MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Electability: The Lamest Argument in the Rhetorical Aresenal

There is a new USA Today/Gallup poll out that says Barack Obama does better against the Republican candidates than Hillary Clinton, a fact that the Obama camp will no doubt point to when undercutting Clinton's oft-made electability argument. The Edwards folks like to highlight this CNN poll that shows he is the only Democrat who slays all five heads of the Giuliani-Romney-Huckabee-McCain-Thompson medusa.

My take: who cares?

The electability argument is a pander to the basest desire in the political heart: the desire to win. Every campaign makes the argument, ignoring the fact that just because a candidate can get elected, or just because a majority of Americans think a candidate can get elected, doesn't mean that candidate should be elected. As George W. Bush has proved twice, the skills and characteristics needed to get elected are not the same as the ones needed to govern well.

Obama, Clinton, and Edwards aren't going to stop claiming they can win because electability, though a specious argument, matters to people. Voters don't like backing a loser. But if a potential loser would be the best president, he or she deserves support, plain and simple.

That's my overly idealistic blog post for the day. Back to your regularly scheduled snark and cynicism.

Comments

"basest desire in the political heart: the desire to win."

Not true for the Paulites, they know they are not going to win anything but they are very sincere.

Also not true for any thinking democrat. As long as the Bush administration can wiretap, read evey opposition email, etc. - the chances of a democratic win is remote at best.

Thanks

Posted by: capt on 12/19/07 at 9:19 AM Respond

The "idealism" component of this post is the key.

True that the best candidate should win, and often does not. However the case should always be made that throwing your vote at a 3rd party candidate or second teir nominee often results in exactly the wrong result. Ie. Nader supporters in 2000 helped the Bush Campaign win. They did not seal the deal but they didn't help Gore either. The result???... We all know what happened. "Electabilty" matters in reality.

Posted by: cboas on 12/19/07 at 9:55 AM Respond

Ideally electability is the most ignorant concept. It defeats the notion of substance and the value of merit relying on superficial expectations and the publicist. However, never underestimate the "influence" of dump people in large groups...therefore, this concept is going to be important until Americans once more care about elections and make an effort to be informed.

Posted by: Mark on 12/19/07 at 12:07 PM Respond

When America and our constitution have been trashed and fascism is chugging right along, it becomes imperative for someone else to win. these are not normal times where the bloggers point is well taken. dems must win even though we are angrily frustrated with them, we see that it is the repubs blocking progress. so we must consider who has the best chance of winning, ie the most electable, because we are up against a repub rigging of voting machine counting. it is stupid to vote for the dem we KNOW will have the least chance of winning - hillary.

Posted by: claudia on 12/19/07 at 2:23 PM Respond

"Electability" is whatever the news media says it is. That is one of the easiest methods of manipulation of the American people

Posted by: Diane on 12/19/07 at 3:36 PM Respond