The myth of "electability".

[ShadowCabinet]

Is anyone starting to get concerned that our primary system is being co-opted from being about selecting a candidate that you support and who's policies you agree with into this strange quest for "electability" vs. GWB?

I just have this weird feeling that our primary voters are trying to anticipate what the vast numbers of undecided voters want in a candidate instead of voting for the person who's policies would and could undo the damage of 4 years of the GWB mis-Administration.

I know who I like as a candidate and that's who I'm going to vote for. I wouldn't drean to vote for someone I think someone else would like. I mean, that is kind of ridiculous.

Seriously - How many of us have bought a gift for someone because we thought they would like it, only to find out that the gift was returned because they didn't??? Aren't folks who are voting to anticipate who someone else would like doing the exact same thing? In a way, that's kind of a frivelous way to vote.

Granted, I don't want to see GWB re-elected and I will whole-heartedly support whoever is nominated. But aren't we setting ourselves up here by trying to determine a candidate based on some magical media quotient of who is most electible?

**edited for spelling**

[nankerphelge]

1. amen

I've seen a number of articles and heard a number of interviews in recent days about how trying to predict who someone else will find to be electable is not only shallow, it ends up being an ineffective and losing strategy. There's no way to predict who your average voter will view as "electable" nine months from now. It's best to make a principled decision.

[girl gone mad]

4. Yes, it's a problem.

A big problem, because none of our candidates is inherently more electable than Bush once the game gets going. A large number of the electorate still finds Bush charming and likable and if the best we can offer is someone we think looks more Presidential, we could be asking for trouble.

[murielm99]

2. In the past, I supported

McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore.

Well, maybe Gore is an exception in that he was elected.

I liked all of them alot. But they were all rolled over, big time.

The country is in a crisis. Four more years of shrub may well destroy our economy and our democracy. That is why the electability thing does not bother me so much. Getting him out of there is only a start, but it is a very important start.

None of the frontrunners is perfect, or matches my ideals exactly.

Those of us who have become angry and vocal will have to keep the pressure on when the less-than-ideal Democratic nominee is chosen and elected. We will have to suport him against a repuke congress, but we will also have to let him know what we expect of him.

[TexasMexican]

7. Maybe things need to get alot worse before they get alot better...

Apparently despite all the fucked up things that have happened far too many people are still far too content with the way things are going.

Maybe we need to stop settling for the same old same old and get someone new. If that doesnt work and the Republicans still win then perhaps the majority of the population of the US will get what it deserves. Us for not being able to do more to inform the rest of the population and the rest of the population for being so blind.

Maybe when things get so bad then perhaps people will finally wake up and do something about it.

[no name no slogan]

3. Exactly

What kills me is that we're so damn worried about picking a candidate who appeals to "moderate" Republicans or so-called "swing voters" that we forget about picking a candidate who appeals to DEMOCRATS.

I don't want to pick a candidate who appeals to republicans-- that's the job of the REPUBLICAN party. I want a candidate who will excite our broad base, one who will appeal to our core constituencies who've sat out recent elections.

The Democrats are STILL the majority party in this country. All we need to do to win is to get our people EXCITED about kicking the holy hell out of the BFEE in November.

Some wishy-washy "centrist"/apologist isn't going to do that.

[Virgil]

9. Thank for hitting the nail on the head

What the Democrats need is just something to make their superior numbers come out. Most people do not vote because they do not think it makes any difference anyway. In a lot of ways they are dead on. Really. When I was 7 years old and Kennedy was running I ask my mother who should would vote for. She said Kennedy because he is a Democrat. When I asked about Democrats and Republicans she said, that the Republicans were supported by the rich and the Democrats were for working people.

Today it is just not that way. You are people and what you should want is the greatest common good. If you advance a candidate that really wants to make life better, people would turn out in droves. Now I chose DK. I do not care if he looks like an elf. I am not going to marry him. It is no more important than if Kerry went to Vietnam or not. It does not affect me.

When I first started reading the Internet and heard the word cabal, I wondered what it meant and looked it up. Now I have come to understand it and feel it when it is said. It was at FromTheWilderness.com. It would take 6 months of challenging what was said at that website before I could accept it as legitimate. The truth of it all was so shocking. It was there that I heard the Democratic and Republicans are just two sides of the same coin. What bonds them is they serve the interest of Money. The idea of serving the greatest public good is gone and that is why you have such spineless opposition to the Corporate agenda in Congress.

The whole party has lost its soul and the party has no magnetic north. Kerry said he would study NAFTA and decide something within 120 days after taking office. I am outraged and everyone here is so used to being ignored and failed by their so-called representatives, they aren't. The guy is running for President and been in the Senate for 19 years and you cannot get an answer on NAFTA. What kind of respect is that for the entire country. It is not just me that did not get an answer. It is the whole country.

The Democratic Party does not have a soul. People want a better life and they are all but wishing for things to get better. Government is about serving the concentrations of wealth. They do not even say trickle down. Then again, they do not say it is about evaporate up either. And on top of that I have never read about things evaporating up. I had to chose the words myself as it is all but impossible to get straight talk anymore.

The big issue before us is corruption of purpose in government. Representatives are showered with money if they divert from the greatest common good instead of serving it. Those people are hard to find. Actually, I think DK is best, but the media does not want him because he wants to bust them up.

Well, whatever, I reckon.

[TexasMexican]

5. In Novemember people will vote for the lesser of two evils...

if things keep going like they have been. I guess some things never change.

Kerry definately isnt as bad as Bush, but still its pretty sad that that will be the reason most of us here will be supporting him.

I was so hopeful that when this started that we would finally get a good candiate up there to run for the whitehouse, but instead we are once against stuck with the lesser of two evils.

[Lugnut]

6. Electibility

Never entered my mind when I made my choice. My choice was based on the guy who was singing my song and articulating what was in my head. What grabbed me was Dr. Dean's statement that he's from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.

[Virgil]

8. It sure cannot hurt to talk about issues

News filters out the things those that rule us do not want mentioned. That is why you did not hear depleted uranium in the whole Iraq experience or any significant coverage of Iraq's reparations that built a shiny new building in Switzerland.

It all gets filtered out. People are shocked when I ask about issues. But nobody is talking plain. There is one clear issue before us and people would be all but shocked to hear it as it can be expressed in one word. It should be obvious what most concerns me if anyone follows what I say, but out of 36,000 people registered nobody seems to actually want to hit the nail on the head.

People would have you think Democrats are the chosen tribe. There is not all that much difference between them except who supports them as champions. Both parties sell their services and their access to policy and the treasury. Excuse me while I say it. The biggest issue concerning the government of the country is corruption.

I do not know how to correct it. I was hoping somebody would talk about it, but as polls and recommendations are the dominate currency, the topic has not been discussed. No one has done a top ten issues list either.

[FeelinGarfunkelly]

10. here's an interesting word:: survivability

That's what Candy Crowley used to describe Howard Dean's campaign. I'm no Dean fan, but.. come on.. that's just.. dumb. to say the least. Perhaps we should question her "reportability"

[Cocoa]

11. the reason I disagree with you....

is that I have heard David Brooks articulate exactly this idea about dems voting for electability, most recently tonight on PBs. Brooks is a thoroughly dishonest person, and his ideas are put out there to help Republicans.

Taking into account how well the candidate will do against Bush simply makes sense, and it has little to do with the media. And it's not some complicated calculation, as you and Brooks argue, it's just a subjective judgement.

[quaker bill]

18. The reason I disagree with you

Not everything a republican writes is intended as reverse psychology towards us. To believe so is to verge on paranoia.

No one has any clue how well any candidate will do against Bush*. OK, I will give you this much, Sharpton would lose.

Ask yourself this, did you believe it when the polls said Dean and Clark would do better against Bush* than Kerry would?

If so, those polls are only a few weeks old, why don't you believe them now?

I know, the numbers have changed. Do you think they are cast in concrete between now and November? Could they be just as different in two weeks as they were 4 weeks ago?

Support based on 'electability' is exactly one scandal thick.

[milkyway]

12. Electability is a media-created myth. Voting for the person you think is

most electable demeans that person's candidacy. Kerry supporters constantly touting his "electability" are basically saying he's a hollow candidate, the least offensive to the most number of people. New Hampshire voters said in exit polls that they preferred Dean to Kerry in every single category except electability. It's a very bad sign when even the people that vote for Kerry don't get excited about him being President.

Kerry's campaign can be reduced to three basic themes:

1. I'm not Howard Dean.
2. I'm not George Bush.
3. I was tricked by George Bush into voting for the Iraq war, so don't blame me.

That doesn't sound very electable to me.

[Cocoa]

13. Dean was the first candidate I heard talking about electability

he used to say at every appearance, "I'm the only one who can beat George Bush, because..."

His reasoning was mostly about his money, and how much money George Bush had. i.e. an argument based on fear.

[milkyway]

14. You're right, Dean has always said that, as has Clark and Edwards. But

there was never any indication that Dean supporters were behind him only because he seemed the most electable.

[mb7588a]

15. Can't undo anything if you can't first get elected.

You have to realize which comes first in this process.

George W. Bush has fucked up our country.
Your first priority is to fix this fuck up.
But for any change to take place, it is first necessary for Bush to be out of office.

Argument for ABB in three lines!

[wabeewoman]

16. I very much fear this electability thing

is going to do us in because the media has decided who is electable and I don't think they are on our side. I talked to a couple of men tonight: one said Dean spoke to his heart, the other said he would vote for Kerry but he wouldn't work for him or donate to him. I think Kerry's support is very shallow and when the repugs get done with him, those supporters are going to be so disgusted they stay home and bush wins. I certainly hope I'm wrong because while I would prefer Dean then Clark, I'm anybody but bush. I just don't trust the corporate media deciding who is electable.

[zoeyfong]

17. This just in: Dems nominate Crocker Jarmon...

Too bad, cuz Robert Redford was so much cuter, and he actually won. :)

[CWebster]

19. It's all marketing

Paint one candidate as "unelectible" or "unpresidential" based on flimsy, deceptive or no evidence, and flood the media--print, visuals, airwaves, talking points, seemingly casual interviews with the typical man in the street - all echoing the same sentiment, pundits, etc, all at the opportune moment, while propelling the annointed one for bandwagon momentum without public scrutiny. Ignore all other contenders, assume role of nominee and present no editorial or counterpoint perspectives or insight to dirty tricks or deceptive processes to reach objective.

Karl Rove would approve.

[Iverson]

20. It's more a cult than a myth.

You aren't supposed to question the underlying assumptions, and it relies on a strong central figure.