Why I care more about electability and coat-tails than policies in a candidate.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

The important thing to remember about choosing a candidate is this: the Republicans are more or less certain to control the House until at least 2020, and probably favourites to hold the Senate for at least 2 and maybe four of those years.

So what you are choosing between is *not* the country being run as Clinton would like to run it vs the country being run as Sanders would like to run it vs the country being run as O'Malley would like to run it.

Sadly, realistically, all we have to choose between, even if the Democrats win, is the best compromise Clinton is likely to be able to get out of the Republicans vs the best compromise Sanders is likely to be able to get out of the Republicans vs the best compromise O'Malley is likely to be able to get out of the Republicans.

And I don't expect those compromises to differ (even) as much as the three candidates preferred policies do.

So what's left is maximising the chance of getting that least worst possible compromise. And for that, what matters is electability (which I've seen argued a lot, quite rightly) and also coat-tails (which I haven't seen discussed much, but I think is important and risks being overlooked, although I'm not sure if it's actually very different to electability).

[cantbeserious]

1. I Will No Longer Settle For The Lesser Of Two Corporate Evils - Go Bernie Go

eom

[Donald Ian Rankin]

2. I'm afraid my answer to that is "yes you will - you just may not be happy about doing so".

Even if Sanders wins both the candidacy and the election, the Republicans will still almost certainly have a big say in the governance of the country, and you won't have any choice but to settle for that.

[cantbeserious]

5. Easy Rationalization To Justify An Unjustifiable Position

eom

[brooklynite]

19. As long as you're willing to live with the consequences.....

[cantbeserious]

20. Perfectly Willing To Live Without HRC

eom

[Adrahil]

36. Yeah, that's a cool, snide answer, but perhaps not realistic.

Whatever your feelings, she is likely to be the nominee. The choice is then between her and whatever disaster the GOP squeezes out. That's a very real situation, and you will have to make a choice. Support Hillary, or let the bad guys win. Then what? No snide comebacks.... just.... what will you do?

[cantbeserious]

37. Sincere And Honest - Not Snide At All

eom

[Adrahil]

38. But you still didn't answer.... What wil you do? n/t

[cantbeserious]

43. I Will Vote For Bernie

eom

[Adrahil]

61. If he doesn't get the nomination?

That would be monumentally stupid.

[quaker bill]

3. Kerry was the "electable" one.

You can stuff "electability" into any pipe you like and smoke it.

[99Forever]

4. No sale.

Same old tired bullshit pitch, same old shitty results.

No thanks.

I just came from the next President's rally in Minneapolis. Bernie is kickin' ass and takin' names. WAY bigger crowd than even his team ever imagined.

Go ahead, stand in our way.

[cascadiance]

6. Progressive ballot measures were more "electable" in red states than third way Dems...

People knew that an "issue" couldn't be disengenous and confusing about what they'd do, which is precisely what you have with Third Way Democrats who seem to want to hide their true agenda of helping out the 1%ers on their key issues and periodically voting for some progressive social issues to make it look like they're working for the average people.

They simply DON'T TRUST those kind of candidates and they WANT things like raising the minimum wage, etc. that they voted in to laws in their "red states". I think so much of the corporate media and its echo chamber keep trying to say that Bernie is too "far left" for people that aren't "far left". Well, the issues that Bernie Sanders is pushing are those that are supported by large majorities of the American people (NOT just the Democratic Party members), and I think they dishonestly discount Sanders potential appeal to average Americans. He comes across as someone you can trust far more than other politicians are, especially Third Way Democrats. Now some right wing nut jobs like Louie Gohmert, come across as "honest" in their hatred and stupidity, which is why those extreme right wingers in his gerry mandered district will vote him in. But at a national level, I think Sanders' honesty is what America wants.

[kcjohn1]

7. Clinton is not shoe in

to win against Republicans. Somehow her supporters have convinced themselves she will beat the opposition in the national elections. At best her odds are 50/50. Biggest factor against her is the 8 year Obama presidency and natural excitement from the Republican base for change. They will only be more motivated to the polls by their old nemesis.

Putting tried and establishment politician like Clinton is the most risky thing to do in the upcoming election. Elections are all about getting your base out to vote. 08 was about change from Bush years. 12 was about continuing that change and moving forward. Bush years are distant memory to the public, and "change" from 08 hasn't materialized for the majority of the public. On what basis is Clinton going to appeal to voters?

Rightly or not, Republicans are going to run on the basis of change. It is tough for Clinton to convince anyone she is going to do anything different. Sanders will not have this problem.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. I think the Republicans are more than 50% likely to win whoever the Democrats choose

Due to the millstone of 8-year incumbency - since the war, 1988 was the only time a party has held the presidency for more than 8 years.

That said, the bookmakers are laying odds the other way, so let's hope they're right and I'm wrong.

[Sherman A1]

9. okay

you are most certainly entitled to your opinion.

I disagree, but you are entitled to believe as you wish.

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. I have a soul; unlike 101% of today's politicians.

I'm not that easy. You'll never hear me say I'd elect the Devil himself just because I thought he could win, and had the right letter after his name.

[PETRUS]

23. 101%? Just as I suspected...

Some politicians are not only soulless, but have an anti-soul.

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. That's about right! n/t

[seveneyes]

11. fear of fear itself

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Hopefully, we'll see how Bernie handles the Republicans in congress.

I believe that he'll very active with his veto pen.

[frylock]

13. no thanks

[HereSince1628]

14. I like coat-tails too, but in WI I don't think establishment dems will have any.

The last gubernatorial election was pretty much an embarrassment for establishment/third-way/corporate dems.

The "bigs" showed up and weighed in to no effect for Burke.

I think turnout could work in reverse here. Feingold's senate campaign is likely to bring out more Sanders voters. Rep Gwen Moore says she won't run against Feigold, and Moore's run would almost certainly lift urban Milwaukee's dem vote which at least early on has favored Clinton.

[FSogol]

15. The race is just beginning. Ask this again after 10 or so primaries.

The way those 3 run their campaign will determine who has a chance and who has coattails.

[NCTraveler]

41. So much is going to work itself out in the next couple of months.

We really have no idea. A lot of it will have to do with the team the candidates surround themselves with and coalition building. The application process for the Presidency is pretty thorough. If one cannot manage, they will not make it. So much of that management is done by others. As candidates ebb and flow, plans change and the perception of the candidates change. Coattails become extended with success. I do see this turning into a two person race. I have a feeling it will be O'Malley and Clinton. If Sanders builds a serious coalition, he could be that other option. I'm not sure right now if O'Malley is simply another option. I think he is going to campaign as THE option. Really is a big difference when trying to portray leadership and executive ability.

[FSogol]

44. I agree. Good analysis. All of the DU hand-wringing and loyalty oaths are pointless.

We just have to watch how it unfolds.

[AtomicKitten]

16. You'd still be guessing.

Keep in mind, Hillary, her campaign, husband, and surrogates kept up the manta that only she could win the general election in 2008. She tried to persuade superdelegates and ultimately delegates to disregard the voters' choice because only she could beat John McCain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/us/politics/08recon.html?pagewanted=all

How'd that work out again?

The fact that this crappola is starting NOW, before the entire Democratic field has even assembled, is indicative of flop sweat.

[dsc]

22. the article you linked says nothing of the sort

and furthermore no one, literally no one, thought Democrats were going to lose the general election. Bush was as popular as herpes and the country was a mess, we had won Congress in 06 in one of the largest wave elections ever, literally no one thought a Democratic candidate who hadn't been the center of a scandal could lose. This time I think any of our candidates, with the exception of Sanders, is around 50/50. On the plus side we have demographics, the economy is doing fairly well, and Obama's poll numbers are pretty decent. On the minus is the 8 year itch. Sanders won't raise the money needed, nor spend the money needed, to win. If you want a textbook example of how that works out look at Feingold's loss to Johnson.

[AtomicKitten]

26. I didn't indicate it did; just a piece talking about the winding down of the campaign.

For future reference and to avoid these awkward baseless accusations, know that if I am taking an excerpt or quote from an article, I always put it within the excerpt function which produces a gray background that is indented indicating a direct quote.

You have no clue what Bernie Sanders is going to raise. It surprised the crap out of the political pundits that he raised $1.5 million in the first 24 hours. There is a piece posted in GD about the fact that Hillary's superPACs are having some problems raising money, well short of the $2.5 billion they had boasted about not too long ago; that too is posted somewhere in GD. (I'm leaving for the evening now or I'd hook you up.)

Secondly, Hillary is now polling below 50% in match-ups with the GOP which reflects weakness. That puts a dent in the electability argument put forth in the OP. I'm sure outliers say otherwise, but I'm talking about current mainstream reliable polling (also posted here in GD). She is riding high on name recognition and would like to keep it that way which is why the DNC headed by a Clinton advocate has set up six debates with an exclusivity contract to keep the number at six. In the 2007/08 election cycle, there were 26 debates. Less debates favor Hillary who is leaning heavily on name recognition; more debates favor the lesser known candidates giving them what they need most of all, exposure.

Just like last time, the hubris from Hillary's supporters insisting she's got in the bag is premature. FFS the Democratic field hasn't even assembled yet. Her supporters want to call it a done deal and wrap it up, but this thing has barely even started.

I'm leaving now, late for a dinner date. Again. I'm sure you'll have no problem finding the info in GD I posted above.

[LWolf]

17. Why I don't:

If I campaign for, and vote for, a candidate with the right policies, then I've got a win/or at least hold the line situation. If I win, then I've got a politician who is actually going to fight for the right policies. If I lose, then my party is the opposition, and will mount some sort of opposition to the enemy.

If I elect someone with the wrong policies because she can win, I've surrendered before we ever made it to the front lines. I've got at least a whole term, and probably longer, of my party feeling like they have to support the wrong policies. There's no opposition to the wrong policies. There are policy shifts within my own party and the nation that move both further away, that move me further to the fringe, or throw me completely under the bus, and I'm supposed to shut up and take it out of party loyalty. Electing someone with the wrong policies from my own party doesn't hold any line. It's a lose/lose.

It's throwing my party, my country, and the 99% under the bus.

[arcane1]

52. Perfectly said!

[CentralMass]

18. Are you with her campaign ?

[PowerToThePeople]

21. .

[Scootaloo]

27. You're hinging your vote what appeals best to republicans.

Just fucking vote for one then. There's no shortage of options for you.

[arcane1]

53. Glad I'm not the only one tired of letting republicans dictate the terms of OUR primary n/t

[Ron Green]

28. Rather than electability and coat-tails, I care more about a candidate, and a President,

who tells the American people the truth about who's been running the show and how. Think how much we could get done if people wake up! It's not going to happen with the same old candidates and Presidents; we ought to give it a try.

[RichVRichV]

29. Loving the circular logic here lately.

So because two decades of running corporate Democrats has driven congress to the Republicans, we have to elect a status quo corporate Democrat to compromise with them. That's sure to win things back in our favor going forward. When are we going to figure out that the only voting block that likes corporate politicians are Republicans?

[AgingAmerican]

34. Except that Republicans don't compromise

So all the corporate Democrat can do is hand them stuff for nothing in return.

[ucrdem]

30. With Hill you get the family package:

Hill plus Bill plus the exile Clinton government plus the Obama government plus the worldwide legion of movers and shakers they've made alliances with plus eight years of experience in the Oval office. With Bernie you get a white-haired gent with a knack for saying things people want to hear. It's not hard to guess which one will be better president.

[Hekate]

31. Well there is that, all right., but it's not a persuasive argument at DU. We'll have to see....

....how it flies in Real Life.

[ucrdem]

42. It's a nice idea until you think about it for five minutes.

a) who would he wind up relying on anyway after floundering for a few months or years? and b) about the only game-change I can see this particular candidacy leading to is Jeb, and I can see many paths leading to it.

[Art_from_Ark]

32. Yup-- Bernie, by a country mile

[GummyBearz]

39. Its a good pitch

to 1%ers. I don't think many of us on DU are in the 1% though, so I'll vote for the middle class and my principles.. Which means Bernie

[ucrdem]

40. I don't think SAT scores are the issue here.

eom









p.s. I kid.

[azmom]

55. Bernie all the way. Enough with the status quo.

[AgingAmerican]

33. Republicans don't compromise

So compromising with them would be stupid.

[Orsino]

35. The kind of country that could elect a non-HRC Dem would be a different one...

...one perhaps able to demand more change and thereby do more to pull the Republican majorities leftward.

If we can come together to nominate Sanders, it will be because he's taken seriously enough that we could get some good work done with him, and he with us. At that point, "electability" would cease to be a big concern.

Until there's a nominee, I'm not betting on a centrist as a counterbalance to the protofascism of the other two branches of government.

[Avalux]

45. I am so tired of the "we can't do it because....Republicans" attitude. Fucking depressing.

In the past I may have agreed with you, but I just don't care about the tired old conditioning we've been led to believe.

I love Bernie Sanders because he's not afraid of the word socialist. He's not afraid to stand up and explain why, and what it means. People are discovering that his platform isn't crazy talk but one that resonates with them, regardless of the label.

You have the right to decide on a candidate for whatever reasons you wish, but your post is based in fear.

I am choosing to take Bernie's lead and not be afraid, not listen to the naysayers.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. I am tired of the "we can't do it because... Republicans" fact.

But that doesn't change that it is a fact.

[Avalux]

47. Who says it's a fact?

No one knows what's going to happen in the future, in spite of our best efforts of prediction by using past information. Anything can happen if we choose to not buy into it anymore.

[brooklynite]

48. "We" are not the only people who get to vote

However, "we" can make educated guesses about how many of "them" will vote Republican, given the possible alternatives.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. No, that's only true in fairy stories.

To see why it's a fact, look up the effects of the current round of Congressional districting. There are far too many safe Republican seats for the Democrats to have a realistic chance of taking Congress.

Then look up which Senate seats will be coming into play in 2016, and in 2018. It's less clear-cut than the house, but I think Republicans are favourites to hold the senate 2016-2018, and heavy favourites 2018-2020.

[arcane1]

54. Agreed. It is, in essence, little more than a defense of the status quo.

We literally cannot survive the status quo any more. Challenging it is scary, and actually changing it is terrifying, but our future depends on ending it. It feels almost like climate change denial, where people try to maintain their comfortable world-view and pretend everything will be all right in the end.

[Avalux]

56. The way things are is familiar. Difficult for people to try a different way because of the unknown.

As you've pointed out, we can't survive continuing on the same path. We have to change it. ALL of us.

[DanTex]

50. This is spot on.

[Rex]

51. ...

[LanternWaste]

57. I'll allow much more respect for the progressive who votes his conscience and convictions

"And for that, what matters is electability..."

All other things being equal, I'll allow much more respect for the progressive who votes his conscience and convictions rather than voting in accord with the Vegas bookmakers.

As it applies to the individual vote, I think Robert Louis Stevenson summed up my own sentiments best... "Compromise is the best and cheapest lawyer."

[Nye Bevan]

58. FYI, there is no such thing as coat-tails.

Even Reagan didn't have them.

[tech3149]

59. Thanks for that depressing bit of reality

I so much want to believe that Sanders is the tip of the iceberg of a reawakening of civic engagement. But history has not shown us to make wise choices until the pain caused by bad choices forces us to do so.
When all else fails, I will support the least bad choice and let pragmatism prevail.
I think for me the real question and challenge is are we ready to do what is needed to bypass the existing power structures and reconstitute the model of the 20's and 30's that made the New Deal possible?
We have the means at hand to make it possible but do we have the good sense to use them?
Bernie is a good candidate for office but is only a touchstone for the changes we all recognize we need.

The truly revolutionary change will come from you and me bypassing the BS of corporate media and educating those around us.

[frylock]

60. I'm done voting against Republicans.