[Max Goodman]

I have decided that what I originally wrote here doesn't add anything new, so I've overwritten it. Originally I overwrote it with "nevermind," which I thought was standard procedure here at the Sphere, but that (non-)post has been misunderstood, so I'm now replacing it with this wordier explanation.

[Jim Moonan]

x
x
Max: Nevermind


I'll try to explain better...
In my view, electability is something to be assessed only after a long process of vetting, debating, evaluating all the candidates. In my view, candidates are ultimately on a quest to become electable in the eyes of the critical mass. Those who want to be elected must face the fact that they may prove to be unelectable. It will, one way or another, become handwriting on the wall.

But that doesn't mean their ideas become defunct. They just must find another way to effect change. Sanders has continued to sow his ideas in spite of his 2016 primary defeat. Most of the democratic candidates running today have been influenced by his ideas and embrace many of them. I am far, far away from deciding who is and who is not electable. But at some point it will factor into my decision.

I stick my neck out every so often to engage in conversation about topics such as electability and other things political but more often than not I get shot down as being naive.

I would prefer that someone engage me, show me what I can't see. "Nevermind" doesn't do it.
x
x

[John Isbell]

Naive. Hmm. To my mind, there's a million ways to be naive in politics, and a million ways to be blase. So that's my 2c.
Mind you, there are plenty of political theorists over the centuries - Condorcet - arguing that education is the bedrock of democracy. And then again, who decides what that education is going to be?

Cheers,
John

[Max Goodman]

I wrote something else, and then realized I was repeating myself. The "nevermind" was directed toward what I overwrote, not toward anything anyone else wrote.

Electability is only known in retrospect. Nobody knew Jeb Bush was unelectable until he failed to get elected.

"Electability" is usually used to club candidates and voters who stray from conventional wisdom. It ignores the importance of giving people a reason to vote--and on the left it ignores the fact that progressive policies are hugely popular.

Electability

Originally Posted by Jim Moonan

is something to be assessed only after a long process of vetting, debating, evaluating all the candidates.

so it's hardly relevant at this point of the 2020 process. (Surely that process of "assesssing" electability should vet candidates' ideas; it would be foolish to assess electability by vetting candidates' electability.)

[Jim Moonan]

x
x
Max: The "nevermind" was directed toward what I overwrote, not toward anything anyone else wrote.

Ok, sorry -- I hadn’t read your reason for editing at the bottom : )
I am (for good reason) quick to claim naivete (maybe a slight exaggeration) in things politic. I would stay sidelined and just listen but I learn more by making mistakes.

Perhaps we are playing semantics with the meaning of "electability". Ultimately we vote for someone less because we think they can win and more because we identify with their positions.

Max: Electability is only known in retrospect. Nobody knew Jeb Bush was unelectable until he failed to get elected.

(This is what I mean when I say we might be playing semantics.)
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with Jeb Bush and electability. In real time he proved himself to be unelectable. He ran a terrible campaign, was a poor debater, did a poor job of articulating his positions and didn’t have the fire to do what’s needed to get elected. Hence, it was increasingly apparent during the primaries that he was not electable -- even if one was able to see through the fiasco of his campaign and get to the heart of his positions and agree with them. Here’s what Politico had to say:

His slow, awkward stumble from August through October encapsulates everything that caused the operation viewed as "Jeb!, Inc." to fail. Bush was on the wrong side of the most galvanizing issues for Republican primary voters, he himself was a rusty and maladroit campaigner and his campaign was riven by internal disagreements and a crippling fear that left them paralyzed and unable to react to Trump.

I didn't say that the issue of electability itself is something that at this early point needs assessing. On the contrary. What needs to be assessed over an extended (too long) period of time in watching debates, reading policies, gathering information, primaries, etc. is whether we think a given candidate is right for the position. Only then can we factor in electability. Even if one considers a candidate a long shot that does not preclude the candidate being considered electable.

I think we are largely on the same page with things. The thrust of my previous comments was to say that any conversation here on E will go nowhere if the language of the conversation is polarizing.
Incidentally, there is a conversation taking place on this board (Auden and Cerf on Pound) about the manner in which Cerf and Auden exchanged opinions about publication of Pound’s work after he exposed himself as a traitor to his country. In today’s social media environment it is rare that such a measured, thoughtful exchange of ideas (there is a link to their letter exchange in the thread) could ever take place. Of course, I’m sure it does, but it is largely drowned out by the quick-to-condemn commentary of social media and the associated intolerance for differences of opinion.
x
x

[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Jim Moonan

Ultimately we vote for someone less because we think they can win and more because we identify with their positions.

I hope that will be true of most voters this time around. "Electability" is often an argument to abandon a candidate whose positions we identify with in favor of one who "can win," which is why I rise to the bait when electability gets mentioned.

Originally Posted by Jim Moonan

I think we are largely on the same page

I think so, too.

[Roger Slater]

We need to adopt ranked choice voting. No one would ever have to wonder if their candidate is "electable" but we could just vote for the candidate we would like to see win and not worry that we're throwing our votes away.

[Andrew Szilvasy]

Yup. Ranked choice is the way to go. Nobody wins with less than 50% after the instant run-off, and you don't get a situation where the least-desired candidate wins the election.

[Mark McDonnell]

Nevermind. Lots of stuff about British politics and the internet and blah blah.

Go Bernie.

[Max Goodman]

Ranked choice voting would be an improvement. The knock against it is that it's a way to elect the least unpopular candidate.

The parliamentary system used in a lot of countries may be better.