My basic argument as to why electability is the most important thing.

[DanTex]

Let's compare primary candidates A and B. Suppose we prefer candidate A as president, but we judge that candidate B has a greater chance of defeating Trump.

In this case, we go with candidate B. Why? Because, supporting A requires not just that A would be a better president. The case for A requires that A would be so much better as president than B, that it's worth a greater risk of having Trump. That's what it comes down to. And I can't think of any of the leading candidates that would be so much better than any of the others, that it's worth that risk.


Of course, it's not obvious which candidate is the most electable (nor is it obvious which would be the best president). It's not just a matter of polls. I don't know if a more centrist candidate would be more electable, to appeal to moderates, or if a more progressive candidate, to excite the base.

But, I don't buy that it's impossible to know or make any kind of judgement on electability, so we should just forget that and judge on policy and record. That's wrong. It's not easy to determine electability, but it is possible to make an informed judgement. And that's the judgement I'll be making when I pick a candidate.

What does this mean? Well, for me, it means that I don't care for example, whether a candidate supports single payer vs a public option, except to the extent that one or the other would make them more likely to beat Trump. I don't care what Biden said about busing, or what Harris did or didn't do as prosecutor, and so on, again except if it might affect their electability.


Edit to add: right now, as it says below, I'm undecided. I'm probably leaning slightly towards Kamala, though it's only a very slight lean, and going after Biden was a bad move: you don't win votes by attacking a guy that most Dems really love. Still, at the moment, my opinion is that she would be most likely to beat Trump.

[Kurt V.]

1. I'm not sure how to gauge electability across such a good field. ..?

[DanTex]

2. Yeah, me either, which is why I'm undecided.

Along with being the most important thing, electability might also be the most difficult to judge.

[maxsolomon]

3. Who exhibits Charisma?

Remember Barack Obama? He had more Charisma, therefore he was more electable.

Trump, motherfucker that he is, has Charisma. At least in the limited minds of the fucking idiots who put him in office.

[thesquanderer]

5. Our frontrunners (Biden and Sanders) are not our most charismatic options. (n/t)

[maxsolomon]

6. Tell me about it.

Not one of the candidates has Obama's charisma. That is too much to ask.

[Joe941]

11. I'd disagree with that characterization.

[thesquanderer]

12. I wouldn't say they're our least charismatic, either. But I think a number of others are more so. nt

[Wounded Bear]

4. I think "electability" is vastly overstated as a primary standard...

After all, the most "unelectable" candidate in history is squatting in the White House.

Support the candidate you like in the primaries, then vote for the Dem winner. Pretty simple.

[maxsolomon]

7. "Electability" is amorphous.

Trump soundly beat a huge field of loathsome, charmless Republican Pols.

Was Ted Cruz more "electable"? Even Republicans hate him.

[redstateblues]

8. Policy promises don't win elections. Electibility does.

It's more of an emotional decision.

[peggysue2]

9. Electability is everything for 2020

Because losing is not an option if we want to ensure a democratic future for ourselves and children. We need to win and win by the largest number possible, a full repudiation of Trump, his enablers and the ugly ideology known as Trumpism, just another word for fascism.

The standard cliche is: this is the most important election, evah! Sadly, this time it's absolutely true. This will be the most important election of our lifetimes, determining the definition, the direction and future of the country.

We simply cannot fail. So yes, electability is a prime factor for 2020. Which is why I support Joe Biden whose reach and appeal is the widest of all our candidates.

[Cha]

14. Yes! That one thing is Everything! Plus

a well qualified and experienced candidate doesn't hurt. For me electability and who I want are one and the same.

.

[peggysue2]

18. True

Joe Biden brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to the table--legislative, executive and foreign policy expertise that out rivals our other candidates. He also brings heart, a genuine empathy for others mixed with a long, distinguished record of service. For me, he's simply the best qualified, professionally and personally. And he can wallop Trump, send the Mad King and his enablers to the curb for trash pickup.

That works for me.

[emmaverybo]

36. We are the fortunate ones, Cha.

[Cha]

38. Yes, there's no

dilemma!

emmaverybo!

[Gothmog]

44. Washington Post-Opinion: Democrats want to beat Trump. Biden wants to be the one to do it.

Link to tweet

“As president,” asked a young boy in gray jeans and matching T-shirt, “how will you fix the damage Donald Trump has caused?” The gym exploded, as if the Clinton College Golden Bears basketball team had scored a buzzer beater in a championship game. And Biden relished the moment to remind the gathered, “It’s time we lift our heads up and remember who we are. … I refuse to postpone the opportunity” to change the direction of the country.

As a raft of polls have shown, Biden is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president. Still, I couldn’t shake the impression that the passion on that basketball court was more about defeating Trump than supporting anyone specifically. When I sat down with Biden for an interview on my Cape Up podcast last week, I asked him whether my impression was right; that what Democrats want most is to send Trump packing. They don’t care who it is as long as they are convinced that “who” will succeed.

“There is a real passion for getting rid of Donald Trump,” Biden told me. “But I think there is a lot of passion for electing somebody who they think can, in fact, repair the damage that Trump has done, and to actually bring the country back together and unite the country on the basic fundamental things that make America America.” Sure, Biden thinks he is that person, and that’s why he’s leading the crowded Democratic field. “That’s why I think you see the response to the soul-of-America argument I’m making,” he continued, “because they know how deeply I feel it.”....

Eugene Robinson got it right. “Voters are making up their own minds about what’s important in Biden’s performance and what’s not,” Robinson wrote in his Monday column. “I think they’re looking for ‘electability,’ whatever that means; they’re looking for a fighter who won’t back down; and they’re looking for leadership.

[rusty fender]

10. Even Biden says that any of our candidates can beat Trumpass

I don’t understand why any Democrats are still hung up on ‘electability’

It’s a non issue.

[DanTex]

13. There's a big difference between "can" and "will".

Democrats are "hung up" on electability because beating Trump is the most important thing. Far from a "non-issue", it's the most important issue. Without that, none of the other issues matter.

[SteveDallas]

16. BUT, if you make it THE issue, you lose.

You don't win elections being "not X". It doesn't work.

[DanTex]

19. In the primaries, it is THE issue.

In the general election, of course, it's not an issue anymore, because the candidate has already been chosen. But we're not there yet.

[SteveDallas]

21. How many times do you want to make the same mistake?

Both sides seem to make it A LOT.

In 2004 the democrats chose the candidate they felt could best beat bush.. and lost. They didn't consider that bush's biggest weakness (The iraq war) was also the biggest weakness of the democratic candidate.

In 2012 republicans chose the candidate they felt could best beat Obama.. and lost. They didn't consider that he was completely uninspiring and stood for nothing.

Contrast, in 1980, the republicans put up someone considered UNELECTABLE. Carter was polling 30 points ahead of Reagan. 30 POINTS!!! It wasn't until Anderson entered the race that Carter's support dropped, but he was STILL well ahead until after the GOP convention.

After trump got elected to even dignify electability as an issue is a joke.

[DanTex]

23. How is choosing the candidate most likely to win a mistake?

Just because some people in the past have made mistakes in determining which candidate is electable doesn't mean electability isn't important. At best, it means that the criteria that those people used to judge electability were mistaken.

I think you are confusing "electable" with "centrist". Those aren't the same thing.

Electable just means, well, electable: most likely to beat Trump. There are different things that contribute to a candidate's electability. Being able to inspire turnout from the base is one. Being able to appeal to moderate "fence-sitters" is another. General charisma and "likeability". Not having skeletons that can be attacked. And so on.

And what I'm saying is that electability is more important than policy positions, because we need to win the white house back.

[SteveDallas]

26. Because you can't judge who is "most likely to win".

Some will say "look at polls".. but polls in 1980 showed Carter CRUSHING Reagan. 30 points. In February and March of 1980 as Reagan was winning republican primaries, Carter was up 60-31. This wasn't like Romey/Obama where they were trading places back and forth, this was 30 points. Nominating Reagan meant a CRUSHING DEFEAT.

Let's look at 1992. March 1992. Bush ahead of Clinton by 20 points. Clinton was s SURE LOSER.

You simply can't look at polls over 4 months out from an election and use them to judge who beats who, because 20,000 different things can happen between now and then that could drastically change the numbers.

You can certainly consider who MAY inspire turnout, but that's not a given. Appealing to moderate "fence sitters" is kinda silly b/c it ends up contradicting the inspiring turnout as equivocating to appeal to fence sitters has shown to drive DOWN turnout. While, having a bold vision drives turnout AND those moderate "fence sitters" ultimately just want to be on the winning side, so they will go where the wind blows.

I don't think any serious candidate doesn't have some form of general charisma and likability. They got where they are for a reason. I don't personally like Joe Biden, but I don't deny he has a general charisma and likability.

The one thing you said which I DO think is important to vet is not having skeletons that can be attacked! This is why I am ALL FOR an all out WAR during the primaries. Democrats shouldn't be going easy on each other, because the GOP won't go easy in the general election. The candidate who emerges should be BATTLE TESTED and ready for anything.

So, if electability is battle testing, then yes, it is a factor.. but other than that, it is ISSUES that will win the election.

[DanTex]

27. Not perfectly, of course, but you can make an informed judgement.

Just because you can't determine with perfection doesn't mean you just give up on the single most important factor in choosing a candidate.

Nothing's a given in politics, and obviously polls aren't everything, and polls can change.

Also, contrary to what you claim, you obviously have strong opinions about electability, namely that turning out the base with a "bold vision" is the key. Maybe, maybe not. But that is, whether you like it or not, an argument about electability.

[SteveDallas]

30. No, you really can't.

You can make what you think is an educated guess, but it is actually just a flat out guess.

Here are things we do KNOW.

Turnout is important for multiple reasons. First, if you turnout your base, you are more likely to win. Second, it matters for downticket elections. But, that doesn't speak to this concept of "elecability"

We can also look at history and see that "bold visions" win over "not the other person". Look at all our modern elections and you see this played out over and over again. Is it foolproof? No, but it is far more predictable than "electability"

So have the primary be about ISSUES and IDEAS and not about "well, I'm more electable"... because that simply doesn't work.

[DanTex]

31. But you're making an informed judgement right now! The very thing you said you can't do!

You're arguing that inspring turnout and bold visions are the keys to electability (even though you don't like the word "electability" ).

[SteveDallas]

33. No, I'm not.

I am not discussing electability. at all.

I am talking about turnout being important and bold visions showing a history of inspiring turnout.

I have actual data to back those things up. There is no data to back up "electability" of an individual.

[DanTex]

35. But you are. You just don't like the world "electability". Fine, pick another word.

You are claiming that bold visions make it more likely that a candidate will win the presidency, by inspiring turnout.

And that's the definition of electability -- likelihood of winning the presidency.

[SteveDallas]

40. Incorrect.

As trump has proven you don't have to be "electable" to win, since he was not electable, but he won.

There are no qualities one can quantify for "electability", since it is a nonsense term proven so by history.

History has shown that bold visions inspire turnout and turnout will help candidates win, but often in order to do that you have to completely ignore the "electability" of the candidate, such as the GOP did in 1980, the democrats did in 1992 AND 2008 and the GOP did in 2016.

It is a nonsense talking point made up to judge candidates on something OTHER than their actual positions on the issues.

[SteveDallas]

15. "electability" has been proven a nonsense issues.

Donald Trump was the most UNELECTABLE person in the entire history of the United States. Never before had someone do so much to sabotage their own campaign. It's almost like he TRIED to lose and failed at that.

So.. can we please drop this nonsense from our lexicon?

[DanTex]

17. That's not true. The closest thing to "proven" is that it can difficult to evaluate electability.

In 2020, Trump would have lost, if not for Russia, hardly "proof" of anything.

Winning the general election next November is the most important thing. We need to pick the candidate most likely to win.

[SteveDallas]

20. Oh stop with the excuses.

The election shouldn't have been REMOTELY that close such that Russia even mattered. Russia didn't force democrats to stay home or decide not to wait in line. We don't even know if Russia had any actual impact on people's votes, we only that that the Trump campaign colluded with them to try and tilt the election.

Every time the democrats lose there is an excuse. in 2000 it was the Supreme Courts fault or Nader's fault. Forget the fact that the election shouldn't have been that close to begin with that a few thousand votes in a couple of Florida counties decided it. In 2004 it was Ohio voting machines and wedge issues. Again, it shouldn't have been that close. We had a unpopular president in an unpopular war, but the democrats decided to put someone up who voted for the war and then wondered why people people weren't inspired to show up. In 2016 it was the Russians. Just ignore the fact that it was another Iraq War voter on the ballot.

Trump was the MOST unelectable candidate in the history of the United States... but he won.

The concept of "electability" is official over.

[DanTex]

22. Russian interference is a fact, deny it as much as you want. But you're missing the point.

I do agree that 2016 shouldn't have been close, but just because some people misjudged the electability of Trump and Clinton in 2016 doesn't mean electability isn't important.

It is important, and it will always be important, because winning the general election is much more important than the relatively minor differences on other issues between the primary candidates.

"Electability" just means likelihood of a particular candidate to win the general election over Trump. And that's the most important quality a candidate can have.

[SteveDallas]

24. It can be both a fact AND an excuse.

I don't DENY Russian hacking. However, it shouldn't have mattered and no one misjudged Trump's electability. He wasn't "electable.", which only goes to show what a non issue it actually is.

It is a made up concept.

[DanTex]

25. Obviously, Trump was more electable than those people thought. By definition.

So, yeah, they did misjudge his electability. It happens.

I'm not sure what you mean by "made-up concept". It's a very clear concept: which candidate is most likely to beat Trump.

[SteveDallas]

28. No, he really wasn't.

Trump wasn't electable in 2016, but he won, which shows that it is a made up concept.

What I mean by that is fairly simple.

You have no way of knowing or even remotely guessing who is going to win based on ANYTHING. There is not one single thing you can do (short of a TARDIS) to find out who is going to win or even make an educated guess on it.

In March of 1980 Carter was beating Reagan in head to head polls by 30 points. In March of 1992 Bush was beating Clinton by 20 points. So, obviously POLLS cannot determine this "electability" thing.

Favorability ratings? Trump was between -30 and -40 in March of 2016, so I guess those don't show us anything either. Heck in October/November of 2016 Trump was between -12 and -27, while Clinton was between +2 and -17.

Trying to figure out "electability" is like trying to figure out who will win the Superbowl before the seasons starts.. you can make some educated guesses based on rosters and draft picks and past history, but MOST OF THE TIME YOU WILL BE WRONG. Yeah, you may get it right now and then, but those wind up being the exceptions that prove the rule so to speak.

Trump, by every single measure was completely unelectable. He was unliked, he was behind in polling in every critical state and nationwide. He was an absolute disaster on the campaign trail telling lie after lie, making gaffe after gaffe.

Yes, ultimately, someone will have been more "electable", but you won't know until AFTER it happens.

So why spend 1 moment trying to guess something you won't know until later. Why not pick the candidate who will simply make the best president and work like hell for that person?

[DanTex]

29. That's completely illogical.

There's no way of knowing for sure, but there are definitely ways of making educated cases.

Sure, let's take your analogy, trying to figure out who will win the superbowl at the start of the season. There's no way to know for sure, but its definitely possible to make educated guesses. And if you're forced to make a bet at the start of the season, rather than just picking based on what uniform color you like best, instead it would be a good idea to figure out which teams are most likely to win.

And that's basically the situation we're in. We can't know for sure which candidate would do best against Trump, but we still have to pick one, so we do the best we can, trying to evaluate the evidence and the strengths and weaknesses of each, and make the best judgement we can.

By the way, the candidate who will make the best president is also something that is impossible to tell exactly. There are lists of policies they campaign on, but who knows which will become law, and what form they will take when they do become law. Who knows which candidate would best be able to fight against Republicans in congress, use the bully pulpit, all that.

It's not like, by ignoring electability, you somehow get away from having to make an imperfect judgement call.

[SteveDallas]

32. It's not illogical at ALL.

You can't make educated guesses on something where you don't have the information you need. You can make a guess, but to risk anything on it would be pure folly.

If you were FORCED to make a bet on the Superbowl each year before the season started you would be wrong nearly every time. You try to make a prediction NOW on who is most "electable", you will get it wrong.

Ultimately, you need to take Trump out of the equation, because you don't even know FOR SURE if he will be the nominee. 10,000 different things can pull him out before the election, from bad eating habits to impeachment and removal. I only HOPE he is the nominee because he is so easy to beat.

We need to look at the ISSUES and evaluate how the public responds to the ISSUES and then find the candidate who can best articulate and implement those ISSUES. It's whats worked in the past and will continue to work in the future.

If we try to predict and unknowable thing like "electability" and use it to make a decision, we will lose.. AGAIN, as we have done in the past.

[DanTex]

34. Of course you can make educated guesses without complete information.

That's what makes them "educated guesses". Not only can you make educated guess, but life is full of them. Should I take this job? Or leave my job for another? What should I study in school? Should I buy a house? Start a business? Life is full of decisions you need to make without all the information you need.

Choosing a primary candidate is another educated guess. You can't take Trump out of the equation, because if we don't beat Trump, it doesn't matter what issues our candidates stand for.

[SteveDallas]

39. Only if you have information.

Otherwise, it is JUST a guess.

This is why electability is a non issues. You have absolutely no reliable information. Any guide you can use has been proven to be completely unreliable. Thus, you are JUST making a guess. Not an educated one. JUST a guess.

That is why it is such a silly concept to even discuss or even to consider Trump in the equation.

[DanTex]

41. There is information. Just not complete information.

Ignoring the information doesn't make it go away. Ignoring Trump doesn't take him out of the equation.

[SteveDallas]

42. You have no information.

None.

And we don't even know IF Trump will be in the equation. He is pointless to pay attention to at this point.

[emmaverybo]

37. I don't blame people taking offense at the electability concept whose preferred candidates some

argue are not electable. I think Joe gave the best answer. He was standing up for fellow Dems of course.

But can beat Trump is like should. Joe was pointing out his fellow Dems’ superior fitness to Trump’s complete unfitness.

Any Dem in a fair election should beat Trump, probably would, but the election will not be fair.

In time we might see who most likely will beat Trump for having the widest swath of the electorate behind him or her and running ahead in battleground states—most likely in an election Republicans will rig with the help of Russia and other state players.

I think Biden is very electable in that he is the most job-specific qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable candidate running while he should do well with the Dem base and in th3 Rust Belt. Only time can tell if he or any other is, in probability, more electable than a rival. Though Biden strikes out with progressives and the media—being the darling of neither—he is one of the most respected and loved politicians across America.

Like many Biden supporters, I avoid hyperbolic claims. So does Joe. Another reason I love the man. Enthusiasm, like infatuation, evaporates easily,

Biden supporters are not blindly infatuated, Expect his being very electable to last.

Others have every chance to prove they are also.

[Gothmog]

43. I agree that electability is the key issue

The country cannot stand four more years of trump. In the real world, most POTUS are re-elected unless there is a recession. Betting odds show that trump is very likely to be re-elected

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

We cannot nominate a weak candidate who is too far to the left and hope to beat trump. I like the fact that Joe has the best odds of beating trump

Link to tweet

We cannot stand four more years of trump. The planet cannot stand four more years of trump

Link to tweet

I will be supporting the most electable candidate in the primary