The electability argument is specious and fear-based

[iwannaknow]

Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2019, 09:10 PM - Edit history (1)

What motivates voters? Do they turn out on election day for the most likely winner? Or are they more likely to show up in great numbers for the most inspiring candidate who still stands a good chance of winning? What moves them to work hard for any candidate?

As most of us know, winning an election these days is likely to be more about turnout than anything, not flipping the other guy’s voters, mostly because of the polarized electorate. If our party can get its base and its youth fired-up with truly progressive policies, the chances of our winning will be increased. And after all that’s happened these past few years, who believes Drumpf’s Fox-addicted voters will ever go “DemocRAT”?

Party activists and visionaries are much less likely to work hard for a candidate who appears to be for the status quo or is nostalgic for 'the way it used to be.' We need to be the party of new ideas and of genuine economic and social justice, the party the politically inclined can get truly excited about.

Now, more than ever, we need courage, the courage to fight for what we really want and not compromise our dreams before we even get started. For example, if we take a stand for M4All, there is a chance we might not get it, but we're likely to end-up in a better fallback position for getting a Public Option. However, if we start with the Public Option, there is no room for rightward movement.

That was my gripe about the 2009 effort to provide a PO in the ACA, i.e., M4All was taken off the table before negotiations even began. And no, it wasn’t just Joe Lieberman’s doing. We need to be clear about that. Does anyone think the power elite will be any less threatened by the PO than M4All? Do we think they cannot see the writing on the wall? Regardless of what public opinion is now, the negative and dishonest ads will be ubiquitous, just as they were with the ACA. Please, let’s not kid ourselves. Power is never given-up. It must be taken.

I currently support Kamala, but I’d be more than thrilled to see Elizabeth nominated. In fact, I’ve switched my preference between those two more than once. Bernie is another candidate I would be happy with, but regardless, I do intend to support whomever the nominee turns out to be.

______

ADDENDUM. I do not mean to imply that electability is not a significant factor, but that it is one of several important factors, not the least of which is the ability to ignite the base. If a candidate consistently demonstrates thru polling data that he or she can defeat Trump by a solid margin, that should qualify said candidate on electability. And the candidate with the highest electability score needs to have more than that going for him or her.

[LincolnRossiter]

1. Every poll that asks the question indicates that "beating Trump" is far and away democratic voters'

most pressing issue. I’d say electability goes to the heart of that. Whether it’s the most important to you or not is a different matter.

[thesquanderer]

4. But if the key to beating Trump is to excite people who don't usually vote...

...then nominating someone who appeals to that segment is arguably what makes someone most electable... and that won't show up in polls of electability because polls usually are directed only to "likely voters" and not to "unlikely voters."

So the argument here is that, if our goal is to get non-voters to vote, then instead of politically active people like us trying to figure out who politically active people are likely to vote for, there could be value in trying to figure out who politically INactive people are more likely to vote for, because that could actually be the more electable candidate, even if it doesn't look that way in the polls.

[lapfog_1]

51. If liberals, socialists, democrats, communists

progressives, or, in general, living breathing people with more than two working neurons

can't get excited enough to vote removing Trump from office, then we don't deserve a democracy.

[sheshe2]

75. Precisely, lapfrog.

[DemocracyMouse]

80. 1 + 1 equals 2

Beating Trump = 1
Exciting the most active Democrats = 1

Both Biden and Warren can beat Trump, but only
Warren excites the progressive Dem base.

So Warren scores 2, Biden only scores 1.

[Gothmog]

56. I think that it makes more sense to focus on turning out the base

If the base of the party turns out, then we can win. Chasing unlikely voters is less likely to be productive compared to focusing on the base.

[Demsrule86]

59. I hear this so often ...we do not motivate people who don't vote...we have never done so and won't

this time either...this is an excuse for some to cling to a certain candidate despite said candidates limited chances in a general...'well we aren't going after those voters but the ones that haven't voted...he/she will bring them to the polls', but it doesn't happen. Field a candidate that can win with likely voters who show up every election year.

[lapfog_1]

76. and, for some reason,

these magical voters will register and vote, but can't be bothered to answer a pollster over the phone.

[saidsimplesimon]

2. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I have also switched back and forth. As you said, I will support the winner of our Primary.

[think4yourself]

3. It's a bullshit term bandied about by shallow talking heads

It’s right up there with the junk mail offers that say “Pre-Approved!”. We’re all pre-approved until we’re approved, right?
Personally I really would enjoy an election cycle without the finger-wagging “electability” phrase coined the moment a candidate announces they’re running.

[NYMinute]

5. Biden is it

Everything else is just futile discussion

[DrToast]

6. M4All wasn't taken off the table in 2009

Because it was never in the table to begin with. Nobody campaigned on it, including Obama or Clinton.

[iwannaknow]

16. That is correct. However...

the point I was trying to make is that unless we place the most progressive/aggressive reform on the table, we're more likely to lose meaningful change when negotiations shift right. We need to start with a good bargaining position.

[Demsrule86]

19. If we don't win...there will be no bargains...we need a perceived moderate to win.

[iwannaknow]

22. Can we assume that the middle way is the winning way?

[Demsrule86]

60. Absolutely yes...the states we must win are WI, MI and PA...a moderate will win there...anyone

perceived to be of the left will lose the electoral college...although I believe some could win the popular vote which is worthless as Trump remains president.

[Lordquinton]

43. What on earth makes you say that?

It hasn't worked for us in a long time. We ran one in 2016 and lost. in 2008 we ran a perceived progressive and won.

[Demsrule86]

61. It worked in O8. President Obama ran to the middle and was pretty centrist. Like it or not,

we live in a center left country...just look at states or the Senate if you doubt my words. We don't have direct votes for president or proportional voting for the Senate so yes, we need a moderate candidate. 16 had little to do with being a moderate...Hillary was disliked ...years of beating up on her by both the right and left...I suppose. Run a candidate who is 'far left or perceived to be so...and we lose the EC. Trump goes on to another four years of raising hell...and worst case scenario, we lose the house as well.

[emmaverybo]

77. We ran a moderate under FBI investigation. Never a good idea for a candidate to be under

investigation.

[PatrickforO]

17. Yes, and I remember being totally disgusted by one of the candidates back in 2008

who, on camera, refused to say that healthcare is a basic right.

Healthcare IS a basic right, and profit doesn't belong in it.

To my mind, healthcare is in the very center of the 'electability' debate. Oh, they solemnly intone, Americans don't want Medicare for all! They want the insurance provided by their employers! or, another old favorite, Oh the government would mismanage healthcare - the private sector can do it better.

However, if we had Medicare for all Americans, people would love it because a) you wouldn't have some beancounter denying you coverage because it is beyond what they figured for profitability in the actuarial table, and b) if you're sick, you shouldn't have to worry about how you'll pay for your medical care.

The OP is right - the only reason we're even having this debate is the sheer weight of the fear caused among politicians of both parties by the big pharma and health insurance lobbies. And, since you're all bright people, I don't need to point out that if an insurance company that depends on making a profit is in charge of your healthcare, that is a direct conflict of interest. It is in their interest, in fact, to pay as little as possible on your behalf, and deny you certain coverages if they can get away with it. So you have the provider trying to give you less and less for the sake of its shareholders, and you going without treatment you need because to provide it isn't profitable.

This is immoral. I say we go for the candidate with the bold, big ideas on climate change and on healthcare. That's why I'm supporting Warren. Sure, I know that if she's elected it won't be M4All, but we might just get a public option! See that's what people don't get. The old saw that without a vision the people perish is TRUE.

So let's set some bold, big, beautiful visions, and then get in there and slug it out for them. Yeah, we'll be forced to compromise. That's how our founders set up our government. But let's go in asking for the moon, the sun and all the stars.

Then, maybe we'll get the moon. or the stars. or the sun. Not all, but what we DO get will be better than what we have now. Do you see?

[iwannaknow]

23. Amen!

[Bettie]

45. +1

Yes, we should go for big, bold ideas, rather than meekly asking that things stay the same.

[Demsrule86]

63. They said what they needed to say to get elected...health care for all was not perceived as a right

by the public back then. It was the ACS (hate by the left) that convinced the majority of Americans that health care is a right...and now that it is popular...instead of building on it your candidate and some others wish to start all over again with MFA which is not popular and could cost us a general. Consider the union in the rust belt states we need who negotiated for really good benefits...and absolutely don't want MFA. They are important in any Democratic victory. Times change.

[emmaverybo]

78. +1

[elleng]

7. Nothing specious about it,

extremely important consideration.

[iwannaknow]

25. Yes, it is important, but what is electability?

How do you measure it? By the head to head general election polling numbers? Those are irrelevant at this time. Way too early. I feel that we're falling into the trap of grabbing for the seemingly safe solutionm which may prove to be the riskiest. Candidate relevance and turnout potential are not therefore taken into consideration. In today's political environment, turnout is everything. So regardless of polling, it may be that whoever can ignite the base is the most electable.

[elleng]

31. Clearly 'turnout is everything.

So regardless of polling, it may be that whoever can ignite the base is the most electable,' but not only 'the base,' but indies and repugs too, and many in these groups are and will be ripe for the picking, imo.

[iwannaknow]

35. Especially independents. Genuine independents. Republican? I'm doubtful.

[Bettie]

46. Well, if our target group is Republicans

we're going to lose big. They. Will. Not. Vote. For. Our. Candidate.

We could be running an reincarnated Ronald Reagan and they would not vote for him.

And there are very few real independents these days, but there are a lot of people who refuse to join the party they align with.

[elleng]

57. 'Our' target group is not repugs; IF they're disenchanted with trump,

and if they want to vote, and have no other repug, SOME will vote for our Democratic candidate.

[Drunken Irishman]

54. It also doesn't answer who the base of the party is...

To me, at least in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, the base is likely made up of minority voters - people in Philadelphia and Detroit who will tilt these states back to the Democrats.

From my perspective, this election will be won or lost in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. I am not so sure the base in those states are the same as the perceived base here on DU.

[elleng]

58. The Democratic 'base' is what we (individually) dream it is,

and if again the election is won or lost in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, our candidate must appeal there, that means GO there and TALK to the electorate in those states. We can surely do that much.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

8. I thought

beating Trump is enough of a motivating factor. No ?

[5starlib]

9. The key to winning is getting black women to the polls

They are the bedrock of the party. Right now, Warren is doing nothing to excite black people, particularly black women. Biden is doing well amongst black people. If he were to name a black woman as a VP, it would excite the votes needed in cities such as Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Atlanta, etc. This is why Joe Biden can win the Electoral College much easier than Warren, Sanders, etc.

Warren, Sanders are exciting the progressive base in Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, and Los Angeles. That's all fine and dandy, but that's not going to win the EC. If we were running a popular vote election, Warren could win easily, but it's not.

[Thekaspervote]

10. This!! Thx for posting

[DrToast]

11. Right? Funny how they talk about exciting the base but ignore that

[5starlib]

13. Yes, black progressives in big cities in the Midwest and South are the key to victory

Warren can get big crowds in Boston, Seattle, Portland, etc., but this is not how you win the election. The media loves to say that she is popular with the base. Which base? Are black people not considered the base? Biden is blowing them out with POC. This is how you win the EC. We can't win an election based on coastal excitement. We need voters to show up in Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Columbus, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Atlanta, and Jacksonville. Neither Warren or Sanders are showing any penetration in those urban cores.

[blm]

30. Are you contending that black women voters won't

come out to vote for Warren? Because I think that is markedly inaccurate and doesn’t reflect at all the women of color in my democratic women’s group.

[Demsrule86]

65. I think it is accurate. Do you live in one of the states we need?

[Cha]

14. Well Done, 5starlib!

That's how I look at it.. Biden is ahead in polling with POC now and if he were to win the Nom and choose a Black Woman as a VP nom.. it would be unbeatable.

We know there are rich choices to choose from! :candel:

[blm]

27. They are getting to know Warren, just like everyone else.

You may have missed this report. I have confidence that Elizabeth Warren has the heart, the intellect, the energy, and the talent to bring out Democratic voters.

https://www.apnews.com/7db90b8ea8284995864c4218f3773824

.....By the time Warren left the stage at the “She the People” forum, thousands of black women in the audience were on their feet roaring cheers and applauding. The reaction eclipsed the response earlier in the day to Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey — the black candidates in the Democratic contest. It reflected the unlikely traction that Warren, a 69-year-old white woman who lives in tony Cambridge, Massachusetts, is gaining with black women who are debating whom to back in a historically diverse primary.

“To have an ally — she’s a woman, but she’s not a black woman — who can speak intelligently and has thought about people who don’t look like you, that resonates,” said Roxy D. Hall Williamson, a 49-year-old who was in the audience. “She stole the show to me.”.....

[emmaverybo]

38. Biden has been supporting civil rights for decades. He went toe to toe with George Schultz over

apartheid in South Africa. He has devoted time and energy to his strong relationships with black
leaders and communities across the nation. He does not, however, take his support among the AA electorate for granted. He knows he must earn this support.

Warren and Sanders have not, similarly, invested as much of their political careers in paying attention to civil rights, but have focused more on progressive ideas they assume appeal to a broad spectrum of black voters, but which show they are still out of step with the base, more in tune with very liberal white voters.

When the most basic social services and programs are threatened or underfunded, foreclosures are
decimating communities of color, meals on wheels for goodness sake is going under, why oh why call for trillions to be invested in canceling student debt? Not just for more needy people, but for 95 to 100 percent?

Total amnesty would help me, sure, but I would settle for an incremental interest cut or just give relief to those in need. M4All, GND? These are white progressive pet plans, pie in the sky policy proposals seeking to restructure economics and politics in one fell swoop. The black electorate as a whole is pragmatic.

Making ACA work as Obama had intended would be a better pitch to the base than all these transformative plans that are untested, re-invent the wheel, and seem to appeal to a limited demography from which these candidates get lots of enthusiasm, but which will not win us the EC.

The strategy is paying off, in an echo chamber. This fact is not lost on the majority of AA voters, whose goal is to beat Trump, not “the system.”

Harris is on much more solid ground from which to increase her support among black voters. Although I am not a fan of her debate tactic against Biden, I can appreciate her sensible approach.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/why-black-voters-will-vote-biden/592573/

The piece is actually not at all proposing that black voters will vote Biden, but more about the “rightness” of Harris’s approach and an analysis of African American voting behavior.

[PatrickforO]

48. A couple of points. First, I think all Democrats, including black women, are

going to vote no matter what, simply because everyone is so horrified by Trump. Should Warren be our nominee, she will enjoy the full-on support of Democrats and many independents. She's been setting a bold vision, working hard, planning hard.

Also, it is important to note that the African American population, the Hispanic population, the Asian population and so on are not monolithic.

Third point: it is said that during election seasons, Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. I believe this time, because of Trump, Democrats will be a bit more disciplined - maybe a LOT more disciplined - than they were in 2016.

Those things said, I believe the electability argument is spurious because what is needed is bold vision and unapologetic communication of policy positions.

[Demsrule86]

66. Even if Democrats fall in line, there are not enough to provide a victory. We need independents as

well. Secondly, the rust belt states didnt fall in line last time and they wont in 20 unless they like the candidate. With Warren at 2% of AA vote, she should not be the nominee also MFA is really unpopular in these states with the union voters who are also very important...this vote is essential in the rust belt...and judging by 16 statistics ...if we lose even a little bit, we lose the general.

[relayerbob]

12. The funniest part of this ....

is that I really only hear "electability" discussions when started by people who say electability questions are somehow bad. Most often these seem to be by supporters of folks farther down in the polls. No offense, but I find the topic to be more of a distraction than anything. Every poll has every major candidate beating Trump. Of course, it's about turnout, it always is. That's the whole point of an election. And every candidates' supporters is the one he/she thinks is The One to "take" power, the one who will excite the most people to vote. Frankly, we don't need "The One". That's what got us into this mess in the first place.

My personal filter is for candidates who know the difference between debating with allies or treating allies as enemies. I've supported many candidates financially over the last few months, because I want to hear them state their positions clearly, I want them to show leadership, I want them to understand that this country must be sewn back together again, I want them to show their true character, and I want to see compassion. Then I can make the call on who I will vote for. Some have been permanently scratched from my list, even if I would vote for them in the general election, but several remain. Notice, "electability" isn't in that mix, and there's a good reason for that. A candidate showing the above traits will be electable.

[iwannaknow]

26. Agreed. Electability is a distraction, and how do you define it?

[Skittles]

15. because some old racist fucks refuse to vote for a woman

I will only vote for an old white guy, just like they do

that is some sick justification, right there

[Demsrule86]

18. It is realistic...we need to get rid of Trump...he will be hard to beat...and I don't see candidates

other than Biden and maybe Bernie who established ties in Wisconsin winning a general...Bernie is a longshot...Biden is the most electable Democrat.

[peggysue2]

21. x1000

As we sadly learned in 2016, it's all about the electoral college map + racking up numbers to counteract the dirty tricks and cheating that will likely occur (why not? The cheating's worked so well before).

Primary objective is getting rid of Trump. Anything less is national suicide.

[PatrickforO]

52. I'm just not seeing it. As others have said, it is about the vision, and about

turnout. Trump's supporters are decidedly in the minority.

That's why the House needs to grind forward with gruesome and well-publicized impeachment hearings.

At the same time Trump's complete incompetence with economic policy has undermined the economy so that it is teetering on the brink.

People will suffer at the cash registers this holiday season due to the tariffs.

While all this is happening, we need a candidate who sets a bold vision. Whenever I see these electability threads, they are invariably about Biden and how he is the best candidate only because he's most electable. But what is his vision? He's pretty centrist, and there are some REALLY PRESSING THINGS THE NEW PRESIDENT WILL HAVE TO TACKLE.

At best, I'm just lukewarm about Biden. Of course, I'll vote for him should he be nominated, but he doesn't excite me. Others - Warren, Harris, Buttigieg, DO excite me. We have to, in my opinion, quit forcing ourselves to jettison any excitement, idealism and vision in favor of 'electability.'

Because, in that sense, 'electability' isn't. We learned that very, very painful lesson during the last presidential election. We had an electable candidate that everyone thought would walk away with it. People just stayed home because many weren't excited.

[Demsrule86]

67. You want to lose the presidency and the House in 20, impeach Trump. It would be a gift to

the Republicans and give that bastard four more years. It is too late for impeachment. And we will not move anyone not already on our side...it will generate sympathy for the orange monster.

[iwannaknow]

20. I did not mean to imply that electability is not significant

but that there are other very important factors involved that should not be given a back seat to nominating the MOST seemingly electable candidate, especially if others with more progressive proposals are clearly electable according to polling data. Yes, the nominee should be electable, but that should not be the only criterion.

[Cha]

24. Your premise is faulty.. I want Joe Biden

because he's the most experienced and qualified candidate for the job.. and he's Polling higher Against trump than any of the other candidate now.

Also, in 2009 President Obama didn't have the VOTES for anything other than ACA and we were fortunate to have those VOTES thanks to Obama's and Biden's hard work. It's a strong foundation to build on.

Most of the country does Not want mfa.. and they don't want to destroy ACA.. they want to build on it with a PO.

[Thekaspervote]

28. Indeed it's a lot more than just electability. Experience, voting record, foreign policy experience

[Cha]

39. Right, kasper! Why would Biden even be

so "Electable" if he weren't so qualified and experienced?!

Riddle me that!

[Thekaspervote]

41. I can't... ha! I don't think anyone else can either

Thx Cha

[iwannaknow]

33. Yes, candidate qualifications should be foremost in our minds

And how does one even define electability? On the surface, it would be the polls, but other factors can play a role, such as a candidate's ability to get the base out.

[betsuni]

29. "Does anyone think the power elite will be any less threatened by the PO than M4All?"

But the House passed the ACA with a public option. The "power elite" didn't take it out, the Senators who refused to vote for the ACA with a PO did.

[iwannaknow]

32. I don't think the House did pass the public option, but that aside, who was backing those Senators?

Who has the influence and resources to manipulate public opinion? Who is depended upon to finance outageously expensive campaigns? Who can buy ads and pull inside strings? Who finds it easier than anyone else to organize? And finally, who has the motivation to block the expansion of public insurance? Heck, they've been trying to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid for decades. The reason should be obvious.

[betsuni]

34. Yes, it did pass the public option.

Democrats had to have sixty votes in the Senate to pass the ACA, meaning every one of those sixty Senators had a veto. A handful of conservative Democrats opposed the public option and it had to be removed.

[iwannaknow]

36. Just did some research. You're right. But that does not nullify my argument about the PE.

The insurance companies will do everything they can to keep either M4All or the PO from becoming law. And they are powerful and elite.

[betsuni]

37. I don't understand what you mean by doing everything they can to keep things from becoming law.

What could insurance companies do? It's a business. When conditions change, they adapt or go under.

[Cha]

40. Mahalo Mucho for your Reality Based Post,

betsuni!

[betsuni]

42. Thank you too.

I wish we didn't have to keep correcting this kind of thing. It's always something.

[Cha]

44. I've had the same feeling.. it's such

a tiresome waste of time over the years.

I blame *******.

[Demsrule86]

69. It is not about the power elite...it is all those folks who have great work place insurance who will

now have to pay for a more expensive less compreshensive plan. The ACA made work place insurance pretty darn good. I don't want MFA...a PO will insure those in states that did not expand Medicare get coverage...and will lower the over all costs...we also need regulation and better subsidies for the ACA...we need to build on the ACA not start over. MFA is not an issue we should run on ...I also don't think we have a snowball's chance in hell of passing it. The ACA is what we have. Let's make it work for more folks.

[honest.abe]

47. Fear is the most powerful motivator.

Anyone paying attention should be deathly afraid of what is happening to this country. If they win again, Trump and Republicans will destroy everything we as Democrats care about. Yes, that should motivate voters.

[DanTex]

49. Fear-based, maybe. Specious, not at all.

First of all, calling an argument "fear-based" is itself a specious criticism. Fear is an totally legitimate decision criterion. In other walks of life, this isn't even questioned.

Take the arguments for M4A, for example. Nobody should end up bankrupt, or worse, dead, because they can't afford healthcare and have a medical emergency. That is a fear-based argument. Many people have a (totally rational) fear of medical emergencies, and universal free access to healthcare helps allay that fear.

Electability, to me, is the top factor simply because the difference between Trump and any of the Dems is much much bigger than the difference between the Dems. I don't know who is most electable, and inspiring the base is a big part of electability. But at the end of the day, I want someone who will win next November.

[MBS]

50. The problem with many electability arguments is

that what constitutes "electability" is too often too narrowly and rigidly imagined. .. and doesn't allow for almost-certain evolution of the definition of "electability" as the primary and general-election seasons, and, most importantly, as voter awareness and voter opinions, evolve.

Yes, absolutely, we must nominate a candidate who will win. But what exactly does this mean in this volatile election and this volatile period in our country's history? "Electability" in a general sense is a minimum requirement for our candidate. But I personally get worried when"electability" is perceived as the main or even only reason to support a candidate. Voters need to feel positive about the candidate's vision, too.

[blm]

53. Exactly. People are just getting to know these candidates.

For one camp here to make the claim that ONLY he can win is utter horseshyt.

[Demsrule86]

70. I say it agian...Warren is known well enough that she should be polling better with

AA voters and she is too far left to win the states we need. WI, MI and PA...MFA alone will destroy her chances in a general...and then add in free college, and all the other goodies she has proposed...I like her and will support her in a general of course...but she won't win the states we need.

[Gothmog]

55. Electability is a valid and imporant criterion for the primaries

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

[Thekaspervote]

62. Thx for posting...

first and foremost we have to win!!

[Act_of_Reparation]

64. Except we don't know what "electability" is.

Especially not this early in the race. You will be supporting the candidate you want to support.

[Demsrule86]

71. It is not that hard...three states...lost us the presidency...our only path at the moment...we need

to win them back who can best do this...Some don't like the fact that the Biden is the most electable and can win those states as he was born in PA, was part of the auto bailout which helped those in Michigan as well/ he did quite well in Wisconsin previously and it is an increasingly moderate purple state. Also Biden beats Trump by double digits...Some want who they want period and won't let facts get in the way (not saying you).

[Act_of_Reparation]

73. We have indicators. We don't have certainty.

We have to take the polls for what they are: snapshots of the present. They indicate, but they don't necessarily predict. At least not this early in the game. Joe Biden appears to be the most electable candidate at this moment. That doesn't mean he's absolutely, without question going to remain on top.

If Biden is your preference, that's perfectly fine. It's the insistence that he's our only option I find grating, particularly because of the veiled implications that position necessarily entails.

[Amimnoch]

68. IN the RIGHT places!!!

It's about the map!
It's about the map!
IT'S ABOUT THE MAP!!!!

It doesn't matter if the candidate energizes the electorate in California.. or Oregon.. or Washington.. or New York.. or Illinois..

Sadly, the more this campaign season goes on, it also isn't looking like my state of Texas is going to be in play either..

270 electoral college votes is what it takes.

Have to energize enough to hit a >270 electoral votes by having >50% voting in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Arizona.. Enough states to get to that 270 number.

I'd think we'd have it in our heads by now that popular vote does NOT necessarily equal a win!

California, Oregon, Washington, New York etc... - whomever wins our primary will almost definitely get their electoral votes.. same with all the solid blue states.
Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Nebraska etc.. Trump's got them.. not changing their electoral votes.. same with all the rest of the solid red states.

Battleground states, and the candidate that will get them at least 1 vote over 50%.. What energizes THOSE voters to come out in force for OUR candidate.. That's what will win.

[Demsrule86]

72. Exactly right.

[Gothmog]

74. 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.

[Tarheel_Dem]

79. Apparently, not in the case of Kamala. And "the base" is already "ignited". For proof, look no...

further than the 2018 midterms.

[Gothmog]

81. Joe is the most electable candidate that the Democratic Party has available

Link to tweet

[LanternWaste]

82. So it's both specious and an important factor?

That's moving the goalposts further and more quickly than I've seen.


"And the candidate with the highest electability score needs to have more than that going for him or her."

Who specifically is arguing otherwise? No one? Then you're simply throwing out an argument no one else is making simply to argue against it? That is (ironically enough) specious in and of itself. 'Let's not kid ourselves', indeed.