General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsElect-ability: Whoever wins the nomination is the most electable candidate.
That's how the process usually works.
Lithos
(26,403 posts)Not always a true statement.
But to side-step this - I am voting and fully in and supporting whoever *DOES* win the nomination.
TeamPooka
(24,228 posts)and my overall point is that elect-ability is a self answering issue.
Kind of Blue
(8,709 posts)lpbk2713
(42,757 posts)So that will be real easy for me.
Besides, I always vote anti-(R) anyway.
dawg day
(7,947 posts)And a lot of governor-flips red to blue... and (fingers crossed) the Senate. I know it's hard..
But we have an astronaut running! (Gabby's guy.
And McConnell is not doing well in KY.
If there's a blue wave, it's possible.
I always vote a straight ticket, and it's SO EASY. Maybe we can suggest the independents do that, just this once... don't vote for any GOPer this time, just this once?
TeamPooka
(24,228 posts)This election is up to us.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)Primary and General elections are very different, with very different voters and circumstances. It is completely plausible for a candidate to win the party nomination but not, in fact, be the strongest General Election candidate.
TeamPooka
(24,228 posts)That is the only place the debate exists.
Both nominated candidates are the most elect-able, simultaneously.
Nobody argues about their elect-ability then.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)But its about who we *think* will have the best shot in the General. And its a strategic guessing game. Now, youre right that its kinda moot after the Primaries are over... but the question we are asking when we talk about electability is Who has the best shot to win The General Now, these are total hypotheticals, but its completely possible for the candidate who eventually gets the nomination not to have necessarily have been the one who would have been the strongest in the General.
questionseverything
(9,655 posts)not alone the most electable
ranked choice voting would fix that and end the grip of the two party system
for instance biden at this point looks fairly sure to win but the next 4 candidates all with very similar ideas(m4a) total support easily would blow biden away
that is not factoring in the dnc basis if any
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Can you explain what you mean by the "DNC basis?"
still_one
(92,204 posts)party system
Very enlightening
questionseverything
(9,655 posts)hc as their second choice....so hc would of won
splitting the votes of progressives (between dems and greens) is part of how we got trump
I am saying there is a simple fix for that, ranked choice voting, then a person can vote their passion 1st and vote for the more likely candidate in 2nd round of counting
it would end the 2 party system in a way because people could support a different idea without it inadvertently supporting the candidate that is farthest from their view
so a green supporter would no longer be helping elect a repub (assuming the dem could draw their support as a second choice)
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)My first election was '84, and I vividly recall the primary battle between Gary Hart and Walter Mondale.
I don't think we were ever going to beat Reagan that year, but do believe we could at leas have avoided losing with a 49 state landslide with Hart.
As others have pointed out, candidates have to play to different subsets of the electorate in the primaries and in the general. What plays well with one may not play so well with the other.
brooklynite
(94,581 posts)still_one
(92,204 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You're obviously making a distinction between those candidates you believe lost because they were "not electable" and those you believe lost despite being "electable". What's your metric for separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak?
Andy823
(11,495 posts)We have some great candidates running, and right now there is NOT "only one" who can win.