"Electability". Nothing more than a way for "centrist" dems to complain about liberals without needing any facts or policies to talk about. "But getting elected is really important"... no shit? Really? It's important you say? Right, it is.
Too bad "electable" candidates DON'T WIN! There is that little problem!
On the "Insufferable Scale" it's right up there with "liberals" that think things like Nationalized Healthcare are just a little bit too radical and unheard of to have in this country, "the people will never accept it even if it is a good idea... even if polling says they would, I'm certain for I have asked my corporate sponsor, they assured me, no, certainly not." They may have a point, just because a rich country like Bolivia can do it doesn't mean we can. Leave free medicine to stable nations like Chile I say, and spend your time electing electable electro-victorious election winners.
I really hate this lie of a concept, "electability". It is one of those words designed to confuse... it's built out of the word "elect" and so naturally, people fall for it left and right, it has the word "elect" in it, after all, it must be what we want, because we also want our people "elected". "Elected" ... "Electability"... see?! same thing!
But no. It's just a way to say all liberals are marginal, they all lack credibility at once. Note... as proof of my attitude toward this we can watch this test. Some people, like MSOC, hold that Hillary literally cannot be elected... we all know why and all know there is a grain of truth to the concern that her negatives are too high... but the "electability" issue will not gain hold, the press will not grab it as they did, say, with Dean... why? Because it is a pro-conservative frame... right wing assholes are "electable"... right wing nuttiness is considered "standard" and quite "electable"... want to build a big flaming oil filled moat around the US? That's not "unelectable"... it may be called a "negative", though probably not, but it won't mean one is not "electable".
"Electability" exists only to malign progressives by nurturing from the start the assumption that progressive positions are fringe, nutty, hippy type positions and people that dare state them aloud are unelectable (or alternately, "traitors" in the case of the Iraq War). I am not a Kucinich supporter, but I like the Department of Peace idea, and that is exactly the sort of thing that seems "silly" and makes a candidate "unelectable" according to those that spread the septic theme of electability.
Vote for an idiot's war that was a doomed disaster to anyone with sane political eyes, an obvious disaster even to many that voted to authorize it, and I assure you, you are still going to be considered "electable"... you may be criticised for your mistake, but you are still "electable" because you don't believe in nutty leftist ideas like apologizing for slavery... but have progressive ideas like the Department of Peace or free college education, etc, etc, and your "electability" will be called into question by insufferable pricks.
cheers