"Black People Aren't Crazy"

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

so says Rep. James Clyburn(D) in this WaPo piece on today's South Carolina primary, when commenting on Al Sharpton's support(or lack thereof) & "Electibility".

I wonder, aside from the odd quote, how did "electibility" become this all-emcompassing aspect, this concept used by different sids to beat each other of the head for any perceived "difference" than what one would expect "the average voter?"

I also wonder if this ultimate focus on some sorta lowest-common-denomiator candidate will cause folks to aim too low, and wind up with a guy who either doesn't have a chance, or is a total milquetoast should he actually get in?

― Kingfish Funyun (Kingfish), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 15:40 (twenty-two years ago)

At exactly the same time that newspapers forgot about any metaphors for covering political campaigns besides 1) horserace and 2) personality contest. If pundits and writers can't think of it in anything but those terms, "electability" - as a triangulation of these two metaphors - seems like some kind of holy grail.

Lost are any consistent storylines about matching up campaign promises with what the electorate wants.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 15:46 (twenty-two years ago)

how did "electibility" become this all-emcompassing aspect

Because getting the Bush administration out of office is more important than having Dennis Kucinich run instead of John Kerry.

Ecchs-post

― mmmmsalt (Graeme), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 15:47 (twenty-two years ago)

But what's so wrong with Kucinich? Why is it that easy to write anyone remotely "progressive" off as a complete loon? I can understand that the stakes are pretty high for the coming election, and a reasonable voter may not want to take a chance losing, but, on the other hand, it feels like "the country" has lost its will to live or something.

― jazz odysseus, Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:20 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, that's pretty much it.

― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:23 (twenty-two years ago)

I still feel guilty for not taking Kucinich seriously earlier on in the campaign exactly because of the "electability" thing.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Why is it that easy to write anyone remotely "progressive" off as a complete loon?

Because there are a lot of voters out there who don't care to actually learn anything about a candidate's policies or abilities. They won't vote for Kuchinich because he's less photogenic / telegenic than another candidate or because Jay Leno / Dave Letterman / Bill Maher / Dennis Miller / Rush Limbaugh / Howard Stern wrote him off as an unelectable loon.

I'd love to see Kuchinich run AND win, but I think it's unlikely to happen. I think Clark or Kerry have the only real chance to get Bush out of office and I think that's what James Clyburn was getting at with his comments about Sharpton.

― mmmmsalt (Graeme), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Also, his name is easy to misspell

― mmmmsalt (Graeme), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Watching the earlier debates, it really bothered me that nobody was taking seriously the only candidate from congress/senate whose votes over the past few years coincided with their current campaign platforms. Consistency/integrity I think are not quite as big of factors in 'electability' as they should be.

Also: Kucinich is very photogenic! He's just kinda a dork.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:38 (twenty-two years ago)

*shaking fist at Willie Nelson*

― jazz odysseus, Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:38 (twenty-two years ago)

ha ha

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:39 (twenty-two years ago)

kucinich isn't any less slimy or incapable of pulling punk-ass political moves than any other candidate. see his maneuvering in iowa wr2 edwards.

this doesn't mean that his positions are worthless. just that if you think that kucinich is anything other than a politician, yer in for a rude awakening.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:40 (twenty-two years ago)

x-post, re : misspelling "Kucinich": Ha - not if you grow up around a lot of Croatians! I just had a look at my class picture from 8th grade - there are, like, six of them. I understand this is not an experience common to everyone, but it -drives me nuts-!!

― Kerry (dymaxia), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Maybe it's different factors involved, but I got the same feeling with what happened to Cynthia McKinney, in that it seemed to take almost no effort for people to write her off. I know this is just a gut feeling, but still...

― jazz odysseus, Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:41 (twenty-two years ago)

mckinney helped to bury herself.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Nader. enough said.

― Viva La Sam (thatgirl), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:58 (twenty-two years ago)

I just wanted to remind everyone: "coochie-niche"

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 17:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, VLS, but I still wonder why it's so much easier to blame Nader for the last election results than, say, Katherine Harris or whomever. Maybe the "whomever" answers my question; I don't know.

― jazz odysseus, Tuesday, 3 February 2004 17:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Kusandwich?

― jazz odysseus, Tuesday, 3 February 2004 17:08 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm not blaming him. using him as an example. i voted for him though i knew it was a wasted vote.

you have to choose btw idealism and reality. unfortunately there aren't idealists in this country to make it a reality. (and too many rich people. i blame the wealthy for many, many things.)

― Viva La Sam (thatgirl), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 17:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Only Republican elect the people they like. On the Democratic side, it's completely about voting against somebody, not FOR anybody. In '92, I don't think Clinton had really explained his vision all that well, but he was perceived as winner material - Paul Simon (RIP) was not.

American democracy (not Chinese) is about making somebody lose, not making somebody win. Pragmatism is more important when you're trying to seize the White House.

― andy, Tuesday, 3 February 2004 17:49 (twenty-two years ago)

we don't have a democracy. are system is a republic. difference. (as seen last pres. election.)

i always vote for who i really want. but then i live in texas and here if yr not voting for a bush yr vote's pretty much a waste anyway.

― Viva La Sam (thatgirl), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 17:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Paul Simon ran in 1988 in the same pack as Gore, Gephardt, Jackson, and Dukakis. The only primary opponents Clinton had were Tsongas, Brown, Kerrey (Bob), and Harkin.

As far as electibility is concerned, let me put it this way. I live in Arkansas. If Kucinich ran against Bush, Bush would take our precious SIX electoral votes in a landslide. If Clark runs against Bush, I feel pretty good about Arkansas turning back into a blue state again, along with Louisiana.

Utah's always going to go Republican. Massachusetts will always go Democrat. This year's election only boils down to about a dozen states. And Florida. Even if Clark's party history only goes back to last fall, he's still going to be a lot more likely to put Ted Kennedy on the Supreme Court than Bush.

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 18:24 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.