The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by JWBear

The Dems went with Gore on '00 because he was the incumbent VP. Kerry? Well... I think they were trying to go with who they thought was more electable, but ended up with the blandest candidate.

As I see it, all the talk of "most electable candidate" does is result in the blandest candidate. It's the only logical conclusion to that thinking, which has the ironic twist of making them eminently unelectable.

My philosohpy is, vote for who I think is going to make the best President, let the rest sort itself out.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

As I see it, all the talk of "most electable candidate" does is result in the blandest candidate. It's the only logical conclusion to that thinking, which has the ironic twist of making them eminently unelectable.

My philosohpy is, vote for who I think is going to make the best President, let the rest sort itself out.

I disagree. Someone can be charismatic, an effective leader, and be very much electable.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by JWBear

I disagree. Someone can be charismatic, an effective leader, and be very much electable.

And yet the last two primaries where the Democrats focused on "who's the most electable," we got Al Gore and John Kerry.

The most electable candidate is going to be the one that has the qualities to be the best President. "Electability" is a byproduct of other attributes ("charisma" and "effective leadership" being just two in a long list), NOT an innate quality that one can select for. I think it's party-suicide to keep "electability" at the forefront of reasons to vote for someone in a primary because, as has been shown, that causes the electorate to lean towards the blandest, "least offensive" candidate, rather than the best.

Talk of "electability" never has anything to do with a candidate's actual quality as a candidate, but how people are guessing they are going to be received by moderate voters. I say stop guessing and start voting for who is actually a charismatic, effective leader with good ideas and a plan to put some of them into action. Hillary is not that person, she's a politician whose goal is to be elected, not to lead.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

...Hillary is not that person, she's a politician whose goal is to be elected, not to lead.

Very true. That's why I feel she is extremely un-electable.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Very true. That's why I feel she is extremely un-electable.

You appear to be the exception. Ask around and you'll find that one of the main reasons she's winning is that she's perceived as "electable." over Obama. I happen to disagree, but more importantly I happen to think that Obama would be a better President.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

...but more importantly I happen to think that Obama would be a better President.

As do I.

But I still prefer Richardson over either of them.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by JWBear

But I still prefer Richardson over either of them.

Me too....