Heck if I know.

[PETRUS]

Exit polling in both Iowa and New Hampshire showed that around 6 in 10 Democratic primary voters were prioritizing "electability" (over policy) when choosing a candidate. I don't know how those numbers compare to past primaries, but I'm guessing many Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters feel - as I do - that the stakes are higher than usual this time around. Trump's rhetoric clearly provided encouragement to bigots of various stripes during the 2016 campaign, and his installation in the oval office has only further emboldened these ugly elements. The executive branch is openly corrupt and other branches and government institutions are doing very little (if anything) to check this behavior. The policies pursued by this administration are making existing problems worse (e.g. climate change, inequality). This means that it's important not only to win the white house, but make gains in the senate and state governments as well, and a failure to do so could have dire and far-reaching consequences. Given the distribution of the population and certain aspects of our system - two senators per state regardless of population, an electoral college that not only can but has awarded the office to candidates who fail to win the popular vote, along with gerrymandered house districts - makes winning even more difficult for Democrats. So the focus on "electability" seems rational to me.

That said, I think there are at least two problems with this type of thinking.

The first problem is the difficulty in accurately ascertaining who is "electable." I've read (both here on DU and elsewhere) various essays about the electability (or unelectability) of several candidates. Many of them contain plausible, logical arguments, even among pieces that reach contradictory conclusions. It appears to me as though the way any given person reacts to any given essay has as much to do with the reader's personal preferences (confirmation bias) as it does the merits of the author's reasoning. I've also read robust political science that indicates electability is hard to quantify or determine objectively, and these writers note that candidates who conventional wisdom sees as "unelectable" do win often enough to cast more doubt on the idea that "electability" is something that's fixed or reliably predictable. Add to that the incontestable truth that our political landscape is currently in a state of upheaval - Trump was not an "electable" candidate, and yet here we are. Part of what seems to be happening is the fragmenting of both the traditional Democratic and Republican coalitions. Recall AOC's remark that in a different country, she and Joe Biden would not belong to the same party. This is certainly true, and it's also true that for a long time both the Democratic and Republican parties have contained voters with conflicting interests and priorities. In reasonably "good" (and stable) times these differences could be smoothed over, but for several years intra-party differences have been inflamed and remain unresolved. It remains to be seen how this will shake out (realignments can be dramatic and rapid), but in any case the aggravated mood of the electorate and the instability of the coalitions makes electability even harder to pin down than usual.

Another problem (and I'm self-aware enough to know that my own bias creeps in here, if it hasn't already) is that prioritizing electability often means sacrificing principle in an effort to avoid scaring away potential allies/voters. I'm sympathetic to that kind of pragmatism - half a loaf (or even a scrap of crust) is better than nothing - and I've consistently gone along with that logic in the voting booth my whole adult life. But I'm not at all certain that the US still has a "center" that represents a majority or even a plurality. And I'm worried not only about getting Trump (and other Republicans) voted out, but I'm worried about letting the conditions fester that made a Trump presidency possible. We don't need another right wing demagogue in four or eight years, and the next one could be a more competent and effective leader. There are many factors that made a Trump presidency possible, but social scientists agree that inequality is the critical root cause behind the sort of unrest that makes room for right wing authoritarians. We really have only two candidates in the field (Sanders and Warren) proposing the kind of policies that would adequately address the problem of inequality, improve the material security of people at the bottom and significantly curb the excess at the top. I don't know if either of them could or would win a general election vs. Trump, and they would both have difficulty enacting their agendas in full. It's my opinion that a robust social-democratic program (at least) is not only morally preferable to what we've been doing for the last few decades, it is necessary to ward off a future political disaster even worse than a Trump presidency. There are several aspects of such a program (e.g. much higher taxes on the wealthiest members of society) that have majority support in the general population and even higher support among Democrats. If you're part of that majority, I don't think it makes sense to send a diluted signal about your desires and intentions. I haven't yet mentioned the climate crisis, but that's definitely something that requires a serious departure from "business as usual." Of course, there's no doubt that a second term for Trump (and Republicans in the senate and state governments) will make these conditions even worse, so I understand the importance of nominating a Democrat who can win.

In summation, who is the most electable Democrat currently running for president? Heck if I know, and I don't think you know either. I respect everyone's right to make up their own minds for their own reasons about their preferred candidate in the primary, and I'll endeavor to show that respect when discussing politics here and elsewhere. My plan is to vote my conscience in the primary, vote blue no matter who in the general, and do what I can to apply pressure and drum up support for Warren/Sanders-type policies whether the winner is Trump, a moderate Democrat, or a left Democrat.

[wisteria]

1. So, they really think Sanders or Buttieg are electable?

This absolutely astounds me.

[thesquanderer]

2. People thought Hillary was electable, people thought Trump was not.

So yes, I think Sanders and Buttigieg are potentially electable.

[Funtatlaguy]

3. I'm stunned at both Warren and Bidens poor showings so far.

Our world and nation has changed dramatically.
I don’t really know why.

[PETRUS]

5. Tell me about it.

It's still pretty early, and things could easily change. Still, I expected Biden to be doing better and I was hoping Warren would have more votes and better polling at this point.

Earlier in the season I decided my vote would go to either Warren or Sanders (and I've appreciated Yang's voice, but I didn't think he'd get far anyway). They both have positions that I find appealing and that set them apart from the rest of the field. They're coming at things from different directions, but there's a lot of overlap in policy. Even though I am ideologically more closely aligned with Sanders, I'm sad Warren's numbers aren't better. I have a mental list of pros and cons for both candidates, and one of the positives for Warren is that I think she could count on more cooperation and support from the party than Sanders, and that matters both in terms of the general election campaign and when it comes to governing. My state's primary isn't for a while, so I'll see how things are going then.

[abqtommy]

4. I read a lot of posts about politics and I just have to say that I heard it all back in 2016. Back

then we wound up with a woman candidate. We elected her. We were ratfucked. We need to win
this one in 2020 and shut the ratfuckers out for good.

[H2O Man]

6. Recommended.

Thank you for this. Well said.

[PETRUS]

7. I appreciate that!

Thanks for reading.