Sponsors

Electability -- the gift that keeps on giving Email Print

Over at Daily Kos, there a front page article giving the latest focus group results form Frank "is he with us, or again' us" Luntz.  

Mixed into his "Ten Commandments for 2008 Democrats" there are some points worth a little thought -- even if none of them offer much more than what we've already heard a thousand times.  However, at the end of his list, there's a piece of advice that I find so sour, so distateful, that I can't help but respond.

10. Winning is everything. And the only thing. As in 2004, Democrats want to win. Unlike 2004, they REALLY want to win. No candidate will secure the nomination whom they fear will lose to the Republican nominee.  Electability is going to play a major role in 2008

I hate this rule, hate it with the passion I usually reserve for Rumsfeld's manic smirk.  You know what determines if someone is electable?  The election, nothing else.  If we learned nothing over the last few cycles, it should be that agonizing over electability is one of the most useless activities we can engage in.  It's idiotic, and it's idiotic for three reasons...

As soon as you start calculating electability:

   1. You're betting that the pundits and press have told you everything about these candidates in advance of the primary, that they're not snoozing until they wake up and discover some nice wormy dirt on the way to the general, or that they not just selling the laziest story they can cobble together.  Let's see: mixed race kid with a funny name who's never run for statewide office.  Electable?  Poor boy from Akansas who skipped out on a war and admits to smoking pot.  Electable?  Why would you surrender your own instints on who is the best candidate to the blather of the press over who is the most electable?  Stop letting them write the script for your vote.

   2. It says you have no faith in your positions.  "I hate me that there Iraq, but I bet no one who agrees with me can win."  What kind of tactic is it that starts out picking what you don't want?  We kick Democratic politicians for lacking spine, but we buy a tactic that's the definition of Jell-o back?

   3. Even more importantly, the "electability" question is nothing less than "hmm, which of the Democrats will Republicans like?"  Ladies and gentlemen, I've quite literally never said this word publically in my life, but f**k that.  You think Republicans work this way?  You think they win by wondering if Democrats will vote for Bush's git come November?  You think someone wondered if Brownback or Delay was electable?  Jesus, are we really that stupid?

Playing the "electability" game is a game for losers.  It's a game that says "I can't pick the candidate I want, I have to pick the candidate I think my opponents will like."  Know what?  You have no fracking clue what they'll like, so just stop trying to guess. Worse, playing this game only shows you are weak, weak, weak.  You might as well just nominate Lieberman and go home.

The one sure bet: If the best thing you can say about a candidate is that they're "electable" -- they're not.

If what we want to do is wrap up election 2006 and 2008 with a bow on them, and hand both over to the Republicans, then by all means, let's make sure we pick people who are electable.  You know, people who are nice, not too agressive.  For heaven's sake, no one the media might see as "mean."  Maybe someone a little ethnic, but not "too" ethnic.  Someone who comes across as honest, but never says anything that offends someone.

Hey, you know what Republicans really like?  Other Republicans. Think how sure we'd be of a win if we just picked John McCain or Bill Frist as the Democratic candidate.

Come one, drop this one now.  I'll be happy if no one mentions the word "electable" from now till 2008.  But if you have to say it, make sure you give the word the same kind of twist that the commentators on Fox News always apply to Howard Dean's name.  You know, one of those guys who is just not "electable."


KEYWORDS: , , , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Meet Charon Asetoyer, a Great American | Wherein Dood Abides Reveals His True Identity >
 Display:
is smelling up the blogosphere today.

I sense another GOP tactic here.

Having read the pdf file, it's remarkable in its negativity on every Democrat "tested."

Had Luntz written a similar report on the Repug contenders, all would have been marked with strong positives, potential, and very few negatives, which would have been reserved for the President's low poll numbers and general scandal fatigue directed toward Congress.

Luntz always keeps the criticism general for Republicans; when he talks about Democrats, he gets specific and personal.

Ssssssssssssss.

Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle. FDR

by btyarbro on 04/01/2006 11:13:55 AM EST

 Display: