I think the essence of your point is correct. However, there were many cringe-worthy statements in there that were bordering on repulsive.
"When a close race in November is expected, electability is an issue which should be taken into consideration when nominating a candidate."
No, electability has NO place in nominating a candidate. It's insulting and contributes heavily to the degradation of democracy's credibility. You nominate a candidate to do the job of representing you. The statement above (and several other similar ones in the article) pays deference to voters pulling out their magic 8-ball to predict "electability". It ignores the actual campaign process, ongoing events, and scandals - suggesting that vegas-like predictions of success is more "reasonable."
Well, I respectfully wave the b s flag.
Case in point is o'donnell. She may have been more electable a few weeks ago as polls suggested R candidates in Delaware would beat a Dem. But after a short time, the "dabbled in witchcraft..." stuff - and other comments - came out, she became far from electable.
The reason she isn't electable is because she is a very poor candidate (for just about anything, really) and has been exposed for what she is to the voters by her opponent and her opponent's supporters. In other words, the Dem candidate's campaign has been better (not that he's all that much to cheer about, either....).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment