Do You Agree With What Margaret Carlson Wrote About "Electability'?

[McCamy Taylor]

Margaret Carlson wrote this about the topic of "electability".

“The more a frontrunner's status is premised on electability, the more a candidate forgoes appealing to old- fashioned voters who still care about where you stand and who you are, in favor of nailing down those who just want to get over the messy primaries. Forget about falling in love and just fall in line, the better to unite against the real enemy on the other side.

“Electability is less stable than being ahead based on leadership, likeability and standing on the issues.”

Just curious if DUer's agree or disagree. Is electability important? Is the desire to get it over with and unite against the common enemy overrated? Should we pay more attention to leadership and standing and the issues?

Please give reasons for your opinion.

[frazzled]

1. Well, "electability" is not usually a stand-alone concept

A candidate's electability is most often based on his/her "leadership, likeability, and standing on the issues." So it's a kind of curious logic Margaret is using here.

I mean, generally, I agree--but only if someone not very likeable, with few leadership skills and unpopular stands on the issues is somehow claimed to be most electable. Then, in that case, I'd say the other factors trump electability. (snark)