Elect-ability: Whoever wins the nomination is the most electable candidate.

[TeamPooka]

That's how the process usually works.

[Lithos]

1. Usually

Not always a true statement.

But to side-step this - I am voting and fully in and supporting whoever *DOES* win the nomination.

[TeamPooka]

2. Same here. Because they will win the White House this time.

and my overall point is that elect-ability is a self answering issue.

[Kind of Blue]

3. K&R.

[lpbk2713]

4. There's no one in the running I don't like.

So that will be real easy for me.

Besides, I always vote anti-(R) anyway.

[dawg day]

5. I'm hoping for "long coat-tails"

And a lot of governor-flips red to blue... and (fingers crossed) the Senate. I know it's hard..

But we have an astronaut running! (Gabby's guy.
And McConnell is not doing well in KY.

If there's a blue wave, it's possible.

I always vote a straight ticket, and it's SO EASY. Maybe we can suggest the independents do that, just this once... don't vote for any GOPer this time, just this once?

[TeamPooka]

6. It is all about our registration and GOTV efforts in all 50 states.

This election is up to us.

[TDale313]

7. Logical fallacy

Primary and General elections are very different, with very different voters and circumstances. It is completely plausible for a candidate to win the party nomination but not, in fact, be the strongest General Election candidate.

[TeamPooka]

8. But the comparison is not to the GOP candidate, only within the party.

That is the only place the debate exists.
Both nominated candidates are the most elect-able, simultaneously.
Nobody argues about their elect-ability then.

[TDale313]

16. The debate takes place in the Primaries

But it’s about who we *think* will have the best shot in the General. And it’s a strategic guessing game. Now, you’re right that it’s kinda moot after the Primaries are over... but the question we are asking when we talk about electability is “Who has the best shot to win The General” Now, these are total hypotheticals, but it’s completely possible for the candidate who eventually gets the nomination not to have necessarily have been the one who would have been the strongest in the General.

[questionseverything]

9. the way we run primaries, we dont even get the most likeable candidate

not alone the most electable

ranked choice voting would fix that and end the grip of the two party system

for instance biden at this point looks fairly sure to win but the next 4 candidates all with very similar ideas(m4a) total support easily would blow biden away

that is not factoring in the dnc basis if any

[ehrnst]

11. "Factoring in the DNC basis"

Can you explain what you mean by the "DNC basis?"

[still_one]

12. So you are calling for third party candidates with your statement "end the two

party system

Very enlightening

[questionseverything]

18. if we had ranked choice voting i believe most if not all of the stein voters in 2016 would of picked

hc as their second choice....so hc would of won

splitting the votes of progressives (between dems and greens) is part of how we got trump

I am saying there is a simple fix for that, ranked choice voting, then a person can vote their passion 1st and vote for the more likely candidate in 2nd round of counting

it would end the 2 party system in a way because people could support a different idea without it inadvertently supporting the candidate that is farthest from their view


so a green supporter would no longer be helping elect a repub (assuming the dem could draw their support as a second choice)

[Crunchy Frog]

10. I don't think that's necessarily the case.

My first election was '84, and I vividly recall the primary battle between Gary Hart and Walter Mondale.

I don't think we were ever going to beat Reagan that year, but do believe we could at leas have avoided losing with a 49 state landslide with Hart.

As others have pointed out, candidates have to play to different subsets of the electorate in the primaries and in the general. What plays well with one may not play so well with the other.

[brooklynite]

13. George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis...

[still_one]

14. It is interesting how narrow focused some seem to have with generalizations

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. Hubert Humphrey, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton?

You're obviously making a distinction between those candidates you believe lost because they were "not electable" and those you believe lost despite being "electable". What's your metric for separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak?

[Andy823]

17. I couldn't agree more.

We have some great candidates running, and right now there is NOT "only one" who can win.