument strikes me as fallacious.

Every candidate requires exactly the same number of votes for election. No candidate requires more.

Are you saying that anyone who runs is equally electable, whether it's Lyndon Larouche, Pat Buchanan or my cousin Tillie?

Saying that all candidates are equally electable is like saying we can all travel in space. Sure we can. That is if we're billionaires or astronauts.

[Mairead]

29. So let me try it from a different angle

Where did Smirk's 'electability' come from? He's a consistent failure, a diagnosable psychopath, a drunk, a druggie, a virtual military deserter. This was all available, but not brought out by Media Inc. Media Inc all but anointed him on day one of his 'campaign', instead. He was eventually declared the winner by his daddy's cronies, who violated their oaths of office to do it. He was shoved down our throats in a very, very blatant way.

Was he 'electable'? What does the term even mean to you? The ability to be sold like a package of breakfast food? Wealthy and connected to Organised Crime (Political Branch)? A member of the corporatocracy? Someone our rulers are willing to shove down our throats? It must mean something, but what?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. "Electability is a Red Herring Issue"? what?

"Zogby says every candidate can beat Bush."

Where'd you get that from?

In fact, in the latest on this from Zogby, he says:

Overall opinion of Bush also climbed from early September Zogby numbers. Nearly six in ten (58%) have a favorable opinion and 41% an unfavorable opinion now, compared to 54% favorable and 45% unfavorable in September 3 - 5 polling.

The president would outpoll any of the current leading Democratic contenders if the election were held today. He would earn 45% of the vote against retired General Wesley Clark's 35%; would beat former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean, 47% - 37%; would poll 47% against Massachusetts Senator John Kerry's 37%; and would win over Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt and Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, 49% - 37%.

Yet when matched against an unnamed (generic) Democratic presidential contender, Bush would lose that theoretical match-up with just 41%, compared to the Democrat's 45%.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=739

We CAN beat Bush but to say that all of our candidates definately would seems to be an unsupportable conclusion.

[dpbrown]

21. Bush lost last time

And he's going to get even fewer votes this time, that's why the Republicans are fighting so hard to corrupt the electoral system with redistricting, and recall, and refusing to reinstate nonfelons wrongfully purged.

So, provided a similar number of people vote who voted last time, there just aren't the votes to put Bush close enough to steal the next election the way he stole the lat one. Everyone who crossed over from the Democrats or the Libertarians, every moderate Republican who hasn't forgotten their conscience, will be rejecting Bush this time around. All the rest of the votes belong to the Democrat.

Barely 45% of Republican Presidents in the 20th Century secured their own re-election. A full 80% of the "one-termers" of the 20th Century were Republicans.

And Bush is worse than Hoover for the nation, and worse than Nixon for the integrity of the office.

There's no reason to compromise by putting up a milquetoast candidate for fear of "electabilty" because even FOX has him at 50% (whereas Clinton was at 71% the day he was impeached), and Zogby has Bush losing to an unnamed Democrat.

Bush is toast. Guard the electoral process against Republican tampering, and nominate the best candidate, and let's get on to rebuilding from the damage done by Reagan, Bush, and Bush, and their kakistocratic corporate suck-ups and thieves.