Screw "electability"!

[mojogeorgo]

Mom, if you're reading, sorry about the language. But I really feel like this is something that needs to be worded strongly. Because I just read this (emphasis mine)

On MSNBC last week, Mr. Rangel said of Mr. Obama: “He’s brilliant, he’s talented. He's not tested, but who could be with the limited political experience?" He said that Democrats "should have as many exciting candidates up front as we can get, so we can find out who's electable and who can best lead our country."

Now, the premise there is good--I agree with the overall idea--but that *word* has got to go. As far as I can tell, the word "electability" was only invented recently. It was certainly used in full force by people attempting to convince those who might otherwise vote for Howard Dean to reconsider, and vote for someone they think *other* people will be willing to vote for.

The word has been used to encourage people to doubt their own instincts and second-guess their judgements. To vote, even in the primary, not for someone they could be excited about working for, but for the one who pundits (those people who get paid no matter who wins) say will be acceptable to *other* people.

The time to nip this thing in the bud is now. Stop using that word! Talk about our dreams and our ideals, bringing people together, what's good for America and the world...there are plenty of other ways to talk about the kind of candidate we need. But the word "electability" needs to go away, and it needs to go away now.

[jgraz]

1. "Electable" is code for pro-war, pro-corporate

"Unelectable" or "far left" is the code for politicians who agree with most of the voting population.

[saracat]

8. Really? What a silly statement. What most of the populace believes and what those who vote believe

stste by state varies. The sad truth is that many Dems don't vote in many states.The trick is to find what candidate the majority of combined Dem, Indie and Repug voters will vote for.That is the only way for "anyone" of either party to get elected and that is what "electability" means and oddly, the very man quoted, Charles Rangel is about as far to the left as one can go and obviously he realizes the pragmatism of being "electable".

[Avalux]

2. I want a LEADER - not someone who's good at politicking.

Americans like to vote for people who are attractive and charismatic and often don't look much past that. In this time of crisis, we need someone who has the integrity and the experience to pull this country back together. I am not making a statement about Obama one way or the other, I just want someone to take charge.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/5/16166/79361

[Atman]

3. It's CRAAAAAZY to have an electable candidate! I want one I can have a beer with!

Rangle is absolutely correct. There is a whole science related to human behavior, and there are certain types who will NEVER be elected in the United States. Dennis Kucinich is one. Don't flame, I voted for him. But he's NOT what Americans will ever consider "Presidential." We're a childish nation, and as such, we pick our leaders like children pick their schoolyard friends. He's got to be "cool." Kucinich is the most brilliant, articulate guy out there, but he will never be elected POTUS by the American public. He isn't "electable." You might not like the word, but please try to understand where Rangle is coming from.

"Electability" is a very real phenomenon which, very unfortunately, is denied at our own peril.

.

[ripple]

5. Yep, Kucinich won my caucus in KANSAS

It was an awesome moment, but we also knew by then that Kerry would be the candidate.

I agree with what you're saying, Atman. I'm not talking about the OP so much, as he/she didn't disparage any particular candidates, but I think sometimes people get into the devil's advocate role too much when it comes to candidates.

If a person is a popular, likable candidate- let alone good looking- they are often too easily dismissed as 'too pretty', a media creation, or lacking in substance. This is not only insulting to the candidate and those who support him/her, but it defies the reality of our election process as it exists today. People don't vote for people they don't like. It's that simple.

Popularity (or the "e" word) and political excellence are not mutually exclusive qualities. In fact, once in a great while, the two combine to create a populist president that succeeds in truly unifying the nation. That certainly isn't a bad thing. ;-)

[Radical Activist]

4. It was used to get people to support Dean over Kucinich

since Kucinich better reflected the beliefs of most Dean supporters than Dean did.

[Atman]

6. Dean is "unelectable," too

Sorry. Just sayin'. Twenty-five years in marketing, I'm going on gut here, but I'd have a hard time "selling" either of these guys to America. The Dean Scream, real or imagined, will haunt him forever (or at least as long as the media is controlled by the GOP, and even then a lot of dems still buy into it). Dennis is brilliant, but he's short, not good-looking, kinda goofy, etc. Think of the dweeb in school that everyone picked on, towel-snapped in the locker room, threw food at in the cafeteria...all because he was a "brainiac" or a teacher's pet. That's Dennis and Howard. Everyone knows they're the smartest guys in the class, but no one will hang with them.

.

[loyalsister]

7. I'm with you all the way!

We should put the pundits out of business by reducing their inflated sense of "expertise" to what it truly is. Amatuers who have studied some poli sci and think they have their finger on the pulse of the nation. With the most dangerous being those with agendas.
We need to cut them down to size and return to the days when news followed events and reporters simply gave the facts on what happened. An experienced voice to say what they think about an outcome here and there, but we do not need sportscasters in politics.
What you are proposing is a great step in that direction.

[Imagevision]

9. Simply weigh the experience cheney & Rumsfeld have combined and look at this country's condition

Cheney and Rummy have 70 years of political experience, is anyone impressed??

[BluegrassDem]

10. If we didn't care about electability, then Kucinich

or Jesse Jackson would've been the nominee. So now, does electability matter?