Favorite vs. Most Electable

[arKansasJHawk]

It seems to me, in reading over the posts about the crop of Democratic candidates, that many people here on DU are focused on a narrow range of issues (said issues varying wildly), and are vehemently supporting whichever of the candidates comes closest to supporting those issues.

I just want to say that I think this is a colossally magnificent mistake. It leads to the kind of utter stupidity that caused some Democrats to vote for Nader in 2000. And if you think I'm being too harsh in saying that voting for Nader instead of Gore in 2000 was stupid, then I say you don't care about abortion rights (witness the latest, Bush-enabled decision) or about the deaths of 3,000+ Americans and 100,000+ Iraqis in Bush's war.

It is long past time for Democrats and progressives to unite behind whoever survives the primaries to oppose the Republican theocracy machine. Be it Edwards, Obama, Clinton, or (utterly improbably) Gravel, we must all come together and topple the Republican regime and end this disastrous era.

[Donnachaidh]

1. ...

:popcorn:

[bamacrat]

2. Kucinich is the man..

and the official count is up to around 650,000 dead Iraqis. Talk about a genocide, only about 250,000 have been killed in Darfur. But nothing is being done there so...

[arKansasJHawk]

5. Official count

I'm not sure what really counts as "the official" count. I know The Guardian reports deaths in excess of 650,000. I, personally, believe that the death toll is somewhere in that neighborhood. But, as far as I can tell, there's no accurate way of counting, which is why I simply said 100,000+.

I mean, seriously, a death toll over 100,000 is simply heinous beyond measure.

[elocs]

6. Not to worry, you'll keep having a chance to support Dennis in 2012, 2016, 2020...

Well, you get the picture. It won't matter if we have a Democratic president or not, he will be running every 4 years because of something. Unfortunately, his message will be lost to many by his constant candidacy. Your average Democratic voter will see his name and think the same way they think of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton running.

[AtomicKitten]

3. I absolutely agree

It is long past time for Democrats and progressives to unite behind whoever survives the primaries to oppose the Republican theocracy machine ... we must all come together and topple the Republican regime and end this disastrous era.

... and my feelings in that regard remain unscathed by those that would chastise that philosophy. I care more about the makeup of the Supreme Court than which Democrat in particular wins the nod. The outcome of elections matter.

K&R :thumbsup:

[elocs]

7. I absolutely agree with your absolute agreement.

We don't each and everyone of us get to have our own personal perfect and pure candidate which passes our our personal litmus tests. Reality check: it's time to elect Democrats and Democrats represent a wide range of people from the Liberal Left to those just on our side of Republican. Everybody cannot get everything they want and when they want it.

[AtomicKitten]

9. my agreement with your post is absolute x 3

Well said! I salute you.

:toast:

[wtmusic]

4. Republicans will always have an advantage in that regard

because let's face it, they're locksteppers. Nuance does not exist.

A Democratic voter's choice is nearly always a struggle of ideals vs. pragmatism, and it's unlikely that will change anytime soon. But the "ideals" holdouts", i.e., those who voted for Nader, have a purpose too. Candidates who ignore these people risk not getting elected at all.

As much as I love Al, he made no effort to reach out to Nader voters on the issues that mattered to them.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. I'm going with my favorite

This isn't a strange beauty show with a choice between cancer and polio. This is our future. That's why I'm voting for Kucinich in the primary--he has plans to turn this country around. If Clinton gets the nomination, I don't see that big of a change in what we are doing now--she appears to support the war, and hasn't come out with plans for saving the environment. And that is a biggie--it won't matter if we "won" in 2008 if the environment collapses. Oh sure, if Clinton gets it, I'll vote for her-with my fingers on my nose. But I will weep because I will know that the fix is in, and that people don't count, only corporations do.

[Forkboy]

10. I'm lucky here in Mass...if Hillary wins she wont miss my vote in the slightest.

Any of the Dems are going to carry Mass by a huge margin.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. In the last few elections, my state has gone red

if Clinton is the nominee, I feel that it will go red again--too many folks here know her too well.

[Awsi Dooger]

11. The country is comprised of 32% conservatives and 20% liberals

I have no idea how electability is denied or under emphasized with realities like that.

If we had just 4% more liberals among the population, then we could literally nominate just about anyone we wanted. Gore/Kerry won every state in '00 and '04 with at least 24% liberals. But at 20% nationwide it's dependent on the mood of the nation and the head-to-head matchup. Luckily 2008 figures to tilt our way in generic sense but we can't forfeit that edge by masochistically maneuvering into a matchup that will favor the GOP.

Electability is a dirty word to many Democrats only because we botched the application in 2004. So what? There were plenty on this site, including myself, arguing Kerry was among the least electable, perceived as an elitist New England senator and low in charisma. You don't throw away the application simply because it crashes once. Learn and get it right next time.

It would be amazing to actually have the candidate who scores highest in likability, for a change. That would also ruin the Diebold crew around here, at least temporarily. That's another hidden benefit.

[thethinker]

19. wait a minute

Where are you getting these statistics that the country has 20% liberal voters? The majority of Americans want out of Iraq. The majority of Americans favor goverment paid health care, etc. These are pretty liberal positions.

I hate the word "electability". Ever notice that that word is a favorite of the DLC crowd. They tell us who is electable. This time a woman is electable. But a white male candidate like Edwards or Kucinich is not electable. Hope they aren't counting on too many good old boys votes from the red states. What the word "electagility" really means is if they are acceptable and in bed with the corporations they are electable.

I will be backing the candidate that I feel has the right ideas for the country through the primaries, and maybe beyond.

[Buck Rabbit]

12. Might I warn though that primaries can be deceptive as to Electability.

Primaries aren't dirty enough, except here on DU. The Democrats won't stoop as low in their TV advertising as will happen in the General. The Democrats never went after Kerry's war record and many primary voters thought that his unchallenged Vietnam War record made him "more electable" and supported him even though they didn't really support or even understand where he stood on Iraq. In the general his war record was not an asset and his confusing stances on Iraq took away what should have been our best issue.

I am afraid if we nominate anyone who voted for the IWR or worse someone who wanted to escalate the war for 2 years, we will lose Iraq as our best issue again.

[onehandle]

13. Yep. nt

[dave_p]

15. ???

How can it be "long past time for Democrats and progressives to unite behind whoever survives the primaries", since the primaries haven't started yet?

The problem isn't focusing on a narrow range of issues, it's too many people not focusing on issues at all. The media want it all sewn up on star rankings. Star quality isn't going to secure choice or peace, policy commitment is.

[El Supremo]

16. I thought that Kerry and Salazar were more electable than the others.

That's why I supported them. But what do I have now? One that turned out a very poor vote and another who turned out to be blind to Gonzales and the war.

Don't know who I'm going to support this time.

[Cults4Bush]

17. forget it... completely pointless.. nt

[LWolf]

18. I don't buy this, or any of the other myriad demands for compliance.

First of all, I don't buy the "electable" bullshit right out of the gate. Anyone is electable if people choose to vote for them, and using fear about "electability" to narrow choices is a corruption of democratic principles.

In my opinion.

Secondly, suggesting that those who are pickier about where they spend their vote than you are focused on a "narrow range of issues" is misleading. I care passionately about a wide range of issues, and the "top tier" don't adequately address most of them. If another candidate is better on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE than the top tier, why THE HELL should I settle for less? Because someone wants to patronize me, use the blame game to say that every atrocity is my fault because I didn't get in line behind their weak, pathetic, impotent choice? Blame and accountability is not a one-way street, but I see many Democrats who are willing to heap blame on people who didn't play the game their way, but not willing to accept responsibility for supporting, voting for, and installing weak representatives who don't do the jobs I cast my vote to get done.

Lastly: You can say whatever you like. I support your 1st amendment rights to do so. Saying it doesn't make it true, though. Saying it doesn't make it anything more than bullshit, manipulative propaganda cloaked as oft-repeated "talking points." Saying it doesn't give it weight.

If you are concerned about abortion rights, lost lives, war, and other current atrocities, as I am, work for someone who is more likely to support people on those issues than corporations. Someone who has the courage to actually oppose the opposition. Someone who won't give us more crooked deals, capitulation, and the kinder, gentler version of moderate/conservative corporatism and classism. In other words, as a voter and a Democrat, have the fucking courage to do what the current so-called "leaders" and "top tier" candidates won't. Elect someone who WILL. Someone whose platform and record shows that courage and that consistency.

If you do that, you've done something to protect civil liberties and lives. If the Democratic Party, and Democrats, are willing to do that, it will unify voters. Democrats, independents, 3rd party voters, liberals, progressives, moderates. If Democrats are not willing to do that, then Democrats ARE the problem, and all the harsh rhetoric and demands for electoral compliance in the world won't make any difference.