Are we being hoodwinked by the "electability" issue ?

[kentuck]

Are some voters passing up their favorite because they think one candidate might be more "electable" than another? Is this an issue that is being pushed by the media ogres?

Democrats should believe that there are at least 4 candidates, perhaps more, that can beat George W Bush. We should not be mindwarped into believing that only one can be "electable" running against George W Bush. In a way, isn't this letting the media determine who our candidate will be?

[JohnKleeb]

1. why are you saying this now

:)
I always used to get this when I asked about DK. :shrug: I think they are electable and theres not one special guy who is.

[kentuck]

3. Always late....

the story of my life... :)

[jmaier]

2. I think that electibility is a very big concern

but unfortunately no one has the crystal ball that says who is more electible in the GE. So, yes the media opining on this issue is influencing the outcome.

[arewethereyet]

4. Why "should" we believe it ?

I think I should have a right to believe whatever I want and not be views as a non-dem.

Am I wrong ? If so, please explain why. Thanks.

[kentuck]

9. Yes, you should have the right to believe whatever you want....

But you also have the right to believe that there is more than just one person that can beat Bush, and we "should" not believe that simply because it is put out by the corporate media as the way it is.
We "should", but we don't have to, be aware that the media is not beyond manipulation, but that is an individual choice, I will admit.

[arewethereyet]

15. thanks, had me worried for a minute there Kentuk

I based my opinion on this subject on having looked at the candidate's positions back in early summer or so. Oddly, I've had no reason to change my opinion based on all that has transpired since then.

I've thought Edwards was the only one who could do it from the start. On platform and reputation alone. When I saw how the guy could connect with people, well, I could not believe my eyes.

But you are very correct to tell people to educate themselves and not rely on media to form their opinions.

[kentuck]

17. Yes, I think Edwards would be one of those that are "electable"

I'm not saying that every Democrat could beat Bush, but I think the majority of them running could beat him in November...

[molly]

5. Only before January - when the people became involved

[patricia92243]

6. I firmly believe as much as I've ever beieved anything in my life that

Kerry is being "used" as a decoy to get voters all excited - so the pubs can steam-roller him later.

I believe - and obviously the pubs believe - that Dean really and truly can beat Bush. Proof: They are beating up on Dean so badly - hoping to knock him out of the race and therefor ensure Bush will be in the WH for four more years.

[arewethereyet]

7. you may be right about Kerry

but you really do need to accept that Dean brought much of his attention upon himself.

[Outvoicer]

8. No ... we are seriously concerned about removing Bush ...

I don't really see the media as the driving force behind the "electibility" issue.

It stems from a genuine concern of all DU'ers as to who can - and how we can - beat George W. Bush.

Personally, I think it a good sign that we are having these discussions.

Myself, I am a Dean supporter ... but I think Clark is more electable.

Ultimately, I think many of us are "Anybody But Bush."

Bush is so hated (and feared for what he may do to our nation given a second term) that most Dems - not all - will vote for whoever is up against him. (I think... could be wrong)

But ultimately the "electibility" issue comes down to this...

WE WANT TO KICK BUSH'S BUTT BACK TO CRAWFORD, TEXAS.

[dweller]

10. absolutely, eventually the media will tout

' I really hate to break the news to you, to be the one to tell you, but i stand here with an actual magic eight ball precise prediction to tell you, in all my infinite wisdom, that (your candidate) is not electable'. End of story. ..."SORRY"

the meme has been tested here by many, believed by even more.
And since i for one don't believe it, i must be living in la-la land, or so i'm told.
just wait, before this thread dies, it will crop up to rebut me.

btw, there are 7 electable Democratic candidates. I support Kucinich. He will deliver the most blistering defeat to the *moron's excuse for a pResidential return.

but you probably figured that out already.
dp

[KoKo]

11. Yes, I think so......."Electability over Principle?......because the Media

told us so? Because the "Media" reports the polls? Anyone wonder how many little kick backs might be going on there? (Considering what we are finding out about "kick backs" and "payola?"

Coordinate the "before polls" with the "new polling system of the Media," and voila! Media has proof? (btw: after the ditching of "Voter News Service" they employed a new one. I need to Google it. I will post when I find out more about them. Needless to say, I already am biased, but I will try to search the "bowels of Google" to see what I can find.

[maxanne]

12. yes

some voters I've spoken to in the last 24 hours are being hoodwinked. We might as well just let the Republicans decide who the nominee is going to be. (they own the media, after all.)

[no name no slogan]

13. Right now, damn near anybody could beat Shrub

...and it's only getting worse, especially in the quagmire that is Iraq. His new Mars mission is a joke, the American grow more distrustful every day, his own cabinet is coming apart....there's almost no way in hell ANY Democrat could lose this year-- even Zell Miller.

"Electability" is a baited term used by the Corpo-crats against Democratic candidates who actually speak up for economic justice, health care, fair trade, and reining in corporate power. They used it against Jerry Brown, Jesse Jackson, and even against Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold AND Dennis Kucinich. These are the so-called "moderates" who are nore interested in amassing power and serving their corporate masters than in bringing justice to working people.

Anybody is "electable"-- all we have to do is vote for them!

[Polemonium]

19. Exactly who ever your for

Base your decision on how your candidates platform, and campaign will transform America and the Democratic Party. A vote for electability is it seems to me based on fear, and I think we've all had enough of being afraid.

[overground1]

14. in a word, "yes". The objective is to keep us off balance, 2nd guessing

The objective is to try to force us to think everyone else thinks like Republicans, break down our self confidence, and make us doubt our candidates. They want to give us these false impressions of public opinion and then have us trying to think not as Democrats, but instead in these twistied false perceptions of how "normal" people think. Their hope is that we paralyze ourselves with fear and doubt, so that we don't produce a clear front-runner, and that we choose a weak candidate because of all of this cloudy thinking.

[goodhue]

16. yes

[mopinko]

18. i think it is the inevitable

result of the media "horse race" coverage. if all they ever talka about is who is gonna win, then that's the issue, ain't it.

[UTUSN]

20. Why----We *Don't* Want to be "Electible"??????? n/t

[9119495]

21. I've been saying our four could beat Bush for a while

but I appreciate your bringing it up.

All this talk about Kerry being the most electable needs to be thought about more. He is seen as a great man who has served this nation in the senate for years. He has a service record that is verifiably good. He also is a masterful debater with great ideas and sensible, well-thought out policies...

and Al Gore had all these! The good news is Al Gore won--and so could Kerry. But look at how he was savaged by Bush and co. We need to keep this stuff in mind.

[shance]

22. The elephant in the room.

I think many of us are still wanting to believe that this election is just like any other.

Its not. In fact, neither was 2002, or perhaps even 2000. BBV, or electronic voting has been covered pretty significantly, but NOT significantly enough for people to realize that it could effect the outcome of 2004, as well as THIS 2004 primary.

I have to say that I find this recent surge for Kerry and the rather dutiful press pumping him up, in a way reminds me of 2002, and my thinking, are they trying to plant a result in our head before it happens?

I dont know. I have seen a few threads here insinuating to these "symptoms" or signs that seem to be rather contrived as far as creating or implying a result before it happens.

I see them too. I dont know what it means, but I do know that with the use of electronic voting, I would imagine that the White House is sitting pretty fat and happy these days and they arent too worried about recreational trips between Scalia and Cheney.

[KoKo]

23. We're definitely being "manipulated." Not, sure how it's going to work

out, though. The internet wasn't as organized in 2000. I have all my hopes on it saving us with the information we're able to gather and the fact finding and organizing.

It remains to be seen if we can be "Little David" who brings down "Mighty Goliath."

I'm seeing so much manipulation fitting in with the Repug gerrymandering of districts in state which are important to them and then the BBV Voting Issue and the Whore Media....that I'm not sure we had enough time
to change 2004. But, I will be hopeful.

[mzmolly]

24. Yes they are. The only candidate that has really been *tested* in the

media is Howard Dean, and Clark as of late. The others have gotten a free ride so far, so of course their shit doesn't stink.

Ahhh, yes he's the *electable* one who can beat George Bush.

Any of the top 4 are capable of doing just that! :eyes: Until the Rove machine gets a hold of them. Dean is the only one who's proven he can take a hit or two.

[kentuck]

25. But, in the end, the people may "hoodwink" the media....

they may pick someone other than the one they might prefer? Who knows? :)

[no name no slogan]

26. Kinda like Iowa, huh? (n/t)

[SheilaT]

27. For what my opinion is worth

all of the top four guys would win in a free, fair, and honest election simply because none of them is Bush. Now I have very strong opinions about who I like and don't like, but the distaste for Bush is so powerful that I expect there's hardly a Democrat out there who won't vote for the Democratic nominee come November 2, no matter what any of us currently think about the various candidates.

But the real issue, the only issue is, are we going to have a fair, free, and honest election? To begin with, the campaign will undoubtedly be phenomenally dirty. Every single one of our guys has negatives that will be exploited to the fullest. Don't kid yourself. Just because one guy doesn't have one set of flaws, doesn't mean there's not plenty of stuff to attempt to nail him on. Just look at the lively discussions we have here on DU!

Bush will have at least $200 million to spend, and I think that's just in the time leading up to the convention. Why do you think the Republicans have scheduled their convention so late? Not merely to try to exploit the third anniversary of 9/11, but to give them more time to spend all that money, and then have less than two months in which to spend another $200 smearing the Democratic nominee, spreading lies and filth about him, his spouse (or former spouse as the case may be), his children, parents, siblings, and everything and everyone else connected to him.

So stop worrying about electability. Electability will reside with the man who makes it through the primary/caucus process and comes out with the nomination.

Along with caring about your candidate getting nominated, be thinking ahead to the election. November 2, 2004 is the only date that really counts.

[Enjolras]

28. Not true

" November 2, 2004 is the only date that really counts."

Not so. If it were, electability would be the only issue that matters. We could try nominating Zell Miller. What other Democrat could actually compete in the south?

Then again, having said that, I wonder why I have no more inclination to support Kucinich. I mean, yeah, I'm much more moderate than he. But it's true we need a strong counterbalance to the increasing conservatism of the GOP. Otherwise, at the rate we're going, we end up with a choice between republicanism on the left (though still officially known as "Democracy") and fascism on the right (formally know as "Republicanism")

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

29. This race ain't about electability...

It's about internal politics.

The war is being fought.

[Old and In the Way]

30. Everyone should vote for their personal choice, absolutely!

That's what primaries are all about!

But, by the same token, I find open hostility and smearing of our front runners rather bizarre behaviour. I mean, the most important thing is to get rid of Bush, that's the point, right? If we keep shooting our frontrunners, that will leave Al Sharpton standing.

Personally, there are good reasons this cycle to see a competitive race extended as long as possible. 4 great Democrats firing on GWB and keeping the RNC/media guessing is not a bad tactic.

But like it or not folks, people are evaluating the field and they apparently like what they see in John Kerry. The general Democratic population may not be political junkies like many on this board and they may put more stock in image than we do. But in this case, I think image and substance merge pretty well. I've been following John's career for close to 35 years and I can understand why he is capturing the popular sentiment.

I'll happily vote for any of the 4 guys that have a shot for the nomination, I hope everone here will also stand behind the nominee...whoever that person will be.

I've got a 16 year old son that I don't want to see conscripted into the Republican War for Oil Profits, so I have serious convictions about picking an electible candidate. Getting rid of GWB in November is absolutely paramount, so I really will be ready to support Edwards, Clark, or Dean if they happen to be our collective choice.