I’m sick and tired of all the “Candidate A is more Electable than Candidate B” diaries. Are we so insecure as a party that we can’t stop worrying what the other side thinks about us? Why are we so god damn worried about electablity? It’s almost become a cancer that is eating away at our party’s soul. Don’t you wonder why the Republicans don’t argue about electability like us?

Why are we, the party that has lost 5 of the last 7 elections, worried about electability when the Republicans have continued to nominate right wing idealogues like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, all of whom were both considered unelectable because of their conservative stances, yet all of whom are two term winners?

crossposted at OpenLeft and DailyKos

The Arguments:

Hillary Clinton = Most Electable. Knows how to beat the Republicans. Does best in Ohio and Virginia, critical swing states.

Barack Obama = Most Electable. Appeals to independents. Best in Zogby GE Matchups. Performs well in Missouri and Iowa.

John Edwards = Most Electable. Southern appeal (look at last 2 Dem Presidents). Best in CNN GE Polls

Conclusion: Umm. Inconclusive. Why should I vote on electability? Is that how Democracy works?

Maybe we should think like this. We are Democrats. We represent at least (and probably more) than half the country. When we pick a candidate because we believe in him or her, because we believe in his or her stances, and because him or her inspires us, we win half the country. The reasons that we choose our candidates WILL appeal to those in the other half or in the center. When we choose someone because they seem “electable” then we forget why people vote for certain candidates.

George W. Bush. Republicans didn’t vote for him because he was the most electable. They voted for him because he was a straight shooter, seemed authentic, and spoke to their concerns. John Kerry? We voted for him because he was electable. Independents and Republicans saw nothing in him, and he lost.

We should NOT worry incessantly about who the Republicans want to face. Who cares who they want to face? Did Republicans think that a sex-scandal plagued, small state southern Governor was the toughest candidate to face in 1992? Did we think that a conservative, gaffe-prone, southern Governor was a better candidate than a moderate Western Senator with strong indy appeal? Do we know who we want to face right now?

Let’s focus on our race, and let them focus on there’s.

And one more note: GE matchups are a waste of time. Mitt Romney has only 67% name recognition. Huckabee, Paul, and Thompson are far lower. Obama, Edwards, and McCain still don’t have universal name recognition. Only two candidates do – Guiliani and Clinton. Polls change. Michael Dukakis had a 18 point lead disappear. Clinton was in third place once – behind Bush and Perot! – in 1992. Did those polls tell us anything?

So I implore all Democrats, vote for the candidate who inspires you, who you believe will best lead our country into the future. Look at the candidate yourself, and follow your heart. Do not vote for someone solely because you think they’re “electable.” Sure, consider it, but don’t let polls and RedState make the decision for you. If we do that, then Democrats have already lost, and we’re handing our core values to the Republicans on a silver platter.

Learn how to travel meaningfully

 

Enter your email and I'll send you a free digital copy of The Nomad’s Guide to Life and Travel.

You will also get once-quarterly updates on my latest projects and other goodies.

You're in! Check your email to confirm and download the eguide