"electability" arguments are so damned circular, it's maddening.

[phantom power]

If enough reporters or talking heads start describing Candidate X as "electable", then people start to think of them as electable, and (magic!) they are a serious candidate. They'll get media coverage, they'll get donations, they'll get votes.

If reporters insist on describing Candidate X as "unelectable" or "unserious" (or just ignore them), then (magic!) they don't get media coverage, they don't get donations, they don't get votes.

"electability" is entirely a news media phenomenon, and it's completely circular. Self fulfilling.

[JoePhilly]

1. Ted Cruz is unelectable. So is Trump.

[phantom power]

4. They might have nationally unpopular policies. But they're electable.

If one of them becomes the candidate, they'll get plenty of votes. Romney wasn't totally crushed, and he was such an asshole his own party voters hated him.

[JoePhilly]

6. Neither can become President.

[Scootaloo]

7. None of them can

2016 is a Democrat year, at least for the presidency. The Republicans will capture their base (and boy, "base" sure is the right word!) but will most likely lose even their "moderates" (who will mostly opt to not vote) and of course the so-called independents aren't touching that.

We could nominate anyone and win.

Why not go for all we can?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. More the latter than the former but probably yeah./nt

[Gothmog]

2. It is not circular when you look at fundraising ability

Some candidates are better able to raise the funds necessary to complete. President Obama blew everyone away in 2008 with his small donor fundraising efforts and that made it clear that he was electable. Jeb is trying to do the same on the GOP side with his $100 million super pac.

There are many on this board who doubt that Sanders will be able to compete in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will likely spend another billion. This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig, who founded a Super Pac to end Super Pacs, said Sanders’ renouncing Super Pacs is tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gunfight”.

“I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that he’s going to live life like the Vermont snow, as pure as he possibly can, while he runs for president, because it weakens his chances – and he’s an enormously important progressive voice,” Lessig said.

President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac, The super pacs associated with Clinton raised $24 million and so Clinton raised $70 this quarter.

[phantom power]

3. But... why? Is there some law of physics preventing Sanders from raising less $ than Obama?

Sanders can use the same strategies that Obama did. Right?

[brooklynite]

12. ...except that he's not.

How many fundraising events has Sanders held with a request for $1,000-$2,700 per attendee? Answer: none. Obama did them regularly. You can treat those contributors with disdain (note: they're NOT all Wall Street types), but the reality is, the more high dollar contributions you get, the less time you need to spend on the low dollar contributions.

[virtualobserver]

5. he has to prove that you can win without it

He has to reframe the Super PACs as a liability for them in the election and
proof of the corruption.

[frazzled]

14. It's not just about fundraising, or even policies

There are other factors that play a large part in electability, at least in a presidential race. And among the largest of these is how the public perceives demeanor, character, and biography. Obama didn't win on fundraising ability alone: it was his unflappable demeanor, his impeccable character (no scandals that weren't manufactured or easily quashed), his "story" (an unusual life that he managed to turn into an American success story), and even his relative youth, that played a large role attracting voters. That and one of the best run, most disciplined on-the-ground operations ever.

In the end, people will say: which one of these pols looks "presidential" to me? Which one will be able to sit down with foreign leaders? Which one will not shoot from his or her hip? Which one seems to have a steady hand?

I'm not predicting what the answer to those questions will be in either the Republican or Democratic races. Capturing the public's imagination and trust is a very amorphous, unpredictable factor. I do know that all that money Sheldon Adelson and Karl Rove spent in 2012 meant squat. They barely had a success at any level of government with it.

[elleng]

8. Yes indeed and instead of using their MINDS,

people, or allegedly those polled start thinking THEY should SUPPORT someone whom some entity calls electable, rather than actually LOOKING at that person's QUALIFICATIONS!

[Le Taz Hot]

9. That word has no meaning anymore.

Kerry was "electable," Dean was not. After shoving Dean out of the race Kerry managed to lose to the worst. president. ever. Listening to the "experts" about who is and is not electable is about as reliable as listening to astrologers.

[Maedhros]

13. This cannot be understated.

"Electability" is a chimeric trait assigned by the media and the party to prop up a preferred candidate and to undermine a threatening one.

[brooklynite]

11. I don't determine electability based on what the media says...

I base it based on a lot of data crunching, analysis of past electoral results and availability of financial and political resources.

That's why I still don't see a path to victory for Sanders. After IA and NH, which are anomalous in their size and the time available to campaign in them (and where Clinton is STILL leading), I don't see how Sanders is successful is SC, NV and the 10 Super Tuesday States.