Electability...

[KaraokeKarlton]

I'm really curious how someone who has never been elected before can be more "electable" than someone who has won 10 or so consecutive elections?

Seriously, I'm thoroughly sick of hearing that "so and so isn't electable" when they've probably won more elections than all the other candidates.

:shrug:

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

1. Of the lot

John Edwards is probably most electable to the majority of voters.

But he won't win the nomination, so we'll never know.

[KaraokeKarlton]

4. How so?

How many elections has Edwards won that proves he can win?

Dean has won at least 10 in a row.
Clark hasn't won any.

I like Edwards and although I don't think he's going to win the nomination, I think he might be offered VP. I would prefer to see him as Attorney General, though. I think if he becomes VP he'll sort of get lost in the shuffle and not really stand out much, but as AG, he could really shine brightly and show his stuff.

[Democrats unite]

9. How many times was Bush elected ?

Twice as Govenor, & none as pResident, but look where he's at.

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. Electable = Southern.

It's that simple.

Spin it any way you want, that's what it comes down to.

And it stinks.

[JVS]

3. Carter was Southern and Reagan kicked his ass

[Davis_X_Machina]

5. It's not a convertable proposition.

'All electable candidates are southern' is not the same thing as 'All southern candidates are electable'.

In a flat-footed tie I'd vote for Dean every time because he's not a southerner.

There's something profoundly undemocratic about declaring two-thirds of the country ineligible for the production of Presidents.

[JVS]

7. Hell yeah. Especially when it means ignoring the Democratic...

homeland, so to speak

[KaraokeKarlton]

8. You don't have to be southern to win

You just have to actually go to the south and make the effort to win their votes. Too many politicians buy into the old wives tale that you need a southerner or the south won't vote for the ticket. So most non-southerners just ignore the south. Then there's all the silly bias against the south that offends southern voters. We're all the same regardless of what part of the country we live in. We care about the same things. I've lived in the south and the people there are great, just like everywhere else.

[dave29]

17. Ok that's it

You need to run for office, seriously. You are the most sane poster on this messageboard. I'd vote for you in a heartbeat :)

:loveya:

[KaraokeKarlton]

19. Why thank you

I might consider it when my kids get a bit older. I actually was thinking about it a couple of months back, but decided it's not a good time. Someday, though. ;)

[DemOutWest]

6. In regards

to the Presidential race is what I think is meant. How does one candidate stack up against another.

No matter the candidate, they will have the best campaigners working on there behalf. So Wes Clark can win against Bush as easily as Dean.

I think the word "electability" is wrong to use in the context it's being used.

Who can beat Bush? Who can go toe to toe with Bush and Rove?

Personally I think Trippi and Dean can do it. I think Clark and Lehane (the Democrat Rove) can do it. John Kerry and Shaheen can do it.

Any Dem is electable if we concentrate on getting Bush out of government. All Bushes.

[stinkeefresh]

10. hooray for this post and all posts like it!

[cthrumatrix]

11. I agree ...Dean does have this advantage over Clark...even a sane person

like Madonna knows this (oops...well ...she will catch on)

[John_H]

12. Uh, He's a better candidate?

The new and easy 2004 electability math:

(National security Advantage for Chimp) - (National security Advantage for Chimp) =(Traction Dem Social Issues in campaign)

Result: President Clark

(National Security Advantage for Chimp) + (No response that will fly with media-scared public) = (no traction of Dem social issues in campaign)

Result: President Chimp

[Davis_X_Machina]

13. Both scenarios elect a southern Republican. n/t

[bowens43]

14. There is little difference between the results in your scenario.

If we have to elect a neocon to oust a neocon why bother?

[KaraokeKarlton]

20. If we focus on National Security Bush is going to win anyhow

Stop and think for a minute. Seriously think. When you are running against an incumbent you do NOT allow them to frame the debate. That's political suicide. Nominating Clark, for instance, would be totally reactionary to what Democrats THINK Bush and Rove are going to do. Clark has so far just gone along with what everyone else is talking about. Dean is being the trend setter and has been framing the debate for months now. No one has been able to prevent him from doing that. Dean has a phenomenal domestic record which is what voters care about MOST because that's what affects them most closely and immediately. Dean is able to hammer it home how he is better than Bush in all these areas. He will make the debate about Bush's weaknesses, not his perceived strengths. Running Clark would be weak because Democrats would just be saying "Bush might be strong on Defense, but so are we." That gives Bush the edge simply because he IS the incumbent. Clark has NO political record to show where he's better at anything else.

Dean can frame the debate, Clark highlights Bush's ONLY strength. I'd rather see us show everyone his weaknesses and offer a clear, concise alternative.

[deminflorida]

15. Here's your Answer....

Eisenhower...Two Terms...

[jmaier]

16. I think there is no

a priori way of defining electibility for a Presidential candidate other than to tally up some possible handicaps and try to weigh how those might be perceived by a general electorate.

Certainly a track record of winning non-Presidential records doesn't shed much light since this has been true of pretty much every losing candidate for as long as I can remember. Dole, Mondale, McGovern and the like were virtually unassailable in the non-Presidential elections. Didn't help them too much.

People appear not to make 'deep' decisions about their Presidential vote by and large -- they will respond based upon prejuidice, misperception, buzz, etc. The key to winning, not necessarily picking the best person, btw appears to be:

- find a strong person who has a good 'likeability' index
- has a minimum number of issues that can be sold as negatives to a wide base of voters
- gets a strong positive response among the core voting block

THEN attacking the OTHER SIDE like hell to pigeonhole them with the negatives. LOL

[dave29]

18. yes that is the usual way

I do believe there is a paradigm shift underway, however, in how we elect candidates. The effect may not be that large - and it isn't necessarily only Dean who benefits from it - but the internet is proving to be a powerful political and fundraising tool. This has thrown a wrench into the usual election cycle this year.

We'll see how it plays out.