This is something of a follow up to my Winning Elections diary last December, but not entirely. I had long contemplated doing something on this diary's topic as a stand alone essay relating to either logic or elections. Unlike the aforementioned previous diary, which was more of less from a marketing perspective, this one is from a logic perspective. So, let's get started -
Very few seem to have read the previous diary, so I'll note a couple of things said there that are relevant to this one.
First the conclusion, that most probably didn't wish to hear, was that a key to winning elections is product differentiation, the candidate needs to be somebody and to stand for something, to positively inspire voters to vote for them.
Also I presented a categorization of voters into types:
Before I Illustrate, let's stereotype the electorate a bit; in general, and by and large, they are:
1) Hard core GOP/DEM, always vote for their party's candidate
2) Moderate GOP/DEM, votes for their party's folks unless they
are really horrible, might vote opposition if theirs is abhorrent and
opposition is really inspiring
3) Weak GOP/DEM, wii vote for their party's candidate if said candidate
is inspiring enough, or else stay home
4) Non-aligned voter, votes for whichever candidate is most
inspiring, might take a pass
5) Maybes will only vote if somebody really inspires them to do so
The key to winning elections is to inspire your party's Type 3 voters and a bunch of type 4 voters.
Forget about getting enough GOP voters of any type to make a difference. If you get all the Dem type 3s and a lot of type 4s, you don't need GOP voters. There are demographics within those categories, sure, but they are within and do not usually override them. Hence, pulling in the female vote means female category 3 Dems, lots of category 4 females and a good handful of category 5 females, not any GOP category 1 or 3s and not enough GOP category 2s to matter whatsoever.
The obvious answer, gleaned from thousands of diaries and comments over the years is that
"you can't do that". This is often expanded to a statement of the form "
A (description) could never get elected in (location) because (reasons)." While it is always possible that such a statement could be true,
it is also a fallacy to assert and act upon. It is an instance of a
self-fulfilling prophecy.
Such an argument is an instance of the general argument form "We should not attempt to achieve x because such an attempt cannot succeed". It may be scientifically true in the case of physical impossibility (Man cannot jump from the earth to the moon unassisted), but it is always trivially true if acted upon. By refusing to attempt to achieve x you guarantee that you will fail to achieve x.
Consider if all humans had heeded the advice of those claiming that heavier than air devices could not fly and hence refused to try. We would still be mostly grounded. At various times, in various locales, it has been the accepted wisdom that women or persons of color or some other group could not be elected to certain positions. Yet, today, in some of those same places, women, persons of color and some of those others have been elected to those positions. The change cannot occur unless there is an attempt. No female Democrat will ever be elected to Stupak's old seat so long as the locals refuse to run one.
I was once told that a liberal couldn't possibly win a particular position is a specific red state. For proof, my informant pointed out that the last one to even try didn't even win their primary. I do not know the facts in that particular state, but experience leads me to believe that this is not only the fallacy of self-fulfilling prophecy but an instance or circularity to boot. I have seen far, far too many primaries and equivalent selection processes where the purveyors of the status quo successfully inveighed against supporting a woman, person of color, lefty or other out-group candidate on the grounds that no person of that category could ever win the general. I am sure that if someone were to quiz them on that, they would point to the inability of such persons to even win primaries without even blinking an eye or realizing what they had done.
I won't reiterate what I said in the other diary about Connie Saltonseal and the anydude'll do faction of the MI (andMI-1) Democrats. They won, got their guy, and lost the seat for us. "Hey, I'm a guy, with a gun and fambly values, what's not to like" was seemingly not much to like. Perhaps she would've lost anyway, but, as it was, we'll never know, because "wimmens can't win here".
The self-fulfilling prophecy is all about failing because you fear to try. It is somewhat of a variant of "Nothing ventured, Nothing gained". We are faced with an approaching election. Many are confident of a material victory. Many others fear a monumental loss. ...
I fear, with reasonable certainty, that we will run many candidates who are pale washed out things, weak-tea centrists with no real point, purpose, platform or program whose electoral success will hinge largely upon coattails; political equivalents of Kipling's Tomlinson. Some of these will lose and some win only to hurt us later. For those candidates and their supporters, and those who feel that such candidates are what will lead the party to success and the nation to progress I will simply point out that no one can support you if you don't stand for something, nobody can follow you if you don't lead. You will not win by seeking only to offend and displease none.