Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/06/13/electability-astrology-pundits
“Expert”, pronounced ex spurt.
EX is a has been…spurt is a drip under pressure.
Pundits are paid propagandists promoting the corporate agenda…period.
If the Georgia election had been a fair election Stacey Abrams would be the governor. The man filling the governor seat at the moment was at the time of the election the State Attorney General. Amongst many other actions of foul play, he refused to recuse himself from over sight of what any outside observer would rate as a corrupted 3rd world election.
“Electability” is not SUPPOSED to be about predicting who can win. It’s about telling people how they must vote.
Is this the Dems’ version of the old GOP line of trickle down economics? Not only is the theory itself not true, but it’s also not true that the GOP believes it. They just use it as a handy justification for giving tax breaks to their wealthy friends.
Now we have this line which, abstractly, could be used by either the right or the left, but notice it’s only the Dems who ever use it: "the conventional wisdom that running to the center is the way to win swing seats"
Is this the Dems’ counterpart to the trickle-down theory, something that not only isn’t true, but not even believed by the people who keep saying it, and the only reason they keep saying it is to concoct a justification for screwing over the little people?
My take on electability is that the most corrupt politician is the most electable because, like Biden, he has been selected by the super… corrupt!
“Electability” is a standard applied to participants in the soft-core porn of polling.
The “pro-business” Democrats believe that the candidate with the smallest organization is the most electable.