The Big "E"

[bluegargantua]

So, I've been hearing a lot recently among democratic candidates about "electability" -- the idea that there's this magic something that makes you appeal to voters and will get you the votes you need to win.

And I realized this weekend that it's a complete non-issue.

Why? Because, technically speaking, Democrats won the election -- the popular vote anyway. This time around there's no Green Party spoiler and the people who voted for Nader are unlikely to vote for Bush. Further, I think that the Florida debacle followed by these past four years have really polarized the electorate (I mean, even more so). There's a hell of a lot of people who'd rather see a Yellow Dog in office than see Bush re-elected. "Electability" isn't really a factor here -- just try not to be a complete drooling idiot and you've probably got at least 50% of the populace lined up to vote for you.

True, it's not a popular vote, it's an electorial dealie so there's some merit in saying that you need to attract voters from all states because you can't just count on California to carry you to victory, but still -- the four leading Democratic candidates are all viable enough. I don't much care for Kerry, but if he's the opposition, he's probably getting my vote because he's the lesser of two evils. Which, I admit, sucks as far as voting policy goes, but it's a case of political triage.

Tom

[EDIT: I could not, in good conscience, vote for Lieberman if he were the Democratic Candidate -- have you seen him? The guy is Senator Palpatine! Even in this time of peril for our republic, I can't vote for Palpatine.]

Comments

[motomuffin.livejournal.com]

I'd sooner vote for a baloney sandwich than George W. Bush.

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

I can think of few demcrats for the Northeast I like less than Kerry. Okay, except for Liberman. But I'd still vote for him for President over Bush. And I haven't voted once for Kerry as senator.

[shogunhb.livejournal.com]

Come to think of it, this could be the perfect opportunity for the Democratic party to force through a less appealing character. A lot of people are going to knee jerk vote for anyone other than Bush. Hmmm... Maybe they will get us to vote for a rutabega.

Interesting tactic.

[dervishspin.livejournal.com]

Perhaps we should create a new political movement. The ARBBA movement.
Any Rutabega But Bush Again movement.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

The problem is that electorally things are weighed differently - Arnold is now governor of CA. Bush will have 20% of the electoral votes just with Texas, California, and Florida; he'll undoubtedly carry the states with big military contracts. Whatever Democrat is selected will need to carry practically every other single state in order to make it a close race... "electability" is actually another word for "appeal" - the Dem candidate will have to appeal to the majority of votes in practically 30-35 states...

[bluegargantua]

I believe it's winner-take-all. So you win California, you get all the Electorial votes, not just a portion of them. Yeah, they do need some appeal, but honestly, it's not quite the huge deal they make it out to be.

Tom

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

It is winner take all. That's why the three states that Bush will carry are so important. You have to carry around ten other states just to make up for those three... and then it's a battle for the remaining 37, but Bush doesn't need to have as much broad appeal.

[bluegargantua]

I don't think he'll carry California. Arnold's election doesn't mean the state's gone GOP. Mass. consistently votes Democrat even though our Govenor is Republican.

Tom

[buddhagrrl.livejournal.com]

I think Bush is as likely to win California as he is to win Massachusetts, which is to say not very.

I can't stand the waiting. I want it to be November. If bush wins I expect I'll be locked in my bathroom crying and puking at the same time, and possibly clawing out my eyeballs. I can't stand this amount of anxiety being built up for so many months - let's just get it over with!

[umbran.livejournal.com]

...just try not to be a complete drooling idiot and you've probably got at least 50% of the populace lined up to vote for you.

Hm. Considering that until only recently, the polls all showed Bush beating the democratic candidates, I think you're oversimplifying.

Yes, Gore got the most popular votes in 2000. But not by much. And many folks look at the economic uptrend as a positive thing for Bush. While many people are against his foreign policy, many are also for it - it makes them feel safe and strong.

So, while the Democrats probably have a better shot at the White House than one usually does against an incumbent, it is hardly a "sure thing".

Even if it was a sure thing, though, you shouldn't treat it as if it were. The fastest route to failure is through over-confidence and complacency.

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

I would not trust so blindly that the 48% that voted for Gore last time will automatically jump on board. All the polls show any Democrat losing to bush with only 40-43% of the vote. Faithful democrats don't make up 48% of the population (though neither do faithful Republicans). Gore got the majority by winning moderate voters over.

The things we identify as so abhorent about Bush's administration are just distasteful or unfortunate to some moderates and they may not be willing to give up the security issue that Bush is going to try to pound into the ground. True, if things go poorly as the election progresses the not-Bush votes may become a majority, but it's not something you can trust.

The one alternative to snagging moderate votes that you should consider is a larger than average democratic turnout. There are probably lots of people in those evenly split states like Florida that were kicking themselves for not voting last time and won't make the same mistake. Additionally if one of the candidates can energize the left's voting pool enough the moderates won't be as important (I'm mainly looking at Dean for this, though his showing in Iowa wasn't very impressive).

Also, as liberal as I am, I wonder if a far left candidate would really be beneficial. The country has become EXTREMELY partisan and a far left candidate (despite being morally good rather than morally evil) will likely continue that polarization.

[kadath.livejournal.com]

The Palpatine resemblance is merely the universe's way of telling us that Lieberman is a fascist who happens to be wearing a Democrat suit.

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

Well peaseblossom has always wished to join a rebel alliance, so maybe I'll vote for Liberman to give her the opportunity.

[purly.livejournal.com]

yes, yes he is. And I will not vote for that dope.

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

But Senator Palpatine is a good and kind man. He didn't want the position, but when duty calls one must step up and fulfill their obligations to Force and Empi- er.. Republic.

That Darth Sideous guy looks like he's up to no good though. I hope Mr. Palpatine finds out about him in time to protect the Republic from his evil influences.

re: palpatine

[buddhagrrl.livejournal.com]

*LoL*

Lieberman looks like my dad.

I only just realized that that means my dad looks like Palpatine.

Gah.

Re: palpatine

[bluegargantua]

Does that make you Mara Jade?

maybe?
Tom

[pawo.livejournal.com]

I think that the people who despise Bush so much that they'd vote for just about anyone else rather than Bush are a fairly small minority of the voters in this election. I don't think most (or even relatively many) Americans see George W. Bush as a great villain.

If the Democrats nominate an ineffectual candidate, Bush will win. There really are quite a number of people who haven't yet made up their minds how they're going to vote in November.

[My Sci-Fi dream ticket is Lieberman/Clark. Two references in one!]