ELECTABLE CANDIDATES GENERALLY ARE NOT

I got suckered in the last 2 Democratic primaries. I voted for the "electable" candidate, and neither of them got elected.

In 2002, in the Florida Democratic Gubernatorial primaries it was a choice between Democrats Janet Reno or Bill McBride to run against Jeb Bush. Everyone said that Janet Reno was "unelectable", and I agreed, voting for McBride. After all, she was a woman, the Cubans hated her, and she had Parkinsons.

Unfortunately, McBride turned out to be a complete ditz who didn't even know the issues. In the debates, Jeb Bush used him as a doormat.

At least if Janet Reno had been running against Jeb Bush, Bush might have still won the election, but he would have walked away from the debates limping and bleeding. You can be sure that Janet Reno would have KNOWN the issues. And she does not pull her punches, as was obvious at Waco or with Alion. She also has a bigger penis than Jeb Bush. You don't have to worry about HER being a fag!

As it turns out, Janet Reno might very well have been more "electable" than Bill McBride. She would have kept the focus on the issues, and would have put up a much better fight. For example, I still can not believe that no Democrats brought up the 2000 election fiasco during Jeb Bush's 2002 campaign. Many people are still seething about that one.

If I had been Democratic campaign manager in 2002, I would have broadcast ads showing the video footage of Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris signing over the 25 Florida electoral votes to Jebbie's dumber brother. That's enough to make most Florida Democrats blood boil, even today. It might remind them of the REAL nature of the creatures that they are dealing with.

But on to 2004. Of course, we all voted for the "electable" John Kerry, rather than the "unelectable" Howard Dean. But in retrospect, Dean might actually have been more "electable".

Here are a few clues:

The rabidity of Republican talk-show jockeys should have been a give-away that the Republicans were seriously scared of Howard Dean. Talk-show jockeys are not going to give Democrats good info on who the nominee should be. Talk-show jockies want to do their utmost to get the Democrats to nominate the biggest loser possible. This is half the battle of winning the general election: Getting the other party to nominate a loser. That is why the talk-show jockies may have attached Dean so visciously, and made such a big deal out of the "Dean scream".

Did anybody make a big deal out of the fact that Bush was foaming at the mouth in the final debate? No. Nobody even mentioned it. I was the only one who was calling him "Mad Dog" Bush. But nobody listens to me.

Kerry also got nominated under rather false pretenses. Kerry was presented to the Democratic National Convention as a sort of Rambo with table manners. He was Mr. War Hero with all the medals. He had fought in Vietnam for at least 20 years, and that was why he looked so haggard. Democrats supported this not so much because they are warmongers, but because this would out-warmonger Bush. After all, Bush was valiantly defending Texas during the Vietnam war, betweeen drinks, and he didn't bother showing up for much of his National Guard duty.

But then, after the convention, it comes out that Kerry was the founder of Veterans against the War. Now personally I think that was impressive, but I knew that that would be disaster in Red America. What was the point of nominating a Rambo if it turns out he was a commie peacenik? Might as well nominate Howard Dean, and at least you get good one-liners.

In fact, for the period of Howard Dean's candidacy, he gave rebirth to an otherwise sleepy Democratic party. He had a lot more charisma than Kerry, and he could match Bush cliche for cliche. After all, elections are now won on cliches, not on intelligent argument.

Kerry came up with almost no cliches, and he usually looked uncomfortable delivering cliches. Dean defined most of the good cliches of the election: "Give Bush a one-way bus ticket to Crawford, Texas", "Ken and the boys", etc.

At the very least, Kerry should have picked Dean as running mate. Instead he picked a southerner who could not deliver a single southern state. Not that I dislike John Edwards, but he really didn't do squat for the ticket.

But you say, "Dean was too liberal". Did that matter? Kerry was painted as being farther to the left than Ho Chi Min. Facts don't matter to the right-wingers. No matter what you say, they're not going to vote for any Democrat, so why bother trying?


Draft 1: 1/6/05.
Draft 2: 1/6/05. Added reasons why we got mislead by Kerry. Made fun of Ahnoold, rambling on endlessly. Always a good thing to do as long as he's not around to beat you up.
Draft 3: 1/6/05. Deleted the section on Ahnoold, and made it into a new post.
Draft 4: 1/7/05. Added section on Jeb Bush & Katherine Harris signing over the 25 Florida electoral votes in 2000. Corrected a few typoes.
Draft 5: 1/9/05. Put title in all caps.