Supporting someone mostly because you think that's who others will support is inherently risky

[Tom Rinaldo]

I define that as hollow support, and hollow support lends itself to a higher potential for collapse. Firm support is built on a strong conviction that candidate X is absolutely the right person to become President. Firm support is resilient and not easily knocked off balance, and it's certainty and passion helps lead others to ultimately reach a similar conclusion. Supporting someone who one believes others can be persuaded to support is chasing a will o' the wisp. Soft support, essentially by definition, can and often does quickly erode. It melts under fire, it can be punctured by political barbed wire leading it to rapid deflation.

I want to see evidence of who can excite potential followers. I want to know who people believe in and why. I want to see who can win grudging respect from critics, and then turn that grudging respect into outright support. I do not believe that a least common denominator candidate will be our next President.

I am open to believing that any of our first tier candidates, and many of those below that level of current support, can emerge as the person who will rally voters to actively believe in her or his leadership. But I am very wary of arguments which, at this early stage, center on who is most electable rather than on who should be elected.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

1. Ugh, I JUST read an article that quantified how supporting a candidate you think everyone else

will support weakens the entire pool, and that people tend to take what they imagine other people's opinions to be into account when supporting a candidate. And by doing so, the electorate gets a skewed idea of what it itself wants, and the problem is compounded. Aaaaand of course I can't remember where I saw it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. At least you remember the main thrust of the argument

That's a damn good synopsis of an article that you can't site

[Indygram]

3. Ex-freaking-actly

The most dangerous thing for Democrats and the most beneficial thing for Trump is for people to support someone just because they THINK that person will be supported by others. It's causing many people to not even take an honest and impartial look at other candidates. Those same people with soft support for Biden are trying to push other candidates out of the way...BETTER candidates, thereby risking everything. It's frustrating to watch.

[ancianita]

4. "Should be's" have high strengths. BUT electability is voter confidence in broad executive decision

making that
-- looks for new, good information,
-- uses that information and changes his/her mind to
-- make quality, quick decisions
-- implementing good plans into reality on the ground, led by highly skilled people motivated to do good.

On the ground do'ers.

You're right. First tier can change. It will as new knowledge helps grow the electability of the high strength candidates.

But voters are wary of talk.

They prefer to know what candidates have DONE, not what they're for.

[hedda_foil]

5. Not really. Electability to Dem consultants mean who can collect the most BIG MONEY.

Electability to voters, especially those who aren't particularly plugged in, usually means that they've heard that a certain candidate is most likely to win and they feel safest getting on a perceived bandwagon.

In other words, the word "electability" is basically a finger in the wind that has very little substance behind it.