The flaw in all the 'Candidate X is unelectable' threads

[Padraig18]

Day after day I read the "Candidate X is unelectable" or "Candidate Y is more electable" threads here, and some of them are actually fairly well-reasoned--- citing polls, links to articles, etc.--- but they all have one common failing: none of them take into account the fact that among ALL voters likely to vote next November, not one of our candidates has the name recognition of the Unelected Fraud.

Remember that the next time you see one posted here, OK?

:hi:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. The most important fact is the actual campaign has yet to be run

How a candidate will actually be smeared and distorted and the ensuing dynamic of the campaign and shifts in perception and voter sentiment have not yet occurred.

[Padraig18]

3. A good point.

That's why I tend to discount anything that isn't Democrat-based at this point, vis a vis, polling. Once we select our nominee, we'll pump him/her up, and the Repukes will smear, no matter who it is. :shrug:

[Scott Lee]

13. Yup, and yours only reinforces how subjective that judgement is.

Would you disagree?

[revcarol]

2. Not one of them has the media in his/her pocket like

the unelected President!!

And then they pick and choose who they're going to cover, right Ted?, and pick on the sound bites THEY want to focus on, all negative, no positive programs of Deemocrats presented.

Break up the MEDIA CONCENTRATION, NOW!!

[mmonk]

4. Yes

you are correct.

[Toucano]

5. You are so right!

Thanks for posting this. If anyone is considering using the word "unelectable", please reconsider.

[Padraig18]

6. It needs to be said.

We 'political junkies' tend to forget the 'big picture' and extrapolate our own peculiar, intimate knowledge of the candidates/issues out to the public at large, and it just doesn't track that way. :)

[diamondsoul]

16. Gee, kind of like you've done since you

arrived with your "won't play in Peoria" routine every time Kucinich is mentioned? Yeh. Surething.

[Padraig18]

21. Not the same thing at all.

:shrug:

[Padraig18]

7. Kick!

:dem:

[SheilaT]

8. I've been trying to point this out for a while now.

The name recognition won't really begin until around the time of the convention and a national campaign on the part of the nominee and the Democratic Party.

I maintain that in a free, fair, and honest election, any Democrat will beat Bush. The real question is going to be, will the election be free, fair, and honest? Probably not. Also, no matter who the nominee is, he has negatives that the Republicans will exploit to the fullest. Even though I'm a Dean supporter, I do not see anyone else's negatives as outweighing his. Or vice versa.

The other essential problem is that a good 90% of the media is in the hands and pockets of the right wing, and the Republicans (who are not necessarily the same). The coverage of Bush as sitting president is going to be adoring and fatuous. The coverage of the Democratic candidate is going to be critical and done to make him look foolish/stupid/unsuited to be president.

I just hope we can all get the truth out there that Bush has nearly destroyed this country, and even a chimpanzee would do better than he would.

[Padraig18]

9. You are correct on all counts.

We cannot let such polls decide for us, as Democrats, who we will nominate for President. :hi:

[Padraig18]

10. Kick!

:dem:

[Padraig18]

11. Just to be stubborn kick!

:P

[KittyWampus]

12. My Problem With Those Statements- Highly Subjective

although I think certain cases can be made fairly strongly against certain candidates.

Some have attributes that suggest they won't poll consistently above 55%, thus negating the "too close to call" situation that enables Diebold.

Some candidates also have no intrinsic pull with the military voters and thus, if Absentee ballots come into play, the GOP and their mediawhores will claim them as theirs.... Yes, I know that is unfair but that is what happened in 2000 and it WOULD happen again.
Having a military "friendly" candidate would completely disable this entire line of thinking.

[Padraig18]

14. No.

If they're going to steal it, they're going to steal it--period.

[KittyWampus]

15. Well, This Is Your Thread So I Won't Argue With You :-)

:)

We don't have to make it easy for the bastards.... shaking my fist in the air....

[Padraig18]

17. Hehe!

Well, you may not agree with my conclusion, but surely you don't disagree with my premise, i.e., that our candiates do not have the name recognition that the Unelected Fraud has? :)

[Padraig18]

18. Kick!

:dem:

[Padraig18]

19. Last kick before bed.

3:00 a.m. comes early. :hi:

[Padraig18]

20. Kick

:dem:

[Padraig18]

22. Kick