What does 'electability' mean?

[Mairead]

What creates 'electability'? Where is it located? Was Smirk 'electable'? Why? Was Gore? Why? If someone doesn't get elected, were they ever 'electable'? Why?

[EagleEye]

1. If you get the votes you are electable.

[revcarol]

2. And no vote

has yet been held on any of our candidates.

[10digits]

8. Hoaray!!!!

All the contests are next year! The Democratic party has laughed 10 torpedos on that ship of fools,at least one will sink it.
It is very important that all stay in because the hopefulls show how our party is America.

[Ninga]

5. In the case of 2004....

Electability means giving the independent voter, the fickle voter, the GOP women voters, the men who are looking for a president who will sit down and have a beer with them voters, a reason to vote for a Dem.

Believe it or not, the beginning of BUSH TOAST is gaining a ground swell.

I live in a very, very REPGUG town. I am hearing small, ugly and distasteful comments about * from the very people who elected him. Between Iraq and upper middle management folks losing their jobs, I have NEVER EVER heard disparing comments like I have heard in the past 2 months.

Manufacturing loss is killing this country, and * just doesn't get it.

GO to the grassroots and listen very,very carefully and you will hear the sound of toasters being engaged with deliberate and decisive slams.

[DemoVet]

3. As of 2000

it seems to mean that your political allies make the voting machines, your brother is the governor of the state that somehow gives you the electoral votes you need, and your daddy's hand-picked Supreme Court gives you the presidency despite the fact that most of the voters didn't pick you.

[annak110]

4. It used to be, back in the Raygun era and for a time before Raygun

that the pundits would squall and squeal about candidates "looking
Presidential". Imagine using that description on the current occupant of the White House!

[clar]

6. Electability

is an elusive quality, but some elements are clear. To be electable you need money. Americans place weight on executive experience. At this time in history, foreign policy experience and a strong defense stance are also necessary. Charisma, whatever that is, plays into electabiliy as well. The electable candidate needs to either fit into the prevailing zeitgeist, or to create a new one. The latter being a daunting, and perhaps impossible task. Organization is vital, as is being reasonably telegenic.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

27. It seems to me

That out of your list Money is the only thing that Bush had going for him. Perhaps the more important word to define in that case is 'selectability'. That seems more to be about controling the voting machines and SCOTUS judges.

[dweller]

7. a right wing talking point,

in other words, a fiction meant to be taken for a fact.

ie, after the debates in Ca the other nite, they were interviewing audience for opinion. one woman spoke of mclintock's presence, style, his ideas (all positive) and then said, 'but he's not electable' and so said she'd vote arnold....:wtf:


dp

[Clovis Sangrail]

10. Not a talking point

Charisma, race, trustworthiness, sex, economics... take your pick.

Ultimately, it's not about issues. It's about being popular enough to win a majority.

I think that CMB is one of the best candidates running, but I won't be voting for her because I don't think she is 'electable'.
This isn't because she isn't a better choice than *, but because I think there are enough mysoginist crackers that a white male stands a far better chance of winning.

It may be amorphous, but 'electability' is a reality.

[dweller]

14. I still disagree

unless he's under 35 years old and foreign born, he's electable. So's anyone else (unless already 'elected' 2 terms) that meets your criteria.
If you want CMB to be president, YOU create the 'electability' by voting for her. It's the vote that elects her, not her amorphous qualities. That is only your pyschological tendency to fill in and interpret what your senses are receiving from her energy.

Using electability IS a ploy, you fall for it if you wish, but I will not.

peace,
dp

[roughsatori]

9. It is a right-wing code word: notice whose supporters use it here

and who they are supporting.

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. Money from AIPAC, corporations and corporate PACs

nt

[loyalsister]

12. When I use it

I'm referring to a candidates potential to attract a plurality of voters. Some have more or less of that potential than others because of wide ranging factors.
It is my personal belief that Bush and Gore were basically both elected in 2000, since it was a statistical tie.
One of the largest things that Rove did with * that worked to make him elecatable was to shape his public image. The guy came off looking practically populist (in the sense of "of the people") because they created an illusion that he is somehow an ordinary joe who just wants what is best for the country. They did this by playing up the stupid sounding speech and good 'ol boy crap. They had their dream come true when the Democrats started calling him too "dumb" to get elected. That was interpreted by a lot of people as "a regular guy can't get elected." It's too bad so few people look into things like campaign expenditures. But, money makes a huge difference.
Gore was obviously also electable. Possibly would have done better against someone with whom he could match wits without being perceived as "arrogant" or "elitist" (The genius of Roves strategy is that it plants those qualities. Gore is none of those things and would never have had that appearance against someone who was running on a platform that said he was actually qualified to do the job. He was the perfect candidate for Bush to go up against with the afore mentioned strategy. He comes off as very intellectual. It would never have worked with Clinton.
So, both were electable. Bush is still electable. There is no telling what Rove will have up his sleeve this time. That was enough to get * in, but I think he'll have to come up with something else for reelection. The other candidates are going to have to watch for it. The thing that sucked for Gore is that I truly believe that by the end of it they had no idea what hit them. It would have taken some serious creativity to counter that. Rove is pretty much stuck with the animal he has created, now. Aside from a little tweaking here and there, there's not a lot he can do. The problem is, Bush doesn't seem like a helpless twit anymore. His arrogance has been the hallmark of his presidency. With him it's not a matter of contrast.
As for our candidates, I think some are more electable to the presidency than others for this election. I don't think that they are equally capable of attracting a plurality.

[Mairead]

16. Well, well. I think I just learnt something about you. I'd wondered, but

didn't feel completely sure.

'It was a statistical tie' is one of the lies the GOP uses to try to justify their coup. Elections in a democracy aren't decided on the basis of statistics. They're decided on the basis of counting the votes, not sampling them. There must be at least a one-vote difference in order to have an outcome. So Gore and Bush were not 'both elected' because 'both elected' only happens where there are 2 seats open.

Why would any Democrat say something like that?

[loyalsister]

19. step back

and try to look at the numbers objectively- outside of the emotional context of the situation.
NUMERICALLY any idiot knows that the recognized recorded result was a statistical tie. The 500 votes was within the margin of error.
How on earth is that positive for Bush?
I should have put "elected" in quotes. What I meant was that by the original number of votes sampled, they both came out with an equal chance of being the person who got the most votes. They both had an equal chance of taking another sample and coming out on top. That never changed during the recount. Both could have come up with the right sample and pulled it out. Research has born that out time and again.
I think we know that sample selection was was going to be a matter of luck. If Gore had counted the whole state, or if he had started looking at overvotes, he would have won.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but elections ARE decided on the basis of statistics. In every election many votes are not counted. The votes that are counted are always a sample of votes cast.
The rebuttal coming from someone who hasn't thought it through--"Why vote then?"
Answer: Because, increasing sample size is the best way to get the most accurate result possible.
And, from that point of view you can see negligence in the Supreme Court ruling because they were unwilling to increase sample size.
Bush did steal the election by disenfranchisment. My comments refer only to official counted votes and the sampling process.

[Mairead]

22. Sorry, you're wrong -- elections are decided by counting, not sampling

Sometimes votes aren't counted, that's true. But that is aberrant behavior; a failure within the process or a crime. It is absolutely not the canonical process. The canonical process accepts the vote from every qualified and interested person, and counts them accurately.

You show me an elections manual for any jurisdiction in the USA that says anything to the effect of 'the outcome will be decided by evaluating a random sample of the votes cast' and I'll show you a gigantic public-interest lawsuit.


(edit) Oh, and the 'recognised recorded result' in the case of Florida 2000 was the result of several crimes, signally the illegal disenfranchisement of thousands of voters. Claiming that it was impossible to count all votes is another GOP talking point--why would a real Dem repeat it? The number of votes in any election is finite, and they can be counted. The number counted might differ from the number cast because some that were cast were destroyed or hidden as the result of incompetence or criminality, but it is always possible to get an accurate count of all votes that can be found. There was only the infamous 500 vote difference in Florida because counting was ordered stopped. Democracy was subverted, and a coup d'etat took its place.

[loyalsister]

23. Idealistic theory

is for dreamers.

"'the outcome will be decided by evaluating a random sample of the votes cast' and I'll show you a gigantic public-interest lawsuit."

Ignore reality if you want. The fact of the matter is, all votes are run through the machine or scanner and there is an attempt to count them. But, the facts of life are that sometimes there are mistakes when dealing with massive amounts of material.
There is a great deal of voter error. Some county clerks will try to catch it. The ballot problem in FL was a result of using a crappy card punch system.
That doesn't quite translate into your statement.
You can definitely make an argument for incompetence or negligence on the part of the people responsible for handling the preparations for the election. They ran a terrible election there.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[loyalsister]

25. Gee

I wonder what I was doing knocking on all those doors campaigning for my Democratic Representative last year. Or what I'm going working with my Democratic elected officials right now to fight against the Republicans on health care and other issues. What was I doing at the capitol all those days lobbying for the wrong issues and the wrong people? Where did I lose my way???

[Mairead]

26. You lost your way when you started using GOP talking points

They say something about you.

[loyalsister]

31. The reality of numbers

are not GOP talking points. As a matter of fact, you could turn it around.
We clearly had an unacceptable margin of error. We were looking for a larger sample of votes to get a more acceptable margin of error. Clearly, we wanted Gore to win, but many of us would have felt slightly more comfortable with the result if * had had a convincing lead after at least a larger count.
The fact is that a larger sample (remember part of the reason there aren't as many votes as we want available is because a lot of people don't vote) was available and that fact was overlooked by the SC when there was an unacceptable margin of error. They ignored the reality of numbers as much as you are.
It's the GOP that likes to ignore facts when they make their assesments.

[hey2370]

13. In regards to Dean...

I think his detractors mean that too many voters will be turned off by some or all of these facts:

1) He has a Jewish wife and his kids were raised in that religion

2) He is shorter than Bush, possibly Dukakis short (i.e. possible height joke potential)

3) He signed gay rights into law in Vermont

4) He is not a Southerner, unlike the last three elected Dem Presidents (Gore, Clinton, Carter)

If I missed something, please list it.

[DrFunkenstein]

20. To Be Honest, The Biggest Problem For Dean

Is that he seems unstable at a time when people's foremost concern is security in every sense. The fact that Dean is actually a centrist doesn't mean much to average Americans, because he comes off as a radical.

I have seen footage of Dean looking absolutely rabid. I can show you tons of pictures where he looks seriously scary.

I just don't think people are going to vote for someone that appears too hot-headed. The debate at Pace reinforced that for me. Dean couldn't control himself and wait for Gephardt to finish. Can you imagine him during a debate with Rove's brainchild?

Much more importantly, how do you think he is going to look down the barrell of $200 million of TV ads showing him looking like he wants to bite off somebody's head? Want a preview?

http://www.gop.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/TLvideo2.htm

I suggest playing it Full Screen to get the true effect.

[Speck Tater]

15. Electability is simply this...

Having a candidate who can fire up the passion of those voters who usually sit out election day in front of the TV set watching reruns of Seinfeld instead of voting.

Having a candidate who makes the average person feel like it's worth while to go out and vote.

Having a candidate who makes the average person feel involved in the political system.

Having a candidate exactly like Howard Dean, clearly the MOST electable candidate in the field.

[davhill]

17. Electable means president of everybody

An electable candidate is one who can reach across party lines, beyond ideology, and convince a broad selection of the populus that they will feel well represented. A president has to work with, and be respected by Democrats, Republicans and independents. Most Americans intensely dislike partisan politics. They look for someone who will rise above it. This is what Bob Graham meant when he stated he was from the "electable wing" of the democratic party. Unfortuanately, in pouncing on Bush's new weakness Democrats are in danger of mistaking it for a mandate, just as he mistook his 2000 "election" as a mandate.

[loyalsister]

33. Agree

Bush faked it. He pulled off one of his biggest frauds in his campaign, by turning himself into an "average Joe."
He convinced a lot of people that he was very ordinary. Dammit!! Sometimes he can't get those big words right. He jogs, goes out and plays with his dawg, cuts wood, had some trouble with liquor once (you can bet some people related to that rather than found it repulsive, especially because his wife was about to leave him), etc.
Agrees with some things Democrats say. "He got a patients bill of rights passed." puke!!, "All crimes are hates crimes, and we kill people who kill African-Americans in Texas, by-God!"
Hands out dollar bills to "average people" in the crowd.
Our problem in 2004 is whether or not he has been truly exposed, or can he put on a "campaign hat" and be that cartoon of a populist again? He pulls off baits and switches dangerously well.
It may be tricky.

[LWolf]

18. Electability means fear.

Doubt.

It means giving up your goals and direction to make sure you "win." I don't think that's a "win."

It's a campaign tool used to feed doubt and fear, so that the choices become narrower.

[arissa]

21. Electable is whoever can look the most like a Republican

And run the center-right on every issue and continue pushing the country to the right and has no problem saying "I agree" 80% of the time when debating Bush and is a general coward unable or unwilling to stand up for what they believe in and passionately advocate for their positions rather than chasing the made-up center-vote that the media has brainwashed the entire country, including many on the left, into thinking will only elect a conservative.

[tsipple]

28. I Think Bush is Unelectable

He's way too conservative and right wing for voters.

So there!

[LWolf]

29. I agree.

I think he's going down. I think we can beat him with any of our current crop of candidates. It's up to us to run a smarter, better campaign. But with his record, if we can't take him out...

[dpbrown]

30. Interesting website on electability

Decide for yourself:

http://www.fluxrostrum.com/MindFlux/DennisKucinich/electable-candidates.htm

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[w4rma]

32. electability is a euphemism for ability to competitively fund raise (n/t)

[dpbrown]

34. That's a good definition

But doesn't completely reflect the circular notion of how the notion of "electability" feeds the ability to fund-raise. Nevertheless, it's one of the best definitions I've seen.