More than 60% of Democrats in the poll say they prize electability over whether they agree with the

[riversedge]

This sucks IMHO


More than 60% of Democrats in the poll say they prize electability over whether they agree with the candidates.

Link to tweet

THEN THERE IS THIS



Guy DeMarco
‏Verified account @GDemo
46m46 minutes ago
Replying to @daveweigel

67% of those polled are over the age of 50. 96% are white. 245 of the 376 polled earn more than $50K per year. It's not surprising Biden did well in this poll.
0 replies 1 retweet 4 likes

Link to tweet

[MH1]

1. Built in assumption that the DEMOCRATIC candidates all agree with the DEMOCRATIC party platform

Relatively minor deviations from core Dem party principles will not weigh nearly as heavily as the question of whether the person will be the right standard-bearer for us to succeed in booting Trump out.

The worst Democratic candidate is infinitely less bad than the horrific Trump administration.

So I don't know why it should upset anyone that people recognize this fact.

The only issue I have with it is that "electability" is notoriously hard to pin down. But it's probably safe to say that certain positions that poll very badly in the heartland, will likely lose us some swing states we need to win.

[Honeycombe8]

5. This. They're all Democrats & support the Dem. Party Platform.

They all believe in the same things, generally. There are just differences in degree, and what they propose to solve things or improve upon good things.

[delisen]

2. and the first primary is 9-10 months away?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. It doesn't suck at all, IMO. It's exactly the way I feel.

[PoliticAverse]

4. Actually being elected is more important than agreeing with all the candidate's positions.

Suppose you found a candidate you agreed with on all major issues - would you want that person to be the nominee if they would lose the election?

[MineralMan]

6. Unless our nominee wins, we lose. That makes electability

a major, major concern. I'm not surprised that Democratic voters recognize that and are making it their priority. In short, that's why Biden is leading the field by such a large margin.

[loyalsister]

7. It sure does!

The guy in the white house seems to not have any values beyond hating Democrats and winning.

I want a candidate who I believe shares my values and can win.

[Honeycombe8]

8. That goes w/o saying. It doesn't matter what your policies are, if you aren't elected.

The most important thing is electability.

But I'm not sure how we gauge, exactly, the electability of each and every candidate. There are as many different opinions on that as there are candidates, and that's a lot!

But if one is way out ahead of the pack in polls, like Biden is, he'll probably end up being the nominee. That's more about being nationally known already, IMO. And that won't change, either for the well known candidate or the little known candidate.

If Biden is the candidate, then his pick for VP becomes critical. But keep in mind that his pick will be picked for a variety of reasons, including political strategy. For instance, he probably wouldn't pick another nor'eastern politician because he's got that area of the country taken care of already. He probably wouldn't go for another white male, since that doesn't speak to some key demographics in the party, who need to know that they have a seat in the Oval Office. But he probably will also want to be able to have a good relationship with the VP, and rely on him/her for some strengths/expertise the VP has.

[comradebillyboy]

9. Electability is very important. Not all of our candidates are electable.

Current polling would indicate Biden is the most electable.

Some people would rather cast a protest vote than go for the electable candidate who shares most of their values but isn't pure enough, ergo the Stein and Nader spoilers.

[Midnightwalk]

10. Good

Moving in the right direction is the most important thing. We need either to win either the precidency or the senate to stop moving in the wrong direction. We need both to progress.

Policies that can’t be done by executive order have to pass legislatively and rarely does a policy stay pure through that process. I think legislation should he updated as we learn what didn’t work well the first time.

I don’t understand why the best person to run is necessarily the person with the best policies. I value the ability to push legislation through the house and senate more. To that end Biden might be a better choice but I’m not sure.

I don’t see what policy nuance could be more important than stopping the decline and starting to progress.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

11. I think it's fascinating that the electorate is more concerned with what it thinks *other people*

will vote for, than voting for something they believe in. It's not a good or bad thing -- it's just interesting that that's where our idea of voting for a president is right now.

If polls asked "Which candidate do you feel aligns most closely with your views?" it may look different. If voting consisted of asking each of us 20 questions about our opinions on issues and how strongly we feel about those issues, it would also look different.

[MineralMan]

12. Winning is the #1 priority for most Democrats.

Democratic candidates have much in common, in terms of positions, etc. I've never voted for any Demcratic candidate who matched my positions on every issue. Ever. I doubt I ever will, but that's not the most important factor. Electability is. That can be measured by polls, actually. I'm not going to vote for someone who does poorly in national polling. That would be stupid, because that candidate would be very likely to lose.

We select our nominee through polling in the primary elections. That's the polling that counts. Other polls can provide a clue as to how primary candidates will do. I vote in just one state, but I'm very interested in poll numbers from other states, as well.

Electability. That's priority #1. It always has been, and always will be.

[Hortensis]

13. :) Sucks that it's only 60%. All of our primary candidates

who are actually in the running (including some currently caught in the gridlock at 1%) have solid liberal and progressive records. They all reflect our party's values and goals, even if some reflect our own better than others.

2016 was a dreadful lesson that failure to stand against evil enables it. Our votes don't create power, they only choose who will have it, and that person is going to be either the Republican or Democratic nominee. There is no other choice. And that's why that 60% commitment to standing strong on principle and against evil should be much higher.

I notice, though, that there's a real dearth this time of promises to throw precious votes away on no-goes under the mistaken impression that that's highminded behavior. That's encouraging.

Bitter lesson for those who inadvertently helped elect Trump, but some of us older people were fortunate to be able to learn these lessons in times when the stakes were much lower.