I posted this elsewhere, but I thought in light of the electability UFO flying about that I'd like to hear what other people make of this. So, is "electability" a quality that any candidate can, in principle, aspire to / pursue, or is it a "bonus" that only benefits the front-runner, no matter the name? I think it's the latter.
I posit that:
- The American electorate is largely politically disenfranchised, disinterested and dis-informed;
- Media are not really informing, nor framing news objectively (as in: "fair and accurate") but instead strive to provide "entertaining content" to serve and protect their advertisement revenues;
- The scourge of "pundits" is a preposterous case in point for media offering off-the-wall opinion for mainstream entertainment and elitist controversy;
- It took 3 years to get to the point that people now begin to understand that there's a problem with Bush in the White House - expecting them to be knowledgeable on "candidate issues" is just six bridges too far;
- The generic sense of embarrassment over Bush, the overwhelming rah-rah response (IMO a likely after-wave of the mood after 9/11) to generally backing the war against Iraq, and the resulting bouts of denial, further propel the tendency to opt for "electability" as main motivator to back whomever is generally perceived to be the front-runner;
- The more "issue oriented" a candidate is, the more his/her supporters will tend to become a hard-core following, which in turn tends to tick of people who consider themselves as "mainstream voters";
- For a strange reason, "intelligent" is a voter-repellent trait of candidates; there's a tendency to "mistrust" candidates that are generally portrayed / perceived as "very intelligent";
- Name recognition is all.
Add all up, and you end up with a very broad and shallow support for Kerry (hence the importance of "electability" among his supporters) and a more narrow and deep support for others.
Thank gawd for Jerry Springer, Larry King and casual sex (ha, I got your attention!)