I'm not listening to any "electability" arguments for '08 candidates!

[More Than A Feeling]

:rant: Choosing someone in the primary based on who's most likely to get elected amounts to ceding my vote to whatever I think the majority wants the most. The right to vote is the most basic right we have in our democracy, and if I'm going to vote for what everyone else wants instead of what I want, I might as well not vote. I'm going to support a candidate based on who I think is the most competent, and who has the best vision for our country. Not the candidate who looks or sounds the most like a presidential candidate, nor the candidate who appeals to this or that demographic. To win my vote, candidates have to appeal to a demographic of one: Me. I'm not voting for someone for the position of election-winner, I'm voting for a president! The skills required to win elections, governing skills, and vision are wholly separate areas.

Everyone else is welcome to weigh the electability factor if they choose. I'm not telling anyone else how to use their vote. But everyone's voice is unique, and I think it'd be a damned shame if we settled for less than the best because we were too afraid that others might judge our voice to be "too unelectable." We aren't the ones running! The candidates are, and we are their judges. They aren't ours. It is not for them to say what voters should or should not want, and it isn't for you to say what I should or shouldn't want. The party doesn't judge me, I judge the party!

I want to hear from advocates of every Democratic candidate under the sun. Make the case on the issues, and on ability, and on experience. Just don't be surprised if I stop listening as soon as the words "most electable" pass your lips. That is all.

[William769]

1. Amen brother!

[blm]

2. My requirement is that they be an anti-corruption, open government Democrat

and not someone from the coverup wing of the Democratic party.

Coverups cost this nation FAR TOO MUCH.

And further - ANY Democrat can win with a DNC that works actively to secure the election process and strengthens party infrastructure in EVERY STATE, not just targeted ones, the way the Clinton-era DNC had been doing since 1995.

It's a four year job to fix it, and Dean has done alot in his two years - that's why we need him again for another two.

[LWolf]

3. So be it. Can we add "unelectable" to "most electable?" n/t

[AtomicKitten]

4. if you did, you'd have to don hip boots and wade in

These subjective arguments are always made in earnest fashion and always on behalf of another candidate.

[blondeatlast]

5. Since we control both houses now, I think we can definitely seek more

progressive purity than when we had a crisis of no control.

I look forward to it.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. Amen ! I don't want to hear that word and I will not allow myself to use it

although I admit to using it in the past. In place of "electable" - substitute "compromise". They will please no one.

Any search of the blandest, most acceptable candidate, the most "electable" - is doomed to failure.

[BluegrassDem]

7. Electability is an important part of winning a nomination

We can choose someone who is electable and who does share traditional Democratic values. If electability didn't matter, then we could nominate Kucinich or Al Sharpton. And then we'll find out if electability matters.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. I, on the other hand, want to win the election.

If you'd sooner *be* right than *do* good then you'll make yourself feel better but you will be good to neither man not beast, except possibly the Republicans.

If, on the other hand, you actually want to make the world a better place, you need to take account of which candidates can win, and which will just lose gloriously.

There's a hell of a lot of difference between even the worse potential Democratic nominee and even the best potential Republican, both in absolute terms and compared to the difference between potential Democratic nominees. That means that electability is probably the single most important factor in choosing a candidate.

[BluegrassDem]

9. I'm all about winning!

A lot of people on DU would've rather Tsongas got the nomination in 1992 over Bill Clinton, even though we would've lost big time. It's not a coincidence that the last 3 Democratic presidents were from southern states.

Now, I'm not saying our nominee has to be from the south, but our nominee needs to be able to appeal to people in the middle. And that it was I consider 'electability.' And I would take ANY of the Dems thinking of running now over any Republican. The world will be a better place if a Democrat wins in 2008.

And IMO, I think we need to stay away from New England nominees for a while unless JFK is reincarnated. We need someone from west, midwest, or south...period.

[Awsi Dooger]

10. We tried to pretend electability didn't matter in Nevada this year

The base rejected a moderate candidate named Jim Gibson in the primary in favor of much more liberal Dina Titus, who was considered unelectable statewide by party leaders. Five of them, including Harry Reid, signed a letter late last year basically endorsing Gibson.

Titus was more impressive than Gibson furing the primary but I voted for Gibson on sheer electability and that was the correct handicap. I saw posters on DU and many other progressive sites exasperated and in disbelief that Jim Gibbons was still leading Titus despite all the scandals. It was primarily due to ideology, Titus not fitting the profile the state prefers. Also, she had some trouble in Northern Nevada due to comments in the state legislature. That factored in the electability aspect also, since Washoe (Reno) is vital to Democratic hopes in Nevada. Titus was swamped in Washoe, losing the county by 14 points, compared to Kerry failing by 4.

In 2004 the problem wasn't using the electability aspect, it was misapplying it. There were two arguments:

* Kerry was the most electable due to military resume, experience, and how it translated to credibility on Iraq and foreign policy

* Kerry was among the least electable due to bland elitist New England senator

We isolated the wrong one as correct. Don't ignore handicapping fundamentals just because you got the last game wrong. In a 50/50 polarized nation you can't ignore electability, not unless you thrill to a string of frustrating narrow defeats, unforced errors like Nevada 2006.