Electability

[rbnyc]

I hardly ever do this, but I'm going to quote myself from a post in another thread and invite discussion. The issue is electability and whether or not it's futile to get behind a candidate who has certain indicators that s/he may have trouble succeeding in the election. This isn't very fleshed out and I know it's been discussed often, but I'd like to see if we can make a bit more headway.

"It's more than just a matter of idealism vs. pragmatism. I really think the music and movie industries are great analogies. There are a lot of great artists out there with great ideas ready to produce high quality material, which many, many people really do want to hear and see, but they don't get funding, they don't get backed. The system will only invest in work that has recognizable emblems, that look the same and sound the same as things that have been successful in the past. Things are rejected or filtered out if there's a perceived risk of putting off the market, the target audience. We invest in things that are hollow, and starve things that are fresh. The result is that we have a culture drowning in bad art. And we run our elections in the exact same way, and wonder why we have so many poor public servants. It's time to be brave. People actually do want it."

My husband just came home. I'll be back.

[JohnKleeb]

1. great rene just great

I love this
:yourock:

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. Freshen up a bit or depart from the facility

If you feel that any candidate's positions are in agreement with your principles, but you prefer to support a candidate who is not, it's time for a look at those principles.

If you don't intend to live by them, what good are they? Throw them away. Do what the big money, AIPAC, PNAC says to do.

Principles, after all is said and done, are not money.

[Mairead]

3. Are principles really principles if one only pays them lip service?

Or are they merely sops to convention and perhaps conscience? Self-delusion, sort of thing.

[renie408]

4. Must you have one or the other?

Can't you have someone who is electable who also represents your ideals?

At least, I think I have chosen someone who is extremely electable and I do truly admire his stated ideals.

[rbnyc]

10. I think it is possible.

Edwards may be that person for you. God bless the grass that grows between the cracks.

But why do we try to pre-weigh electability, and how substantive or even correct are its indicators? What I mean is, if we promote what has the emblems of success, how do we know the success comes from the properties indicated by these emblems, or by the promotion? And why do we not decide it's more important to promote what we value above all?

It's because we're fear driven and want guaranteed returns.

[burr]

5. When does the price of a political win become too high for you?

From a well known classic...

"Eddie: Then we twisted it, didn't we, Bert? Of course, maybe that doesn't stick in your throat, 'cause you spit it out just the way you spit out everything else. But it sticks in mine. I loved her, Bert. I traded her in on a pool game. But that wouldn't mean anything to you because who did you ever care about. 'Just win,' 'Win!' you said, 'win, that's the important thing.' You don't know what winning is, Bert. You're a loser. 'Cause you're dead inside and ya can't live unless you make everything dead around ya! Too high, Bert - the price is too high. If I take it, she never lived. She never died. And we both know that's not true, Bert, don't we, huh? She lived, she died. Boy, you better, you tell your boys they better kill me, Bert. They better go all the way with me, but if they just bust me up, I'll put all those pieces back together again, then so help me, so help me God, Bert, I'm gonna come back here and I'm gonna kill you. (Bert's thugs move toward Eddie)
Gordon: (Gordon gestures to his goons to back off.) All right. All right. Only, uh, don't ever walk into a big-time pool hall again."

What movie was it from? First one to get it is the loser...I mean winner!

[rbnyc]

11. That's perfect.

The Hustler

:hi:

[burr]

15. bingo...I hope our candidates are winners as well,

eight ball in the corner pocket!

[snoochie]

6. Courage is most certainly called for right now.

I keep thinking back to the people that founded this country... what if they had been 'pragmatic' instead of courageous? I felt betrayed by some of Clinton's actions which I consider to be a result of his 'centrist' nature. I don't want another centrist.

What's encouraging to me is hearing how many people are impressed with Kucinich after they hear his ideas, instead of just insults about him from the goofballs in the press.

Great topic! Thanks for starting this thread!

For a topical comic, go to http://www.wewantkucinich.com/ and scroll down to Create for Kucinich... it really says it all.

[jarab]

7. Welcome to DU, snoochie !!

jarab - DU moderator

[burr]

8. welcome to DU snooch...

Our founders were radicals we could be proud of!

Thomas Paine wrote about his first experiences of religion in the American colonies "I was barely seven or eight when I heard a sermon read aloud by one of my relatives, a Church of England fanatic, on a subject known as redemption through death of the son of God. When the sermon was ended, I went into the garden and as I walked down the steps, I felt a sense of revulsion at what I had just heard and thought to myself that it made God into a passionate man who killed his only son because that was his only means of revenge...."

If Paine wrote this today he would be labeled a Christain hater, against freedom of worship, and immoral. People go crazy when they discover the truth, they only wish to be told what sounds pleasant, and that everything they had been programmed to believe in as children is true and perfect.

[rbnyc]

12. Thanks for the link and welcome to DU.

I was just telling my husband, if every person I talked to who said they liked Kucinich best but are supporting someone with better chances, would just support Kucinich, he would be the one with the better chance.

I support everyone's right to pick their own candidate, and if someone really jives with JL, or more understandably, HD, then let them pour their hearts into it. But we have to take the fear out of our decision making. We have to act like the people we want to become.

[renie408]

18. I like Kucinich

but after listening to him on NPR the other day, I can honestly say that I don't like him best any more. I disagree with him on a couple of key points, at least as they were presented the other day. His comments that we need to get our troops home and get the UN into Iraq concerned me. Yes, we need more international involvement, but I haven't really trusted the UN to be effective for a few years now. I do think we need to rotate our troops and rest them and treat them a helluva sight better than they are being treated now. But I also think that we need to do everything it takes to make the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan a success. I don't think we are doing the job correctly now, but it seems to me that there must be some other option than to just dump in on the UN.

[burr]

19. I wouldn't worry about them...

The UN isn't going to be dumped on again by our country. After that "accident" with the UN facility in Iraq, I think we're now stuck with the job. Our troops and the Iraqi civilians are the ones you should be worried about!

[diamondsoul]

20. Hi, renie, I just wanted to counter you a bit on the UN statement-

We all know the UN is not going to get anywhere near bailing Bush out of the mess he's created. That will be a different dynamic once the elctions are over, and I've thought about this a lot, believe me. My husband may well be sent over there in the near future should they send more troops, and that makes it very personal.

Now I looked at all the candidates about this situation. I mulled them all over. I thought "Ok, which one of these people has the best chance of negotiating with the UN once Bushco is out of the picture?"

Mosely Braun struck me as a good strong possiblity, as did Edwards. Both of them are skilled at being warm and thoughtful of others, and Edwards has the ability to negotiate from trial experience. I wondered about Kucinich at first. He seemed like a good possibility but listening to him speak on the trail and in debates, I just wasn't sure about that. Anyway, I read his platform, and then I read some of his background in international relations. That shocked me and pulled him to the top of my list.

See the UN will not bail out Bushco, period. However once Bushco is out, they could be persuaded to assist the USA we used to be and are trying to become again. That will only happen if we send the right person in there to convince them we ARE trying to become that USA again. I firmly believe, of the people we have running, Kucinich IS that person. Just electing him will send a message to the entire world that we don't want to be the nieghborhood bully any longer, that the people didn't and don't approve of what Bush has done, and that we'll do all we can to make amends for it.

[burr]

21. What are you talking about?

we were always bullies. Now instead of being one of the two major bullies, or among an alliance of bullies...now we are the dominating bully of the world. No nation can launch a rocket into space without clearing it with the NSC first, no nation can hope to develope the weapons technology we have without being labeled a "rogue" nation, and no government can stop a disruptive civil war without being told that this is against America's national interest!

This has always been our foreign policy, and it will be continued until our nation is unable to so.

[diamondsoul]

23. "what are you talking about?"

I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about change. And no, we were NOT bullies when we started this country. The only way you can make that claim is to include slave trade, which is hardly the same thing.

Even if you want to include slavery, that's comes right back to where I start- we attack what we fear the most, and that is most often what we don't understand.

The way you talk it's written in stone somewhere that we were always and will always be bullies. Guess what? NOTHING is unchangable.

[burr]

25. What about our treatment of the Indian nations and tribes...

and then we allowed outlaw settlers into Mexican Texas. They declared their independance, and began killing the Spanish speaking locals in Texas. The Mexican government tried to end this genocide, but the US annexed Texas and California and took what was Mexico's territory.

If they are not our equal, they are to be ruled by us according to the Monroe doctrine.

[renie408]

29. This one

we agree on.

[renie408]

28. We have only been bullies

for the last hundred years or so. For the first hundred years or so, we had plenty of people to bully around right here at home. But once we got all the land under our control and the Indians on reservations, we had to start looking further afield for people to bully.

[renie408]

26. Kucinich said

And this is a quote as close as I can get it, "We need to get our troops out of Iraq and let the UN take over." It struck me as a little soon to be turning the rebuilding of Iraq over to the UN. Perhaps he was pressed for time and was just distilling his position down to the fewest words possible, I don't know. But that comment did draw me up short. I don't think that the UN will bail ANYBODY out of Iraq. I think that the UN will discuss and debate Iraq into the ground, but they aren't going to be able to rebuild the infrastructure quickly or well enough. Humanitarian aid?? The UN is the best. REAL peace keeping and rebuilding? Eh. I just don't know. It seems like the UN has too many fingers in the pie to get things done.

And while I don't think we should be the neighborhood bully, I definately agree with the 'walk softly but carry a big stick' theory. Whether anyone likes it or not, part of our influence in the world (a REALLY big part) is our military capability. Maybe voting Kucinich would be TOO strong a pacifist message.

[burr]

32. That expression was around before nukes and the UN.

The expression today is "send special forces and carry the President's briefcase."

[LWolf]

9. Great analogies, indeed.

I've chosen my candidate on the issues. I know that the vast undefined average american doesn't necessarily share my values or my viewpoint; that's as it should be. But to turn away from the opportunity to express my vision because it might not be the most popular is a betrayal of self. I'll celebrate my values, the things I've learned and experienced, my perspectives, and my visions...all the things that make me who I am, with my vote as well as with the rest of my life.

The more people that vote their hopes, dreams, visions, and convictions, the more change we can achieve.

[rbnyc]

13. Well said.

If you don't add to the world the best that's inside you, it's like forcing the world to eat junk food.

[rbnyc]

14. Two more sentences:

We have to abandon our attachment to the concept of the guaranteed return.

We have to act like the people we want to become.

[jkg4peace]

16. We hardly ever have a real choice...

Half the people don't vote at all in this country because they don't see the point. The lesser of two evils syndrome. I think when there is someone people can really say "yeah, that's what I was thinking" they get interested. But then they sell themselves short by thinking "but if no one ever said this before, and no one else is saying it, it must not be possible." What I like about DK is he has a way of making liberal ideas sound so practical and the obvious right thing to do (at least for me). You don't hear many substantiated arguments against his proposals.

[Mairead]

17. "You don't hear many substantiated arguments against his proposals."

And that's the key concept right there.

Click.

[uconnyc]

22. Edwards is electable!

Edwards is electable!

[Mairead]

24. Agreed, he is!

[PAMod]

27. Think of primary election season as a runoff election for your heart

You may end up broken hearted; you may have to look at other candidates along the way - but you owe it to yourself to give your first love your support.

For example, just looking at the polling numbers - I admire and appreciate Congressman Kucinich and his supporters. Anyone who believes in the things that they believe in is an OUTSTANDING American. At some point though, they, including Rep. K., will probably have to look for another candidate to support. Some of those folks may have their heart broken yet again later on, and so on until we have OUR candidate.

Whether that person is our first love or the one we settled for, we have got to be united going into the fall. If we're united, any one of them is electable.

[rbnyc]

30. That is an excellent post...

...and I've talked about the primary season in a similar way many times. (Not quite so well, however.)

This is another reason why I think it's more constructive, generally, to focus on your candidate's strengths rather than other candidate's weaknesses. You don't want to spend all your time attacking a candidate and then try to figure out how to get behind him or her if that candidate should get the democratic nomination, that is if you're committed to supporting a Democrat. I do mean this in a general way, and understand there is an important role for criticism.

For example, I feel a real kinship with Dean supporters and I'd rather spend my time talking about why I support Kucinich, than talking about why Dean isn't good enough for me. If Dean gets the nomination, I'm getting right onboard.

EDIT: typo

[PAMod]

31. Thanks rbnyc, I also have a strong pragmatic streak

Evident early support can help to ensure that your guy has a seat at the table when it comes time to draw up the platform, etc. (wouldn't you hate it if he wasn't involved)

It also gives your guy a kick in the Congress. Just as many lawyers run for office to advertise their law practice, many politicos can benefit from a presidential run even if they fall short of election.

If you really love your guy, but move on too quickly to another candidate for "electability" reasons, you could be punishing your candidate & your strongly held views.

So there you have it, idealism AND pragmatism.

[rbnyc]

33. You've got it down.

You should go on the road with that.

;-)