[quote=aldante]I find it hilarious that the pundits here are talking about a certain candidates “electability” as if the whole idea of the primaries are not to find that out. And yes I am referring to the media “pundits” as well as those “pundits” here. The “electability” argument is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to sway public opinion. And as I have mentioned before if the voters in each state of the primaries are not the ultimate voice of who is electable then why have the primaries?
[/quote]
I don’t think your logic quite adds up here. The primaries are to nominate a candidate from each party to run in the general election. Not to decide who is electable in the general election. There’s a difference.
[quote=aldante]
So those here and in the media call some one “extreme” and “unelectable” , knowing that people want to be reasonable and elect a candidate who can change the policies of the current administration. In a way it’s being the judge, jury, and executioner of the argument. In other words it’s a fallacy. I will not buy into that.
[/quote]
Are you saying that people who say Paul (or Santorum or whoever) is not electable are doing it because they don’t wan Paul or Santorum to get nominated? I’m not sure I understand what you think the motivation is behind voting for (or trying to sway someone to vote for) an electable candidate rather than that person’s ideal candidate. Please expound.
[quote=aldante]
IMHO, the primary debate should be about the ideas each candidate brings to the table. Hash those out with logic, facts, and mature discussion.
[/quote]
I agree. But let’s say that your ideal candidate can’t win in the general election. So your options are to have your ideal candidate win the nomination and then lose to what is, to you, a worse option (the other party’s candidate), or to vote for your less-than-ideal candidate who, to you, is a better option than the other party’s candidate. I would think a reasonable person would go for option B, as it would result in the best possible winner in the general election for that person. Obviously you don’t agree with that, and I’m curious as to why.
[quote=aldante]
But to discuss someone’s “electability”? Come on people.
[/quote]
As I say in the above paragraph, electability is important, and I’m curious why you think it shouldn’t be discussed.
