Seems like a good morning to re-up this piece on The Muckrake on how arguments over “electability” are utterly meaningless as no one has a clue what’s going to happen and it leads to awful candidates like Bloomberg and a loss of hope for a better future.
themuckrake.com/main/lowered-e…
themuckrake.com/main/lowered-e…
Gameifying politics and treating like something to predict instead of participate in trivializes what it’s supposed to be: the process by which we better the world.
Worrying about “an electorate” that may or may not even exist limits reform and change and leads to autocracy.
Worrying about “an electorate” that may or may not even exist limits reform and change and leads to autocracy.
Instead of participating in the prediction games if pundits and cable news, both designed for entertainment and profit purposes, look at your vote as an investment in something you believe in and want. Stop worrying about what will play with who. Fight for the future you want.
“Electability” is just a made up term that, more often than not, means “will conservative white men vote for this.” It’s a hindrance and gets politics backward. You shouldn’t ask whether you can direct a message to their tastes but whether you can move them.
We have to do better
We have to do better
You know who didn’t look “electable?” Barack Hussein Obama. Pundits were quick to point out every reason a nameless, faceless electorate would never vote for him.
He won Indiana. My state. He won it over.
Don’t let these fake debates fabricated for TV segments limit your hopes.
He won Indiana. My state. He won it over.
Don’t let these fake debates fabricated for TV segments limit your hopes.
