Many Democrats and liberals are fixated on one question regarding the 2020 primary: Who can beat Donald Trump? Dave Weigel reports that even some Democratic women are leaning towards Joe Biden because the 2016 election apparently proved a female candidate can't win. "[T]he likelihood of defeating Donald Trump is to me overwhelmingly the most important factor in choosing a candidate - factors one through three, really one through 300.
“Electability” and the resulting lesser evil choices that we have faced in most POTUS elections for more than a half century has assured that the next POTUS delivers more than his predecessor did to corporations and the 1% at ever greater cost to the 99%.
As bad as Trump is, be assured that Trump’s successor is likely to be an extension of the Trump Regime at best, and more likely even worse than Trump.
"Lesser Evil is even a worse reason as it shows the voter cared nothing for the qualities of the individual candidate and the likelihood that candidate would be good for future generations.
‘Electability’ is just one ploy to derail Bernie. The hope is that inattentive voters are not capable of looking at issues carefully. Then all the big money guys have to do is focus on spurious personal attacks.
The other tactic is also clear: encourage as many neo-liberal Democrats to run as they can, by providing seed money, well disguised of course. The hope is to dilute media coverage, and debate time, etc.
Look for other tactics. They are scared stiff of a potential progressive president.
As it were, America usually ends up with a stiff in the White House.
So with “electable” Joe heading the ticket, wouldn’t any one of the outstanding women currently running need to run with him?
If not, wouldn’t a significant number of women stay home Election Day?
But if so, wouldn’t you anticipate that woman exiting the first time he creeps her out?
The lesser of two evils is still Evil
Electability is the ultimate reason for choosing a candidate. If you can’t win the general election, it doesn’t matter what your favorite candidate’s positions are, because they’re never going to be enacted.
The objective is a balancing act - find the candidate who is most aligned with your views who is also capable of receiving 50%+1 of the electoral votes. You need both.
If you pick the perfect ideological candidate, but they have no ability to move the electorate, it’s a net loss… If you pick the candidate who everyone is going to vote for, but they’re not supporting your ideology, it’s a net loss. You have to have both.
Amen to that.
The whole point of the article was an explanation of how the bought-and-paid-for media CAN’T tell us who is the most electable because
A) they don’t want to (they want a corporatist) and
B) they are absolutely out-of-touch with the electorate.
It is almost a guarantee that you would be unsuccessful in an attempt to determine who is most electable, meaning you’d probably ‘pick’ the wrong person. Therefore, the article suggests that the BEST way to choose your candidate is based on what you believe are the most important ISSUES. This is actually the most likely way to choose the candidate that CAN win. Unless you are a multi-millionaire, chances are likely that what is important to you is important to everyone and it is MORE LIKELY you would choose the candidate that others also support.
Polls are NEVER meant to show us the TRUE electability of the candidates. The corporate media plans every thing they do to ensure profitability for their companies including strict controls over their news, the political discussions and the supposed polls they use. It is all propaganda.
No doubt about it in my mind! The Democratic convention super corrupt, delegates will never nominate Bernie for POTUS.
Forget elect ability, because what really matters is: SELECT ABILITY. It is clear to me that Joe has been selected for POTUS on the Democratic, ticket in 2020. Everything else is nothing but a dog and pony show for the masses to keep the fairy tale that America is a Democracy.
Then more should be written and said about that to the DNC.
I agree – electabillity is a terrible reason for supporting a candidate. Biden has too many strikes against him to be supported by progressives: he supported and voted for the illegal GW Bush’s Iraq invasion and torture. His recent apology to Anita Hill was less than sterling. Furthermore, his invasion of women’s personal spaces with unwelcome touching is creepy.
> Biden backed the resolution giving former President George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq, and he also praised the president in a Senate floor speech at the time for his handling of the case for war.
> “President Bush did not lash out precipitously at Iraq after 9/11. He did not snub the U.N. or our allies. He did not dismiss new inspection regimes. He did not ignore Congress,” Biden said in a 2002 floor speech given during the debate over legislation authorizing action against Iraq.
> “At each pivotal moment, he has chosen a course of moderation and deliberation, and I believe he will continue to do so. At least, that is my fervent hope,” Biden said. “I wish he would turn down the rhetorical excess in some cases because I think it undercuts the decision he ends up making. But in each case in my view he has made the right rational calm deliberate decision."
And nobody knows who is “electable” when November 2020 rolls around. There are some excellent people running for the presidency with whom we have yet to become fully acquainted.