Please knock off the electability arguements

[inthebrain]

It's the most foolhardy election scheme I've ever seen.

Try this.

a) Look at where the candidate stands on the issues.

b) Make a principled decision

c) Vote your conscience.

d) See what happens.

It's really that simple. This voting for a candidate who looks presidential, seems winnable and appears electable is ridiculous. Its buying into the character fluff and gives you candidates that are more likely to support legislation that works against what you are trying to accomplish.

A lot of this stuff is literally doing the work of the right wings media slime machines work. Trust me on this, they LOVE to hear you talk like that.

You might find you do a better job of framing the debate in the process.

[best left blank]

1. Don't hate the player...

...hate the game.

[SteppingRazor]

2. Maybe so, but electibility DOES matter...

I may agree on most economic issues with a socialist. And I may agree on most civil rights issues with a libertarian. But I'm not going to try to run them for president for the simple reason that they can't win.
I think you should certainly vote for the candidate that best represents your views. But when it comes to the Democratic Party itself, not the voters, I expect them to put forth the candidate(s) that they believe can win.

[Redleg]

7. Yes it does but "electibility" is also highly subjective.

While there may have been a lot of agreement that poor Dennis Kucinich wasn't electible, there was substantial disagreement about John Kerry's electibility.

[LoZoccolo]

3. "See what happens", 2000-style.

[mongo]

4. You really think this is what wins elections?

IMO, the presidential election is nothing but a popularity contest. The issues don't mean squat if the person does not have the charisma to win.

Draft Bill Moyers in '08!

[LoZoccolo]

5. And then we can also show that it doesn't win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1972

[GracieM]

21. Brad Pitt for Prez!

[Uncle Joe]

29. Charisma is a red herring

used by the corpwhorate media monopoly when the issues are not on their side. I am certain that if Elvis were a Democratic Candidate today with our current propaganda press, he would be cast as stiff and boring, and if he shook his hips too much, they would say he was just trying to reinvent himself. The media monopoly does not want someone responsible in charge because it goes against their agenda. However I do agree that Bill Moyers is a great man.

[mtnester]

6. Hey, don't I recognize you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1986572#1986812

[LittleClarkie]

8. Yes so' massah

Anything else you'd like?

[LoZoccolo]

9. Yeah, I was really lost before this guy came along.

I had no idea what to do as far as voting. Now I know.

[LittleClarkie]

12. Indeed,

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go looking for some totally unelectable POS as per my orders from above.

If we just play our cards right, we can McGovern ourselves to death. The big electoral goose egg. Nyah, that's the ticket.

[LoZoccolo]

10. Well, it looks like someone came in and said a few things and skipped out.

Oh well.

[LittleClarkie]

11. See, I'm lucky

I still come up with the same guy. You know why? 'Cause I didn't vote for him because he was electable in the first place.

Neat, huh? I don't even have to change my bumper stickers. I just have to change the little 4 into a little 8.

[inthebrain]

15. Your free to dissagree with me

I really dont mind.

Doesnt bother me one bit.

Seems as if the Clarkies are having a major problem with it though.

[LittleClarkie]

17. Well, I've even heard Kucitizens complain that Deaniacs

threw the "electable" thing at them, so I doubt that any of the supporters are completely clean in that regard.

But, you have to remember, that many who support Clark probably do so for more than "electability" issues.

[inthebrain]

18. Hold thier feet to the fire for it

If I do it by all means go after me.

I'm cool with it.

One thing I am proud of is that this debate is getting hashed out on this board. It's the best thing Ive seen since I joined here 8 months ago. It needs to happen one way or the other.

I'm glad the discussion is happening and I hope it continues. I fear this party becoming like Republican where we adopt a sheeple mentality and refuse to speak our minds. A lot of people could leanr to tolerate each others dissagreements and learn from them.

Thats how you make a party better.

Thats how good policy is created.

Thats where we as a party are going to learn where to take principled stands on issues.

There is a lot to learn from the train wreck on the Repulican side as well.

[LittleClarkie]

19. Indeed, as long as we can keep discussion from going to bash

then it's all good and constructive.

Personally, though I didn't support him in the campaign, I support Dean now for just that reason. Gotta make the party better. And since I'm a newly minted Democrat, that means something to me.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. So was the Bushboy "electable"?

Visibly stupid, mean, spoiled, never accomplished anything on his own?

[best left blank]

16. I thought it was well documented

by now, he was 'down home.'

[FrenchieCat]

14. That's easy for you to recommend....

as you have professed being a Kucinich supporter. Of course the Electability argument wouldn't be one that you'd want us to have here at DU.

Thank goodness your OP is just your opinion although it sounds like an order.

Very authoritarian in your demand.

Just curious, have you ever served? :patriot:

[inthebrain]

26. What office has Clark been elected to?

So by your defintion, there is no way to know if he is "electable". Or is he?

Your own argument in this matter shoots you in the foot.

Anyways, just thought I'd ask.

[Texas_Kat]

27. Maybe you'd understand that electibility is a very small part of it

Take a few minutes to read through some posts on why Clark folks support him. Electibility isn't the major reason.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1548301

[inthebrain]

28. Tell that to the person I responded to

It seems to be one of her sole reasons.

It also seems to one of the reasons why others claim they dont support a certain candidate. I don't know how any Clark supporter can run around telling others they their candidate choices are "unelectable" when their choce candidate has never been elected to public office.

My main contention is the electability arguments is a stupid argument. Even though Kucinich, by the definition and its application on this board, IS electable; ie He's been elected to public office whereas Clark hasnt ran for anything yet.

All in all, it's a stupid strategy for picking a candidate. It's a mindset that shows this party is still on the defensive when it doesnt have a reason to be. Well, at least it shouldnt be.

We always wind up fighting these things from out heels. Some should question why that is.

Media plays a part. Allowing what is said in the media by partisan pundits to unfluence your thinking is another. I gather that's where most of this "electability" crap comes from.

[AlGore-08.com]

30. Being elected to "any office" does not prove someone is a viable candidate

I have a friend who has been a member of the city council of a tiny (less than 5,000 population) town in PA. He has won his seat on the city council twice, and just won the mayoral primary. That proves diddley-squat about whether he could be remotely competitive in a race for a county, state, or federal office.

"Electability" is a legitimate question for discussion. IMNSHO, the problem with the discussions about electability on DU is that most of them never involve facts. Somebody will post "Candidate X will win in a landslide" without providing polling data or anything else to back up their contention. Somebody else will post "No, candidate X will lose in a landslide", also without any evidence to back it up.

Personally, I think the real value of a candidate having held elective office is that you can see how they will behave in office. You can see whether they have the same legislative priorities as you. Somebody who has never held office can say "I will stand up for civil rights", but until they have to actually vote on (or sign/veto) unpopular legislation legalizing civil unions, or extending affirmative action, or requiring equal pay for women, you don't really know what they consider "standing up for civil rights".

Until they've held office, you also don't know whether they can deliver their campaign promises. Again, it's easy to say "I was a sports star, I understand how team work really works" (or whatever), but until that person has to actually wheel and deal in the corridors of power with the likes of Tom Delay... "knowing how team work really works" and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

[rhett o rick]

20. Damn i hate it when u r right. I am guilty of doing this.

[BoneDaddy]

22. a bit off

Although I applaud you inthebrain for hitting the nail on the head on what "should" the electability process look like, but there is a difference between the ideal and what is real.

When live in the American Idol world, where charisma and "good" looks are dominant, "electibility" becomes important, maybe most important, in regards to winning. It shouldn't be this way and saying it shouldn't be the way ain't going to change this fact.

I, for one, would prefer a balanced candidate that has both charisma and substance.

[inthebrain]

24. Never

Undersetimate the power to change peoples outlooks.

I always try to look at candidates and figure out which one is going to put food on peoples tables. I also look at which ones are capable of taking on the ultimate task of our lifetime, ending warfare for good.

I just think its time people stop looking at candidates from a defensive angle. Pick one based on the issues that mean most to you. I think people who wer hung up on electability picked Kerry because that's what they saw him as, electable.

They were wrong.

Three candidates that stuck out to me in that election that would have made better candiates were;

1) Howard Dean

2) Dennis Kucinich

3) Carol Mosely Braun

I think the candidates we've gotten over the years; Kerry, BushI, BushII, Dole and Clinton were as inspiring to me as my high school principle. Not one of them were capable of doing shit and none of them took responsibiliy for a fucking thing.

Kerry probably wouldnt have gotten so much support had Bush not been such a divisive asshole. Could you imagine an election between Kerry and Dole?

Talk about a sleeper!!!

That would have been as inspiring as and motivating as Bush II and Gore.

[Catchawave]

23. Say then, in 1997

who was more electable:

George W. Bush
Al Gore

To be fair, I'm sure we all assumed that Al would be the heir apparent for the 2k nom, but I forget what names the GOP was throwing around in '97. I don't remember GWB being mentioned til the primaries?

[1932]

25. But I accept that everyone doesn't feel the way I feel, yet I want as many

people as possible to have the best government possible for them.

So, although I liked Nader more than Gore or Bush in 2000, and had more confidence that he would shift power back to employees and consumers and that Gore wouldn't, my conscience wouldn't let me vote for someone if that vote was going to increase the chance that people would end up with Bush.