Don't think it is (at least among people who have any possibility of voting Democrat).

Acting like we're going to lose the backwoods hicks because Buttigieg is gay is a mistake. They are going to be voting for Trump regardless of who the opponent is. They'll just make more jokes full of gay slurs when they do it.

Each of them has as many votes as you do, though. My point is that a majority voting bloc is unlikely to be wrong about electability in the primary and, unless I'm missing something here, can't be wrong about it in the general.

I wasn't there. But this is how I remember the contemporaneous reaction to it I just skimmed the wikipedia page and there is nothing in there to suggest otherwise. 200K+ people is nothing to sneeze at.

I can't understand the push back cuserounder is getting. The point he is making is pretty clear and seems pretty uncontroversial.

Insert cuse's disclaimer here, but just substitute Melkerson for cuse.

Is there really that much difference between wanting someone like Stewart to run and AOC?

I suspect, though I'm not sure, if AOC were old enough to run in 2020 a lot of people would support that. At this point, their difference in experience is just a few months. Sure AOC will technically have 2 yrs of experience by 2020, but if she were actually running, nearly all of the next 2 yrs would be spent campaigning.

The reason why people would be OK with that is because they see her as intelligent, supports the right policies, will fight hard for them, and is charismatic and persuasive enough to win. The only thing she is lacking is experience. But having high scores in the other areas can overcome that. It's entirely reasonable that someone could feel similarly about Stewart.

Once again. Insert cuse's disclaimer here, but just substitute Melkerson for cuse.

Also, if you wouldn't support AOC for pres in 2020 in some hypothetical scenario where it were possible (e.g., she happened to be a bit older, or the constitution had different rules), then please disregard.

This is a good point, and maybe you're right. My concern is not about whether or not people who typically/often vote Dem would vote for a gay candidate, I'm sure they would. It's about whether or not the turnout on the right goes up a lot when they start talking about how Buttigieg is going to turn the frogs gay and such. (And they'll say some horrible, horrible things.)

If the electability is not an issue with him, and if his charisma translates from town hall style speaking to the big convention style of speeches, I agree he would then be the only one who checks all four boxes.

I'm not going to blame anyone for putting charismatic #1 on their list. Every person elected president in my lifetime was the more charismatic candidate. In a decent world charisma wouldn't mean **** in a general election compared to such things as competency. Then again, in a decent world Donald Trump wouldn't be POTUS.

So you want AOC to run and win in 2020? She's not even eligible! What a joke...



I should have said this, but I didn't really think about the order of the criteria, I just listed them and numbered them so I could reference back to the list. That said, I would keep it #1 and just flip #2 and #3.

Being prepared to fight is more important than progressive litmus tests, because the only way ANY policy ANY Dem would advocate for is getting through is if the POTUS and party are ready to fight like hell, and understand that norms don't exist anymore unless the GOP has already proven they will respect that norm when it is advantageous to them to ignore it.

I don't think this is anything to worry about.

"Turnout on the right" wasn't an issue when the Democrats nominated a black guy with a middle name of Hussein.

It really does come down to items 1, 2, and 3 on your list.

So? Not sure I'm understanding your point. My claim was that other people's opinion on electability is irrelevant to how you should vote on electability yourself.

I mean, I think it's quite clear the majority voting bloc was wrong in the primary last time. And there's no such thing as voting on electability in the general... we're talking about the primary here.

To be clear, though, I don't think the average person should consider electability at all when voting. And I think it should only be a small part of the calculation for savvy twoplustwoers.

The general electability argument is pretty pointless. Who 2+2ers vote for is going to be influenced a lot by polling within their state.

Thanks, but..I'm back now and I missed this. I couldn't have tagged along on a bar crawl with my 16yo daughter anyway.

She is a political wonk who is little nerdy. Which is why i like her. As long as she comes off as genuine i dont think the people who want to drink with someone else will care.

I guess we just don't agree, then. It seems weird to me that you might find yourself in an electorate of ten, with the other nine disagreeing with you about which candidate's more electable. But again that's part of why I think it's kind of a BS metric (if you can even call it that), so probably no point grousing over it.

I'm surprised no one else in this thread has posted this, but Eric Swalwell pretty much said on Bill Maher last night that he was running.

I like the guy, even though he may not be as progressive as I'd like. But he is smart, charismatic, and strong.

Strong like how?

lol I like his policies and I like his demeanor and how he communicates any time I see him. He seems strong....whether he is or not, I guess I really don't know yet. But I like him.

I don't see room at all for a candidate like Eric Swalwell. What does he have that others don't?

I think we have to acknowledge that the seat of POTUS is not a prestigious one. POTUS gets paid $700,000 to do one of the most demanding jobs in the country. Controlling multi-billionaires when you're not getting paid enough to be a millionaire isn't going to be effective. You're basically a ***** to bankers and lobbyists.

With the merging of news and entertainment, elections have pretty much become popularity contests now. They're no different from running for student council in high school. The one with the most friends wins. Given their charisma and knowledge of politics, people like Jon Stewart are actually pretty electable. After all, we have proven that experience within the field need not apply to become elected to the office. What matters is being liked and Stewart has that in spades.

Of course the question is not just if they can win but would they be any good at it? I say the answer is that they wouldn't. It's always easier to critique from the outside than to roll up your sleeves and work from within.

He's good looking and electable. He's not as new-age as Beto, not as goofy as Bernie, not as cold as Harris, not as religious as Mayor Pete....he's sensible and knows how to communicate.

I don't know, you're probably right...but I'd be interested in learning more about him if he did run.

How is Bernie goofy? He's pretty serious.

$400k

I'm sure it's me; I just can't take the ruffled Uncle Bernie thing seriously.

+1, I don't see it at all. He has the resume of Beto but without any of the parts (like, nationwide recognition for anyone who follows politics + exceptional speaker) that make Beto a contender.

Plus, while searching to see if he was actually running, I found an article saying he'd give up his House seat if he ran. And like...why? Say he doesn't win the nomination (extraordinarily likely) and he's not a congresscritter anymore - what's his political future from there? Can't run for Senate in CA until 2024 (unless Harris becomes president). Won't be governor anytime soon (Newsom just took office). Why on earth would he do that?