I object to electability arguments mainly because of their circular nature.

[redgreenandblue]

Supporting a candidate based on the fact that they are "electable" basically boils down to supporting the person who one believes other people will support because they also believe other will people support them, and so on ad infinitum. It is a little bit like investing into a "hot" stock that is going up simply because it is going up.

The problem with such trends is that they are true right up until they aren't.

[liskddksil]

1. Yep just ask Gore, Kerry and Hillary Clinton

all thought to be the most "electable" candidates.

[karynnj]

6. Both Gore and Hillary Clinton were the legacy candidate of a two term incumbent

The norm is that that is the VP, but it was clear as early as 2009, that HRC would likely be our nominee if Obama had two terms. The norm is that VPs of two term Presidents have an easy route to the nomination. There are exceptions - Cheney did not run and given the Bush popularity it would have made no sense and Biden. Until Clinton's favorability fell in early spring 2015 with the email mess, Biden was not even mentioned. Dealing with the illness and death of his son AND a burst of negative stories when he cautiously put a toe in the water, Biden backed away quickly.

Bill Bradley, a serious, well qualified alternative to Gore never won a single contest because in the Democratic party the consensus was that Gore's achievements as VP meant he deserved the nomination. That, not electability was the force for nominating him.

With Clinton, no strong alternative from the mainstream Democratic party ran. (O'Malley was as close to that as there was) Like with Gore, it was Clinton's history and accomplishments that led many to consider it was her turn. Many had fought hard for her in 2008 when she and Obama fought a tough race. There was also the emotion of finally getting a woman as President. While we wanted an electable nominee, that was not why she was favored. Late in the race, Bernie Sanders entered and he gained both people attracted to his different message or who did not want Hillary. Far too late and too cautiously, Biden sent out signals that he might be interested. If the entire issue was electability, there were polls showing he would do better head to head with the Republicans. (Not to mention, comparison of the then untested VP, to the besieged Clinton would have been unfair.)

As to 2004, Kerry far out preformed the fundamentals. Too many people were still bound to Bush as they were in the aftermath of 911. In addition, the economy - pumped by the Bush SEC changing the allowed leverage for banks from 12 to 44, which essentially flooded money into the markets. (This made the 2008 collapse more likely to happen and worse, but that was not obvious in 2004, when it was essentially a covert stimulation package done outside normal government spending or monetary policy.)

In 2004, before Iowa he absolutely was neither the party or media favorite in 2003. Leading into Iowa, Kerry's name surfaced most in discussions of when he would drop out. He won Iowa through retail politics. He, his family, his supporters etc convinced more and more Iowa voters to caucus for him.

He was seen as more electable than the others - after Iowa and NH - because he actually got more votes than the others. In addition, it was at that point, that Kerry polled better against Bush than the alternatives. My opinion is that none of the other alternatives could have done anywhere near as well as Kerry did. Had his vain, lame VP actually defended him as is the job of VPs rather than telling the media the campaign did not want to use him like that - after he promised the campaign to do just that, he might have done better enough to prevent Bush from stealing Ohio by suppressing the vote in cities.

Dean imploded on his own in the first two primary states in January 2004 as Iowa approached - losing support in Iowa and NH, even as the national media and national polls saw him as the frontrunner. In NH, he lost polling support to Clark when he entered. When Clark imploded by various unforced errors, those supporters went mostly to undecided and Kerry. After Iowa, the undecided went to Kerry, allowing him to pass Dean there too. Then Kerry won 5 of the 7 first multi state races in states Dean opted out of saying they were tough for a New Englander and he would reserve his resources for the next set of states.

It was at that point that the electable argument, which early on every campaign claims, was clearly an argument for Kerry. Having won 7 out of the first 9 contests and polling best against Bush, being called most electable was not something some omnipresent force awarded Kerry, but the fact that he either had the best run campaign or he was the best qualified candidate - or both.

That said, in the general election, Kerry was given unfiltered media ONLY for the debates and his convention. I seriously doubt that any of the other possible nominees could have equaled his ability and control at the debates. Those debates moved Kerry into position to pull off a huge upset in November. He had that momentum going into the last week until the Bin Laden tape was put out. At that point, he STILL would have won if Ohio had not suppressed the vote in cities.

As to this year, it is too early to say who is most electable. Not a single vote has been cast. In fact, there have been no debates. At this point, IF you were forced to say who is most electable, you would look at the head to head polls. Here Biden is doing the best, however, it is important to note that the vote for Trump against all of them is in a very narrow range. A large part of the difference in the margin is that unsure and not voting is higher for everyone except Sanders and Biden. Though not a scientifically defensible observation, this might reflect that the others are not as well known.

It is very possible that we could be in any of a number of scenarios after NH. If Biden easily wins both and is still the frontrunner, he will almost certainly be the winner. However, assume that Iowans coalesce mostly behind an alternative to Biden and that person wins Iowa with Biden second (or lower). At that point, THAT person will get the spotlight. She/he could parlay that victory into momentum that BOTH makes her/him the frontrunner AND show electability - as people actually vote for him/her.

Not to mention, "electability" in its real meaning is important. It is not a negative that these three, because of their merits, were seen as electable. It basically means that people could see them as President.

[JI7]

8. Gore and Clinton were clearly stolen

and Kerry was close.

Obama convinced people he was electable in order to win their votes.

[thesquanderer]

9. Many here felt HRC was not our most electable option. Very high negs outside the base. (n/t)

[Ace Rothstein]

12. The polls showed Bernie doing better head to head against Trump in 2016.

I wonder what the crossover is between the anti-Bernie crew then and those talking elect-ability now.

[thesquanderer]

13. Good point. It does seem that many pushing Biden's electability this time...

...were anti-Sanders that time, despite that polling.

[mtnsnake]

19. True, & many felt that Hillary was the only possible person who Trump would have a chance to beat

and that Trump was the only possible person who Hillary could possibly beat.

[Ron Green]

2. We don't need the MOST electable candidate;

We need the BEST electable candidate.

[mtnsnake]

18. Yes!!

You should post that as a thread.

[True Dough]

26. Ron Green

FOR PRESIDENT!!!

[sop]

27. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "electable is as electable does"

[EarnestPutz]

28. Rachel Maddow said, in an interview, that any talk of electability rather than...

....about supporting your candidate on the issues, is really counterproductive. Support someone because of their ideas and positions, the primaries will "elect" a candidate who will be, by definition, "electable".

[PDittie]

3. New Quinnipiac poll: Everyone beats Trump, because everyone is electable

We are a polarized nation, and as such, the actual candidates themselves hardly matter anymore. We could nominate a mealworm, and it would get numbers similar to these, according to the latest general-election matchup poll by Quinnipiac University:

Biden 53, Trump 40

Sanders 51, Trump 42

Harris 49, Trump 41

Warren 49, Trump 42

Buttigieg 47, Trump 42

Booker 47, Trump 42

The key here isn’t the Democrats’ number (those are mostly driven by name recognition): it’s Trump’s. He’s maxed out at 42%. And with universal name recognition and a polarized electorate, how does he rise above that?

[...]

Bottom line? Support whoever you like, and not because you think someone will or won’t run better against Trump.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/6/12/1864139/-New-Quinnipiac-poll-Everyone-beats-Trump-because-everyone-is-electable

[thesquanderer]

11. Though popular vote polls are pointless. "Electable" isn't based on the numbers you posted...

...but rather on who can win MI/WI/PA. Or some other combination of states that Hillary lost.

[PDittie]

44. At the link:

Of course, we don’t have a national election, but he barely squeaked through with a 3% popular-vote deficit in 2016. Even 4% down makes an Electoral College victory near impossible. Five percent or more? Forget it.

Meanwhile, Texas is competitive (thanks Beto!), while states like Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin look increasingly good for us. While this will still be a brutally difficult fight, it’s better to be us than him.

[thesquanderer]

45. Latest poll shows Biden beats Trump in TX... but Beto doesn't!

See Texas poll from Quinnipiac

former Vice President Joseph Biden has 48 percent to President Trump with 44 percent
Trump at 46 percent to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 45 percent;
Trump at 47 percent to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders at 44 percent;
Trump at 48 percent to former U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke with 45 percent;
Trump with 46 percent to South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg's 44 percent;
Trump at 47 percent to California Sen. Kamala Harris at 43 percent;
Trump with 46 percent and former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro at 43 percent.

But yes, point taken about how hard it would be to overcome really big popular vote deficits to still get an electoral college win... I don't know where it becomes literally impossible, though.

[Politicub]

4. Electability is only in hindsight anyway

Did the candidate win? Yes? Then they were electable.

Did the candidate lose? Yes? Then they were not electable.

I've seen enough seemingly electable candidates come and go over the years.

And then Barack Obama burst onto the scene. His win was unlikely, and I remember the same electability arguments about Clinton in 2008 that we're hearing today. He was electable -- twice. His strategy was harnessing the movement that was started before he ran. He expanded it and gave it a voice.

The primaries are the bellwether of someone's potential electability. That's about the best predictor we have, and it is often wrong. Either way, it's useless to base a vote solely on perceived electability.

[TryLogic]

46. I agree

[TCJ70]

5. I remember the arguments last time...

...and how Hillary was the most electable so if you had any sense you HAD to go with her. That didn’t work out so well...

[JI7]

7. she got millions more votes than everyone she ran against

and those running against her were supported by Russia while she was the target that was being attacked.

[TCJ70]

15. I get that she won the popular vote...

...but that isn't how we choose presidents.

[JI7]

16. foreign attacks on a candidate while they support others

is also not how to do it.

[marylandblue]

20. We can't control foreign attacks, so "electable" has to mean

whoever can win in spite of such attacks. But how do we know who that is or isn't until after the election?

[JI7]

30. we knew who it was before and who they were helping

[marylandblue]

31. I mean how do we know which candidate can survive a Russian attack.

You can build your house to survive an earthquake, but you won't know if your house is survivable until after the earthquake. And everyone else has the same problem.

[JI7]

33. the attack itself is an issue that shouldn't be dismissed

[thesquanderer]

10. And Obama was considered unelectable by many, because he's black.

I think we lucked out there, because I am not confident that Hillary would have beat McCain.

[JI7]

14. not true. the economic downturn was a huge thing then

Hillary got millions more votes in 2016 and was the target of the Russian attack on the elections which supported trump.

if Obama was running right now he would be leading.

[progressoid]

41. And with a Muslim sounding name.

[Hortensis]

17. :) All "agenda" posters are circular posters, keep

producing OPs with the same premises and goals, always for or against the same candidates, always arriving at back at the same conclusions, and then always starting all over again, and always arriving back at the same conclusions, always ... Circular = totally predictable.

If other favorites suddenly became "most electable," I would then expect a number of people on DU to reverse circle and start spinning in reverse.

[marylandblue]

22. Maybe some will do that, but I will never use the term "electable" in any positive sense.

Not because it's circular but because it is always a stand-in for something else. In Biden's case (depending on who you ask), it's a stand-in for well-known white blue-collar type from the rust belt. If that's who you want for candidate, then go ahead argue why they outweigh all other considerations. Don't pretend that those qualities are the only ones that matter, all other candidates need not apply, and nothing Biden may say or do makes any difference.

[Hortensis]

32. Really? And if Obama was one of our candidates? :)

Last edited Thu Jun 13, 2019, 04:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Would he be a discard because he wouldn't have the strongest appeal to white blue-collar misogynist bigots from the rust belt?

Most electable first and foremost means exactly what it means in its most basic sense. Almost all of us are putting winning first this

It's okay to not want Biden, if course. But I'd at least prefer it didn't suit you to imagine that 16 million Democrats, including most of our black voters, want to nominate a white conservative-leaning bigot anxious to turn the clock back to Ozzie and Harriet days.

The closest candidate, btw, would be Ohion, anti-Pelosi blue dog Tim Ryan; he doesn't just have the requisite rust belt, pro-union history, he's actually campaigning on your model, trying to appeal to those resentful white men who voted Trump because they'd OD'd on too much equality.

Unfortunate for your theory, Ryan is actually polling around 0% nationally.

[marylandblue]

34. I think you completely missed my point.

I don't mean that I want an experienced white male or whatever. I mean the term is used to privilege certain candidates over others based on supposed factors that the are thought to matter. It was used against Obama and in favor of Kerry.

The argument is often implicit, so it's unclear what is actually makes any candidate electable or not. Or it's so specific it fits only one candidate, but with no clear explanation of why that particular criteria was chosen. In some cases, it's used to exclude a certain candidate, such as saying, "I like Obama, but bigoted white people will never vote for him, so we need someone else."

Example: Biden is often said on DU to be electable because people want a return to normalcy. Well okay, but how does the speaker know that? They actually don't. What it really means is they themselves want a return to normalcy, that Biden himself is that return, and no other candidate is.

[Hortensis]

35. Maryland, of course certain characteristics go into

"electability." Scoring very high in "likeability" is one, being the second choice of a large majority of those who prefer someone else another. And all political terminology is used dishonestly by some agents to manipulate. Agree. Agree.

But you missed my point that I believe you are completely mistaken in believing

"it is always a stand-in for something else. In Biden's case (depending on who you ask), it's a stand-in for well-known white blue-collar type from the rust belt."

No. Sometimes it's just voters looking at the polls and saying, "That one." The one who's way up top every time by every criteria being measured. People thinking that way know that could change to someone else over time, just need whoever it is to be one of those on their acceptable list.

Speaking of, and of those who are not acceptable to me even if/because they are white male blue dogs who'd appeal to blue collar rust belt bigots and misogynists, Seth Moulton didn't make the first debates.

Btw, a significant factor in Biden's appeal is as a legacy of a "divisive" black male who'd bump him to second in a heartbeat if he were on the candidate list.

[marylandblue]

36. I believe you may be thinking of it that way, but I don't think most people are.

[Hortensis]

37. Okay. "Most people" want a white male who appeals to

white male bigots because they think that's what'll defeat Trump. Disagree as ignoring past elections, including the midterms, and as more than a little insulting to "most people," including 50% of our black bloc, and also to the current "most electable," but got it.

[marylandblue]

38. You do get it, but I'm not trying to be insulting to anyone.

Months ago we had some lively discussions about whether we really do need a white male this time around. The discussions died down, but I think few people changed their mind, they just stopped talking about it.

With Buttigieg in the race, there have been discussions about whether a homosexual can win.

It's not unreasonable to think along these lines, but it is controversial to say it out loud, so people use other reasons and ignore the ones that don't play as well.

Also, it's not necessarily bigoted. Experience and qualifications are often considered to make someone electable and that's both reasonable and uncontroversial. But it also flies in the face of real world data where less qualified candidates have beaten much more experienced candidates. 2008 and 2016 being the most recent examples, but not the only ones.

[Hortensis]

39. I understand and agree with most.

[BlueWI]

43. Have to agree with you here.

Conditions are too volatile to determine who's electible 6 months before the first caucus.

In establishing electibility, I don't think we account enough for the ability to assemble a good campaign and communications team. This is hard to know before primary season - how well does the candidate respond to the unexpected during the campaign? And does the candidate have a truly exceptional level of drive and focus to win the primary and general election?

It's way too early to tell who's the most electible, IMO.

[Honeycombe8]

21. Electability is often based on actual poll and donor numbers.

It would be hard to argue that Biden is unelectable, given his poll and donor numbers (at this time, anyway). However, when someone says that Buttigieg or Warren or Harris or Inslee are unelectable, that is backed up by the poll and donor numbers. It's simply pointing out what is staring us in the face. (I say this while still loving Buttigieg more than any other candidate, and while respecting and admiring Warren, who has surprised me.)

When someone has a big problem with "electability" arguments, it's usually because they are in love with a candidate, despite the low poll and donor numbers, and want everyone to switch candidates to the one they're supporting, so their numbers will go up, and will therefore become more electable.

Add to that some historical truths that tell us that certain traits in candidates are almost never successful, and never are successful when the candidate doesn't wow the voters with other traits, like irresistible charisma and smarts.

Whenever I run across denial among supporters of a candidate, I'm reminded of Dennis Kucinich. He had a passionate following, who insisted to the end that he was electable, if only everyone would support him. They didn't seem to notice that one of the indications that he was unelectable was that people were NOT supporting him, in the first place. His base maintained their passionate support to the end, refusing to give up, refusing to see the reality in front of them: that he would not be the nominee, and even if he made that, it was very unlikely that he'd win the general election. (Don't get me wrong. I liked Kucinich. He had some good ideas, was passionate about his issues, and said some things that needed to be said.)

Another example was Obama. Despite being mixed race, which caused some to think he couldn't win, I don't think I ever doubted that he had a good chance of winning. That was because he had so many of the traits that winners of Presidential elections had, that those overcame any negative about his race and experience. None of the other candidates had all those traits. Some that I recall noticing was his charisma. It was undeniable and electric. He was super articulate, gifted with the power of speech. He was brilliant, handsome, physically fit and slim, and tall. He had a great sense of humor, even about himself. It wasn't a slam-dunk, but it was clear to me that he was very electable, and the most electable of all the candidates.

Voters have a way of deciding on their own who they will support. That's reflected in the numbers (altho it's a little early to totally rely on the numbers yet.) Plus, it's valid for people to point out the traits of candidates who usually win the Presidential elections.

[marylandblue]

23. I don't think anyone argues that Biden is unelectable.

As you mentioned, it's too early to rely on polling anyway, which is what most people who support a different candidate say.

In addition to being too early anyway, Biden has the big advantage of name recognition, an advantage which will lessen as the other candidates become better known.

[Honeycombe8]

24. I agree. I was using Biden as an example.

It's a circular argument that some make, was my point.

"If only people would support my candidate, it would be proof that he's electable." They miss the fact that the mere fact that the candidate does NOT have more support, is proof he's NOT electable (if other candidates have more support.)

[LanternWaste]

25. What about trends that are true right up until they are?

Because, if we're going to reduce ourselves to unsupported bumper stickers and t-shirts slogans, we have to make sure something clever is written on the back as well...

I get that the concept of electability (sic) leaves a LOT of second- and third-tier under-performers out of the room, so it's immediately suspect by the supporters of those under-performing candidates (it's all coinky-dinky, I'm sure), but at least support your allegations with some objective evidence to allow it *some* credibility.

I object to gravity.
Unless I support that premise with some serious evidence, it sounds (at best) absurd.


(Hint: Anything for a Vote by Joseph Cummins, and A Magnificent Catastrophe by Edward J. Larson may assist you in propping up some very relevant knowledge you seem to be either ignoring or lacking)

[brooklynite]

29. I am able to make a determination as to who is electable and who is NOT

"Anything can happen" is a lazy cliche. Campaign message, financial resources, State targeting, competence of the staff...all are valid measures of electability.

[ColesCountyDem]

40. Being pragmatic about who has the best chance of being elected is no vice.

Although it sounds nice, "everyone is electable" is just not true. Name recognition, finances, etc. all contribute to elecability, and there are some candidates who just aren't going be able to put together all the puzzle pieces. If we want to take back the White House and, possibly, do so in such a convincing manner that we add to our Congressional, gubernatorial and legislative numbers across the country.

I like something about every candidate currently running, so I won't trash any of them, but me choosing to support a candidate because I think they're more electable than the rest doesn't make me an enemy of our party, or any member of it.

[reACTIONary]

42. You aren't suggesting that we....

..... support someone who ISN'T electable, are you?

[TryLogic]

47. "Electability" during primary season amounts to following the crowd. Not usually a great idea.

Primary voters should make their own judgments about who would make the best president at this time in history. But that also includes an assessment of who can out fight Trump or whoever the Repub candidate is.

PS: In the stock market, following the crowd is called momentum investing. It often works -- temporarily. It is fairly high risk. Longer term, it is the company with good products, good fundamentals, and good management that does well. Primary season is like investing. We must invest wisely. Good fundamentals for a president are what? Brains, good judgment, integrity, skills of persuasion.

Who will make the best president at this time in history?

Who can we trust to do what is right, good, necessary?