What makes a candidate "unelectable"?

[arcane1]

I've been seeing more and more posts that basically say "accept the inevitability of Hillary Clinton, because Sanders/Warren/etc are not electable."

WTF does that mean?

[Maedhros]

1. It means the Ready for Hillary PAC doesn't want them elected. [n/t]

[LordGlenconner]

2. It can be a lot of things

How a candidate looks, what they talk about, their positions on various issues. But I think mostly it centers on No. 1. Were are a culture that values visually pleasing traits.

For example, Bernie looks a little disheveled from time to time so he's not "visually" pleasing to voters therefore he is not presidential therefore he is not electable.

Obviously positions on issues and values are a part of the equation too but we often make it a beauty contest.

[conservaphobe]

3. A majority of the electorate decides on more than just policy.

Not saying they should, but that's just reality.

[Scootaloo]

4. it means they're not pro-war corporatists

It's a right-wing meme employed by the right wing to make their positions look like the only ones in town. You'll notice that the term "unelectable" is only ever applied to people who are left-of-center. Never once was Herman Cain or Michelle Machman labeled 'unelectable."

And make no mistake, there is no rule that says Democrats are not right-wing.

[Populist_Prole]

9. BINGO, we have a winner!

It's nothing more than framing neoliberalism as "normal".

[Lurks Often]

5. It means the candidate disagreed with someone's particular focus on an issue

Here is a partial, but not all inclusive list of issues where the views of the candidate, of either party, can make them "unelectable": abortion, guns, oil, foreign policy, unions, domestic policy, taxes, Social Security, the Post Office, Medicare, health care, women's rights, men's rights, climate change, GMO, business, profit, religion.

[G_j]

6. people repeating "unelectable" over and over

becomes a self fullfilling prophecy. I personally think Democrats should resist saying this about fellow Democrats.

[morningfog]

7. I would say someone who loses a high profile presidential primary during an anti-incumbency

election to a relatively unknown candidate could be labeled unelectable.

[el_bryanto]

8. Unelectable is a pretty easy concept to define but its a hard standard to apply.

First of all it is rarely used against mainstream, center of the road candidates. The advantage of being a mainstream, center of the road candidate, like Hillary Clinton, is that she has already seized the middle and is presumed to be electable. In fairness, Mitt Romney was in that position in 2012 (when compared to the rest of the Republican field), and we saw how that worked out for him.

Secondly it is used by political realists - i.e. people who presume themselves to be experts on elections and how people will vote. It flatters the person who uses it.

Third, it is generally insulting to the American people or the principals of the party, and often both. The electability argument presumes that middle America is too dumb to vote for Democratic Values and that Democratic Values are something to be hidden and kept out of sight until after the election (at which point they are still hidden).

Fourth, it simplifies the rich tapestry of American politics; underdogs and out of the mainstream candidates have won elections before, and probably will in the future.

Bryant

[arcane1]

11. Well-said!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. It's aimed to stir the "Not as bad" crowd into her defense.

You know, like "a teaspoon of arsenic is not as bad as a tablespoon of arsenic" so you should hold your nose and swallow.

[rock]

12. Essentially nothing.

What the person is driving at who uses such an expression is that the candidate can't be elected. A nice hypothetical if you ask me. You have to run and be elected to be electable. Running and losing doesn't prove a thing. Neither does not running. So "unelectable" is not provable. Neat!

[brooklynite]

15. What a nice, academic view of the world...

This philosophy suggests that every candidate who runs has an equal chance of winning, which is beyond silly. Anyone who pays a reasonable amount of attention can determine in advance their likelihood for success based on positions which are or are not in sync with the voters, ability to raise money, choice of campaign staff, age, race, voice and any number of other factors.

[oberliner]

13. Think Walter Mondale

Candidates who will lose 49-1 nationally.

[brooklynite]

14. It means that DU isn't representative of the Democratic electorate...

...much less the General Election electorate (which last time I checked included Republicans and Independents.

In the same way that the Iowa Straw Poll has rarely been one by a Republican who went on to win in November (Pat Robertson, Michelle Bachmann), the acceptably liberal Democrats that DU rallies to are not going to be successful in a real world national election.

[Iggo]

16. Saying "unelectable" over and over again until it's true.

[TheKentuckian]

17. It means that you are not deep enough in the pocket of the military and big business an/or

not a great enough of a spokesmodel to be worthy of serving at the higher levels, particularly the highest elected position in "the free world" aka Vice President of Propaganda and Marketing.

[mulsh]

18. Beltway stenographers who are consistenetly wrong about, well everything,

must agree that a candidate is "electable". If they aren't in agreement the folks who employ them get a sad. Then nobody is happy. We must accept what the orthodoxy says because they're the ones on the same cocktail party circuit.

Now stop your annoying whining, read the op-ed pages of the Times and Post, or watch for the talking heads on News Hour or any number of cable news show and stop trying to attempt independent thought.