[T]he logic behind Kerry's appeal goes something like this: Even though Democrats aren't particularly excited about Kerry, they're voting for him because they think he could beat Bush. So, they're voting for him because of the perception of electability. Thus, Kerry's only appeal is the perception that he can beat Bush. Period. Here's the problem with that logic: The Democrats' strategy - picking someone with no real appeal only because they think he can beat someone they hate - is a great strategy for selecting a candidate who can win 45% of the vote. It's a horrible strategy for picking someone who can win 51%.

What Democrats fail to grasp is that not everyone hates Bush. Let me say it again - not everyone hates Bush. One more time - NOT EVERYONE HATES BUSH. Perhaps 45% do, but not 51%. And to get to 51%, a candidate must have some appeal other than "I can beat Bush." That's the flaw in Kerry's "electability" logic. It pre-assumes Bush hatred. Kerry gets a free pass from Democrats who don't really like him just because they have succumbed to the herd mentality that he's the most electable. But to beat Bush, a Democrat has to win independents and some Republicans. And these latter groups will not vote for someone who lacks appeal just because he could possibly beat Bush. And why not? BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE HATES BUSH. And that, in a nutshell, is why Kerry cannot beat Bush. He has no appeal other than the perception that he can beat Bush - and that's an insufficient justification for being President. It might get him 45% of the vote, but not 51%. Look, I live in the South - I read conservative blogs and magazines. And I actually talk to real Republicans every single day. And as hard as it is for liberals to get their fat heads around it, not everyone hates Bush.

The Democratic voters - so historically savvy in picking nominees - are making a tragic error by assuming that 51% of Americans hate Bush. It's flawed logic. People won't vote for a candidate who has no appeal. And independents and Reagan Democrats will not abandon Bush for a candidate whose only appeal is the perception that he can beat Bush. That won't be enough to convince them because they don't hate Bush. Independents and moderate Republicans must be given a reason to leave Bush - they need to be inspired. They need to hear a compelling meta-theme that speaks to them.

Candidates need themes - meta-themes. What's Kerry's? Right now, it's "People Think I Can Beat Bush - Have you seen my polls?" Candidates need to be inspiring. [Emphasis in original. -- Ed]

Obviously, I post this because I agree with it entirely and it's been something I've been saying for a while now. The Democrats voting for Kerry (or Edwards for that matter) because they believe he's more "electable" than the other candidates have been sucked into the downward spiral of a feedback loop, and it's one in which the noise has already begun to drown out the signal. The initial idea is a good one, that the Democratic candidate should be able to defeat Bush, but instead of using actual real-world information to decide which one of the candidates has a better chance of doing that, the whole concept gets reified into something called "electability." Then, once Kerry has been annointed as the candidate with the most amount of this new attribute, voters latch on to him, so Kerry wins primaries, which means that voters in the next state are even more convinced that he's got more "electability" mojo and they vote for him and so on and so on to create a mass illusion about Kerry's "electability".

I also want the Democratic candidate to be the person who has the greatest chance of beating Bush, because beating Bush is the paramount consideration in this election, but I want to make that decision based, as I said, on some real-world information. In the real-world, Presidential elections aren't decided by the popular vote (and usually not by corrupt decisions byt e Supreme Court), they're decided in the Electoral College.

The hard fact is that demographics and voting patterns being what they are, many states will be next to impossible to move from one party's column into the others: New York and Massachusetts aren't all of a sudden going to vote for a Republican presidential candidate, and Montana and Kansas aren't going Democratic. The states in which the election will be decided are those in which either party has a chance of moving the vote to their advantage. This means that what we need to base our decision on is "How well will this particular candidate do in the swing states?" and not "Does this candidate outpoll Bush in national match-ups?" and certainly not "Do I and other Democrats think this candidate is 'electable'?"