The word today is Electability. The multitude of facets I don’t need to introduce to you. Most topics will need more introduction. This one, I think it means whatever you want it to mean, and I’ll let you run with it.
Electability is a useless buzz word. It’s just a term used by the media to pretend they know what they’re talking about.
Did they think Reagan had ‘electability’?
What about the recent elections in Great Briton? Did they know who had ‘electability’ there?
Sure there are degrees of possibility for who can be elected. I could not be elected for dog catcher. 0% But at this point in the cycle the pundits are mostly making statements about who THEY like and the outcome is likely to be much different.
“Electability” is code-speak which the Left uses to destroy our candidates and push theirs. By marginalizing our candidates, the ones who they perceive as the most threatening to their agenda, they win. We fail because we don’t push back hard when the buzz word(s) gets thrown out there – attached to our folks’ names.
I agree Larry, that it’s way too early to talk about any certainty with respect to electability. I’d even suggest that even after the first three of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina we will not know the outcome. There is what I refer to as the “it” factor a candidate has or doesn’t have. That alone will not be enough without organized supporters that will go knocking on doors to leave flyers and money to buy air time to defend against attacks and to attack your opponents.
The UK elections show being an established politician who has won in the past is no guarantee of victory if the voters are just tired of voting for the same old same old.
Electability the means by which the state run media and the progressives in both Party’s attempt to tell conservatives who they can get behind. Electability to me a conservative the person who is a authentic conservative period
Another thought I have is that we can’t have a repeat of 2008 and 2012 of a Republican whose main goal was just to win the Republican nomination and not win the presidency. McCain suspended his campaign in October and Romney just went silent and invisible at the end.
I don’t care what “electability” means to left. For me it means the nominee is a warrior who fights to win instead of folding.
“Electability” is the term used by the media to boost Republican candidates who are not electable
“Electability” is the term used by the media to boost Republican candidates who are not electable; ignore the word speak #StateRunMedia
Electability is a mirage. Supposedly it measures before votes have been cast whether a candidate will win the counting. It summarizes the combination of the preferences of every one of 200 million or so legal and illegal voters in the nation regarding the choice that best meets their individual criteria by weighting the approval of rich financiers and liar media pundits to decide who should win. It’s like surveying the high rollers at the Kentucky Derby to decide the winner before the race is run, and then limiting the race to one horse. It misses the point. Let the voters of the party vote.
The winner is truly the most electable.
I decided to first write my thoughts before reading anyone else’s. What a surprise to discover that everyone else here agrees with my 100% cynical take on electability. This emperor has no clothes and we all see how naked it is. It gives me hope that rank and file republican voters see the same lack of substance, truth, anything but the will to total left-wing power, in the perennial arguments about electability.
It might actually be a campaign issue for the right candidate. That would be an interesting argument to have.
It’s hard to explain electability in different contexts. Like, say, Massachusetts, where they elected Mitt Romney governor. Was it because he moderated or muted his principles, or because Massachusetts wasn’t as blue as everyone thought it was at that moment in time? How could New York City go from David Dinkins to Rudy Guiliani to Bill Deblasio? How could a nation re-elect a president with a large unfavorable rating while turning the Congress solidly Republican from 2010-2014?
“Electability” to the liberal media is the opposite of “unelectability,” which is defined as the candidate they fear the most, and therefore must spend inordinate amounts of time destroying, no matter how trivial the the “offense.”
E Pluribus Unum
There is a grain of virtue in Electability, and it is used against good and honest people. . Just as there is a grain of virtue in “for the children” (and its corollary “for the earth”, because it is indeed true that this generation has an obligation to the next; As an aside I would point out that in the case of “global warming”, there is neither virtue nor truth for “global warming” : that is simply a made-up lie. Truths, half-truths, and lies are used by the left as a means to control and manipulate people, first by guilt and then by coercion.
As to all the manipulation and machinations of the Left and the Left-Media under the banner of “Electability”, we should not take a single thing they say as truth, Not a thing. Not one thing. Every thing they do is intentionally to harm us. This is why I say we should not have a single Republican debate on any forum that is not identifiably rightist or right-center. Further, I believe a pillar of the GOP Establishment religion, as it were, is that we must do our best to please the media, prove that we are “above all that” partisan politics, and so forth. They are not just worthless, they are affirmatively evil in their cowardice..
Now all that said, I believe there is a degree to which the question of electability in a candidate is a factor worth considering. But where the LeftMedia, Left, and GOP-E all set the bar very high – you are not “electable” if they can attach a single blot to your record (true or otherwise), or if you can be caricatured or marginalized, or if you don’t worship at the twin altars of abortion and homosexual “marriage”.
In my opinion, you have electability issues and should not run if you cannot muster up a national (or at least a very solid regional) grassroots organization, or if you’ve recently been soundly rejected.
You’re rule is asking for good sense to trump vanity, Paul. Speaking of Trump, he’s unelectable, only he knows it. So is Graham, and Huckabee, probably Kasich, all of whom don’t. Other than that, the others, each in their own time, can catch a wave, strike a pose, kick an ass, smite a leftie, break a few cardinal media rules of fairness, and become very electable. My only problem with “electability” is that I no longer believe elections are real. That’s just me of course.
Your comment about elections no longer being real parallels my feelings about the Rule of Law, VB. But of course that’s the subject of another roundtable!
Electability is that amorphous assigned trait that makes voters eschew a candidate who more closely matches his or her preference for another, less preferred candidate. Voters don’t go with their preference, they vote the “electable” candidate and we end up with what you see today.
Good point from Nessa. There are a lot of voters who don’t know crap about elections, who in the last day or two, as best they can, take the temperature of the electorate and vote for the candidate they think will be the winner. In other words, they don’t vote on the issues or the candidates but just pile on in the winner pile. Electability is a direct appeal to those people.
Changing those people into people who vote on issues and the character of candidates would be a huge win that would defang the whole electability problem.
E Pluribus Unum
Agreed, beaglescout and nessa. For the LIV (and sadly many more who are not so much misinformed or uninformed as they are just followers) it’s name recognition, it’s how much they hear candidate A’s name in commercials .
It’s the writ large version of what goes on in local elections for councilman, school board, and dog catcher. I know nothing of any of them, but when I enter the voting booth i just say “hey, I heard his name a lot, he must be the best one”.
I figure any candidate I like is electable because I’m smart enough to pick someone who would be good at the job. I disregard the LIVs and their opinions because they will vote for the one who’s leading in the polls, assuming everyone else must know something they don’t know (because we do.)
My job is to persuade other informed voters that my choice is worth their vote. If I can do that, my choice is electable.
That sez it all. Way to go, Queenie.