What is more important in a candidate: Electability or His/Her Plans for America?

[Colobo]

Which one is more important for you when voting in a Presidential Primary?

[yurbud]

1. some combination thereof. No point in voting for a candidate who will screw you when they win

or a person with all the right ideas who can't get through the corporate gauntlet.

[Colobo]

3. But ultimately, what is more important?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. The Answer Is In Your Question.

It's a mutually exclusive proposition; one of the few mutually exclusive propositions in politics... If you don't win , you can't do diddly squat...

[yurbud]

14. and if you can survive the corporate filter, you WON'T do diddly squat

[dogman]

26. It has to be a combination plus.

The greatest plans are really meaningless if they cannot be enacted. Electability is a sign of popularity. which lends to strength in pushing the agenda. We hear a lot of grandiose plans that will never come to be during a campaign, not just because the candidate is not sincere, but because they cannot lead or build a concensus. Just as might does not make right, right does not make might. That is why a record and experience do matter.

[Greyhound]

2. For the first time in a long time, plans. Unless we nominate Hitlers ghost, the next

President will be Democratic.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Look At The 1976 Election

Jimmy Carter ran against the handpicked vice president of a disgraced president, in the aftermath of Watergate, had a thirty three percent post convention lead, watched his opponent make a crucial gaffe in the debates, and would have lost his bid for the presidency if 30,000 votes in Ohio and Hawaii went the other way...

I'm not taking anything for granted...

[yurbud]

28. I think this is what spooks Dems about impeachment--possible success then public amnesia

when the election rolls around. Even if Bush & Cheney were removed, the instant the helicopter left the White House lawn, the only people who cared about their crimes would be the handful of people who are students of history, and they are statistically insignificant in the US apart from from blacks who remember Jim Crow and slavery, and Southern whites who are still mad they lost the Civil War. For everybody else, even last Tuesday is ancient history.

[yurbud]

15. top three sound progressive until you read corporate protecting & enriching details

Case in point is Hillary's health insurance reform, which sounds remarkably similar to the pile of shit Arnold is trying to push on us here in CA.

Since the problem is some people can't afford health insurance, somehow REQUIRING that they buy it will make everything okay.

[maximusveritas]

5. Do you mean electabilty in the primary election or general election?

If it's the former, I do place some importance on it since I want my vote to make a difference. If it's the latter, I don't place any importance on it since it's really impossible to gauge at this early stage.

[Ninga]

6. Winning is not enough. It must be a landslide and must represent change, other wise

it doesn't matter.

If the vote is close enough to show the country is still divided, then the GOP does not have to move off it's mark and cooperate.

So if who ever the nominee is....can not convert their primary win into a landslide in Nov.....we will have more of the same, and the difficulty the new president will have, will also cost seats in the off year elections.

[RufusTFirefly]

7. "Electability" is B.S.

A candidate must inspire the electorate.
"Electability" is a straitjacket that almost guarantees the dullest, "safest" candidate.
Who believes that Dubya was truly electable?
An alcoholic draft-dodger fuckup with the brains of banana slug. Yup. That's the ticket.
How come the Rethugs never talk about "electability"? My guess is because they simply by-pass the electoral process.
They did it twice with Dubya. They're going to do it again.

[TexasProgresive]

8. I say electability first because if the candidate can't get

elected then the plans for America don't mean squat. That said I would hope that most if not all of our candidates have fairly good plans for America. Any of them would be better then the best Repuke president.

[CK_John]

10. Your question is sort of like, "Who is more important?", the person who sells cars or

the person who builds the cars to be sold. By the way this is also the underlining foundation for the political differences of our two party system.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Yeah

You can make the greatest car in the world but what good is it if people don't want to buy it or salespeople can't sell it...

You can have the greatest plans in the world for America but what good are they if a plurality or majority don't want to execute them...

[iamjoy]

11. Define Electability

Is Obama electable? Certainly he lacks the "baggage" that many of the other candidates have, but the Republicans are vicious. I hate to say it, but after what they did to Harold Ford in Tennessee, I believe they will the same subtle but slimey racist tactics with Obama. Or, they'll use his name against him. I wish I had more faith that Americans were smart enough not to fall for it.

Is Edwards electable? He's got his own baggage - made his own dumb statements, done stupid things. No lack of fodder there.


Is Hillary electable? On the one hand I say, way too much baggage. On the other hand, she is used to fighting and winning.

[Colobo]

12. In a way, the best assets of our candidates are their plans for America.

[stray cat]

16. Both of course.

[LWolf]

17. His/Her plans for America.

There is no point in electing someone with a bad plan just because you can.

At least electing the man with the plan gets the plan "on the table."

Man or woman, of course.

[demommom]

19. I'm selfish, I want both.

[Think82]

18. TheCandidate with the best of both:

BIDEN

watch this at the 1hr 48 min mark:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&cPath=6_12&products_id=201086-1&tID=5&highlight=

[Clintonista2]

20. Electability, for sure

Even the most conservative democrat would be better than the most liberal republican. Unless a serious third-party system were to arise, you must take the lesser of two evils. The alternative is greater evil.

[Forkboy]

21. I worry that some want to win for the sake of winning.

And not so much for what they would do afterwards.

[Clintonista2]

23. I'm sure nobody picked up on who you were referring to...

:eyes:

The truth is, regardless of what people on DU say about Hillary, she would make a better president than ANY Republican candidate, EVER. Think about the past 7 shitty years. If Hillary was president, do you think that ANY of that shit would have happens?

[Forkboy]

24. Actually, I was referring to certain types of supporters for all the candidates.

Not the candidates themselves.

So I guess people can't pick up on who I was referring to. :shrug:

[AZBlue]

22. Couldn't vote - mine's a combination of the two, not just one or the other.

They are both important factors, sad to say.

[beaconess]

25. If they have the right plans for America, they WILL be electable! nt

[1932]

27. Winning is obviously the most important thing in politics.

[Sparkly]

29. Tough one. I suppose the plans don't matter if the person doesn't win the election.

So the plans I'd LIKE to see in play aren't necessarily the ones that enough others would support to provide a victory. (Did that sentence make sense?)

I also think there is sooooo much emphasis on candidates' "plans" that it has to be remembered that they are "proposals." The CONGRESS is key to what actually happens. So our state and local elections are VERY important, too!!

[ginchinchili]

30. What good are their plans if they can't get elected?

Since I think every Democratic candidate that's running is capable, I'd have to side with electability on this oversimplified question.