2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)Electability [View all]
One of the most important issues for people to consider, when selecting a candidate to represent their party in any open contest, is electability. This holds true at all levels of government: is the person that you favor electable? Taking into account all factors, is it reasonable to believe that this individual has a good chance of winning?
There are, obviously, a number of factors that need to be considered. Among them is the numbers -- meaning, of the potential voters, how many are registered as Democrats, republicans, or independents? And, closely related, how many potential voters have participated in recent election contests? More, one should consider the potential impact of controversial issues, both in terms of previous elections, as well as the one currently being considered. Not every election involves controversial issues; of those that have, how has this impacted voter turnout in general? Among Democrats? Republicans? And independents?
In the context of presidential elections, those factors and figures become even more complicated. For, as we know, winning a presidential election requires a candidate to win in enough states to reach a specific mark. In theory, a candidate could lose the popular vote, and still win the presidency. (And, if the establishment insists, if the all-around loser is desired, the US Supreme Court and select him as the president, despite the election results.)
This brings us to another important factor: likeability. Just like in a civil law suit, a jury naturally tends to favor the likeable person, so it goes in elections. Indeed, in the past century, only one clearly un-likeable candidate was ever elected president. This, of course, was Richard Nixon. Not a single human being actually liked poor Richard -- he certainly didnt like himself, and for good reason. He was a terrible human being. He was so un-likeable that, even if one does not believe in God or the concept of hell, you can still think that is where Nixon ended up. Let us pray that he has a good lawyer.
In both the 2008 and 2016 Democratic Partys primary process, one candidates campaign has sought to portray their strongest rival as un-electable. That may or may not be a coincidence, the random outcome of a rolling of the cosmic dice. Or, perhaps it is a pattern. Either way, it does raise an important issue, even if an unintended way.
When Bernie Sanders first entered the primary contest, a lot of people believed it must be a noble act upon Bernies part. He must think he can move Hillary to the left. How decent of him to make a symbolic run
.a run that few would even notice, one that would soon be forgotten! But, of course, Bernie was unelectable.
Well, well, well. The tables have turned a bit. Certainly, a significant portion of Hillarys campaign still sincerely believes this. I have no quarrel with the, although I know that they are wrong. It is a topic that remains valid for conversation here. For that is what the primary process is all about.
What I do not see happening -- either on DU:GDP or elsewhere in life -- are honest and open conversations about Hillary Clintons electability. Indeed, upon this forum, any mention of Hillarys negatives are automatically met with, You are repeating republican talking points from the 1990s. And this highlights the dangers of taking short-cuts to rational thoughts. It ranks high among the shallowest thinking expressed on this forum at any time.
To try to characterize sincere progressive thinking as indistinct from rabid republican ideology is no more accurate than to claim Clintons supporters love Richard Nixon. There is no benefit to be accrued from such nonsense.
The simple truth is that Hillary Clinton has high negatives. Obviously, these include a significant number of republicans -- which is important only in the context of the general election. However, the numbers we are seeing definitely suggest that republicans are energized by the thought that she may be the Democratic Partys nominee. While it is a factor, in and of itself, it isnt what should determine our choices.
Far more importantly is that among independents and Democrats, she has very high negatives. And that is hugely important.
Several times, in the past few weeks, I have sought to discuss this with my friends on DU who support Hillary. In fact, more recently, Ive asked for others -- including those who dont know me well enough to either like or dislike me, as well as those who know me well enough to strongly dislike me -- about this very topic. It seems to be something that they consider -- for we have all seen posts saying that if we dont vote for Hillary, we will be responsible for Donald Trump winning in November. (This, of course, suggests that they have discounted the possibility of Carly Fiorina re-entering the republican primary, and engaging in a historic populist revolution.)
Admittedly, it is my opinion that if Trump were to beat Clinton, it would be entirely due to her flaws as a candidate. Notice I was specific about flaws as a candidate, which is absolutely distinct from flaws as a human being. A flaw as a candidate does not, by definition, equal a personal flaw. For example, the fact that many republican voters foam at the mouth from the mere mention or her name doesnt mean shes a bad person. But it does mean that a lot of republicans who hate her -- actually, they hate the image of her that they project -- will be going to the polls in November to vote against her.
Many of those rabid republicans are sexists, surely a repulsive character trait. Yet, that does not mean that everyone who dislikes Hillary is a sexist pig
.no matter how loud and often some of Hillarys supports claim it is.
The truth is that a lot of people do not like or trust Hillary. And the tactics of the candidate and her campaign are re-enforcing that image of her. The more that she avoids addressing it, while her campaign attempts to frame it as being solely the result of what Newt Gingrich said in 1994, the more the dislike and distrust grows. Thus, without any question, the current tactics of the candidate and her campaign are knee-capping any chance she has of being elected in November.
I recently asked a simple question: if Hillary is our partys nominee, how would her supporters expect people like me to convince others to vote for her? I identified the make-up of the US Supreme Court as the one obvious tool for our use. I was hoping that her supporters would suggest others. Because one thing is for sure: it is hard to motivate people with the tired old lesser of two evils bit
..far more so when the candidate you back has such high negatives.
The likeability and trust factors would absolutely be important, if Hillary Clinton is our nominee. I think that really needs to be discussed, without insults.
Peace,
H2O Man