just a comment about "electability"

[radfringe]

approximately 4 years ago - there was a governor running for president

the candidate had approximately 6 years of experience in any "official government cpapacity" - he had never held public office before nor did he show any interest in holding public office prior to being elected governor

he had no experience in foreign affairs, and by his own admission had no interest in it

his education credentials consisted of an MBA with "gentlemen C" average

his excursions into the business field consisted of taking over a few companies and having to be bailed out when they tanked

he had insider washington connections - but portrayed himself as a DC outsider...

his campaign ran on a recycled platform/ideas that had previous been shown to fail, and surrounded himself with recycled washington insiders

His military record was suspect, he had a reputation for drinking and drugging in his younger days and no real proof that this had changed

doesn't sound like he had much "electablity" appeal -- but elected or selected - this man has his butt sitting in the oval office

[zoeyfong]

1. Yep, voting for the 'electable' guy is frought with unintended consequence

[vi5]

2. I don't think any of us have an electability crystal ball....

...that I would agree.

What I personally take issue with is that people are all judging electability based on the media and we must all be gullible, force fed sheeple morons.

The fact is that i can look at and talk to a very diverse group of friends and family in my life. If they disagree on a candidate then that gives me paus. If they all agree on and would like and vote for a candidate then that leads me to believe that person would have a better chance against Bush.

Is it scientific? No not at all. But it's a large and broad enough of a sample for it to mean I'm not basing an opinion on the mainstream media (which I rarely give the time of day).

Nobody is saying you have to base your decision on electability. It's your choice not to. But in this important year people are doing that and you know what? It's not always because of the media.

[Mairead]

8. Are you sure you're not simply following the media at one remove?

How do you know where your 'large and broad enough' focus group is getting the majority of their opinions?

[isbister]

3. He wasn't elected, he was selected

"and surrounded himself with" enough "recycled washington insiders" to make it the close race that it was.

[quaker bill]

5. Al Gore

Was quite a bit more 'electable' than Bush*. If being 'electable' has the sort of magic properties people seem to believe it does, then Al Gore would have won in the sort of landslide that couldn't have been hidden by the sort of vote manipulation done in 2000. Slice it or dice it any way you wish, we have lost repeatedly with 'electable' candidates.

Bill Clinton had a major bimbo eruption and should have been, by the present calculus, completely un-'electable'. Yet he was the only Democrat re-elected in the latter half of the 20th century.

This is what has the repugs still angry with him.

Repugs have gotten away with calling us the party with "no moral values" for the last 25 years because we are not willing to stand up and fight for what we believe. Once again we are proving them right and will lose as a result.

[hippywife]

4. Electability~ The Media's Red Herring

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_4988.shtml

exerpt:

But whatever information the U.S. public receives about the Democratic presidential contenders will be filtered through the mainstream media—a process that focuses attention on the campaigns of the media’s choosing, to the exclusion of other candidates they deem not viable long before voters reach the polling booths.

Already, mainstream media outlets in the U.S., the owners of which will profit handsomely from the money spent by presidential candidates and their supporters on campaign advertisements, have shown a clear bias in their coverage of the 2004 Democratic primary race.

[wyldwolf]

6. Democrats and history, re: electability

...first, that was a clever post. Still some debate on whether he was "elected," though. Further, when speaking of electability, certainly different standards apply to Democrats and Republicans. In the "more moral than thou" world of the GOP today, someone could be percieved by Republicans as electable if they profess a strong belief in Jeeeeesus and say all Muslims should die or be converted to Christianity.

As far as democrats, it is a more complicated road, IMO. Look at the history:

In the 13 presidential elections since World War II (excluding the 2000 election, where the actual winner is still a matter of debate),

Democrats who were generally perceived as liberal won 3 presidential elections, and lost 6. Democrats perceived as middle-of-the-road won 4 elections and lost 1.

Democratic candidates from southern states won 4 times and lost once; those from mid-western and eastern states won once and lost 6 times. (The 1948 Truman victory is not included, since Missouri is both southern and mid-western.)

No Democrat ever won the presidency without winning at least 5 southern states.

Polls consistently show that the American people have more confidence in Republicans to manage our national security

Since 1948, the fraction of voters declaring themselves Democratic has declined from about 50% to about 30%. The Republican fraction has stayed constant at about 30%.

These historical data portend a grim 2004 race for Democrats. To win, the Democratic candidate will need everything going for him (alas, there are no longer any "her" possibilities this year). The ideal candidate will have southern roots, have strong national security credentials, and will not be generally perceived as a "standard democratic liberal". He will have to draw votes from outside of the basic Democratic base, and must win back those Democrats who are concerned with the dangers of a post 9/11 world.

-- Peter Stein is a member of the Ithaca Town Board and a Professor of physics at Cornell University.

[bryant69]

7. Electibility

I think this issue also obsuficates that fact that some people might look at Kerry and genuinely like his take on the issues and genuinely think he's the best man for the job.

It's kind of a way for more liberal candidates to take a dig at Kerry and his supporters--the assumption is that most Kerry Supporters would vote for their candidate if they thought he was electable, and would really rather have that guy.

Just an observation

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com