Electability Revisited

Commentor na waffled around a lot, but ultimately clung to two inconsistent positions.  1)  John Morrison is "more" electable that Jon Tester, and 2)  Jon Tester is unelectable.

Regarding number 2, that's not so likely.  Tester polls beyond the margin of error above Conman Burns, at this point.  Of course, so does Morrison (who so few of his supporters can even get his name's spelling straight at this point).  But the logic is clear:  Tester would win against Connie Burns.  Now, how is that "un-electable" again?  It isn't.

As regards the first point,  John Morrison does poll better than Jon Tester against the Conman Burns, but that is not an argument to vote for Morrison, unless you think that a larger margin of victory is somehow a "greater victory".  Hmmm.  Not so much.  A win in an election is absolute.  So, you really only have a choice between winners, given the information at this time.  This time is before the primary.  John Morrison is still open to attack from the GOP for his infidelity and possible malfeasance in office.  Jon Tester is ethically open to attack on ... nothing.  Between winners, the only choice is who will maintain their quality until the race is over. 

What's funny (okay, not) to me is that not one single person from the Morrison side of the devide has been able to profer an argument that their candidate should win other than the now debunked idea that their candidate is the only one who would win.  Now, it becomes quite simply what I have seen it as all along:  this is a race of comparative advantage.  If we buy into the myth that Tester and Morrison would both beat Burns, (me being completely convinced that Morrison wouldn't) then who would you rather have as a representative in the Congress?

Which, sadly,  brings us back to the money.  John Morrison has been better at fundraising than Jon Tester, no doubts due to his party insider connections and his associations with moneyed interests (attorneys).  I refer to this as sad, because of a particular illusion that it promotes among the more gullible of Democrats.  Na made the claim that fundraising is proof of favor among Democrats, but (somehow mysteriously) not among Republicans.  I'm not to rehash the idea of the magic and loving holy Democratic funding fairy ... suffice it to say that half an ounce of thought will show that to be bullshit.  Ten well-heeled party folk can give more than one hundred concerned and supportive citizens, but that will still only equal 10 votes vs. 100.  The guy with 100 votes wins, and the pixie-dust-money-spreading funding fairy can bite it.

However, politicians spread lies.  The reason that na was so gobbling at the trough of the funding myth is because it's a likable myth.  We're Democrats, and we like to think that we are somehow better than Republicants.  "Our" money means something, where "theirs" doesn't.  "Our" money buys truth while "theirs" just pays for lies.  Nope.  Not the case, kids.  Our money buys just as much exposure and bullshit as their's does.  Right now, John Morrison is starting to spend his moneys to purchase a lie, that he is more electable than Jon Tester.  He's selling his name, and a lot of people will buy it because they see it.  Morrison's spending is working not because he's "more" electable; we've already established that he isn't.  If Jon and John are both electable, and either candidate could beat Burns, then Morrison is selling a debunked lie; that a vote for him will favor your interests.  In short, money buys lots of lies, and the lie here is that John Morrison will be better against Burns (because he can outspend Tester).

That's a lie of the Devil, but it will work.  Even Eric Coobs sees it as a sham, but many Democrats won't.  So, I offer this advice to the Tester campaign; take it or leave it as you wish.  Your enemy, at this point, is not Conrad Burns.  You have his corrupt ass beaten and whipped.  Your enemy is John Morrison.  John Morrison is lying to the very people who would favor a citizen farmer over another politician who will be bought by special interest within a year (and some would argue, already has been).  Reach out to the people who have been spoonfed "Morrison" and didn't realize that they had a better choice.  I'm a believer.  Quit mailing me.  Mail my in-laws (staunch Democrats of terrific working stock).  John Morrison sends them tons of junk-mail, and they will vote for him because that's the only voice they've heard.    Jon Tester reaches out to Montanans, while Morrison reaches out to Democrats.  I know which is a stronger binding tie.  Spend your money against Morrison, because Conrad is already toast if he has to face an ethical opponent.

And, Tester campaign, keep this in mind.  John Morrison is counting on people like me to hold their nose and pencil his bubble come November.  Simply put, I won't.  It would be strategically wiser for me to vote for the soon to be indicted Burns, and let my Governor decide who will take his seat.  But many will vote Morrison just because he isn't Burns.  That isn't what our governance was supposed to be about, and that isn't the campaign that Tester has run.  We have a choice here, to be made about a month from now.  Time is running out.  It's time to run against the opponent before you, and let the other sweat until it's time to take him down.  That means party wide mailings, yard signs, and letting people know that Tester doesn't stand for the status quo.  Spend the money now, and more will come for the fight against Burns.

My faith lies in Jon Tester, as opposed to the guy who's agenda clearly favors his own prurient interests.  I will favor the citizen farmer over the political user any single day.  John Morrison will not get my vote in the primary.  It is highly doubtful that he will get my vote in the general.  After all, if Conman Burns wins, then I can hope for his indictment and a Governor's well chosen appointment.

Tester can beat Burns, and he will beat Burns.  Only the timid would favor Morrison at this point.

Comments

[na]

I won't waste my time posting lenghty posts as I did before, because you will, as before, simply waste space on cute rhetoric. Needless to say, you forgot two crucial things:

1) Morrison is issue-focused, meaning everyone knows what his priorities in the Senate will be: health care and small business. Unfortunately for Tester, folks don't know what he stands for because he talks such a vast array of issues.

2) You say both candidates are ahead of Burns. True. But Morrison is more than TEN points higher, and Tester is only a couple ahead. Don't treat your readers like morons--a 2 point lead this early in the campaign is nothing. A 10+ lead is.

[Wulfgar]

1) You continue to see a one-issue candidate as a strength. I continue to see it as a weakness. On this, we obviously will not agree. However, you continue to denigrate Tester's stances simply because of the fact that he has a number of them beyond what Morrison is willing to challenge. You have no evidence to back your assertions. Present such, if you're able.

2) A win is a win, by 2 points or 10. Your candidate is flawed, and refuses to address his weaknesses against Conrad because he thinks that beating Tester hands him a de-facto win on the general. Refute that, if your able. Never mind, you can't.

You're logic is correct, but your projection is hugely flawed. A 2 point lead can grow based on a good candidate. A 10 point lead will mean defeat when Burns turns up the heat on Morrison's ethical lapses (involving an affair that many Montanans will revile). You continue to fantasize that what will get your candidate nominated above Tester for the party will win against Burns. It won't. Morrison will lose against Burns, as soon as that asshole's 6 million bucks points out the ethical flaws in pretty boy's past.

Na, please answer the charges I have leveled approaching 2 weeks now: Can Morrison deal with his past affair and possible malfeasance because of it, or will he simply let Burns cook him on slow-roast because of it?

The whole point of this post is that we can do better and win, and nominate Tester, or we can be safe and afraid, and nominate Morrison. Who is your boy running against? Tester? He might win. Burns? He will go down so awfully. Bye bye, na. I hope you enjoy another 6 years of Conrad ... (until he gets indicted and then maybe your boy can get picked for the team before the last round ...)

[na]

1) Just because Morrison isn't jumping up and down about a new issue every week doesn't mean he doesn't have positions on other issues. Go ahead and ask someone you don't know what the two candidates stand for and you'll see what I mean about issue-focused campaigns.

2) A win by 2 points isn't a win by 10 points, becuase 2 and 10 points refer to TODAY, not election day. Going into the general, I'd rather have a double-digit lead over a 2 point, inside the poll's margin of error, lead. You don't seem to recognize that the 10 or so points that distance Morrison from Tester are HUGE.

[Pogie]

Given that Morrison is so issue-focused and that the single most important foreign policy question facing the nation today is Iraq, I have a simple question: what specifically does he believe the US should do?

[Wulfgar]

Ya' know, na, for someone who wasn't going to comment 'round here any more, you certainly are being very strident, aren't you? Heh, hehe.

Trust me, I actually appreciate this fact. It shows me that you're as committed to your candidate as I am to mine. That's a good thing.

So let's get clear on a few points:

1) Both candidates seem to be "issue focused" depending on who you ask at what time. You don't think Tester is ... I do. But you haven't been promoting your candidate on a broad spectrum of issues, but rather just one, upon which he has a firm platform of success. That does not make a campaign. You would promote the idea that dealing with issues as they come up is a sign of weakness. I think that a sign of a Senator who is forward thinking. I reiterate, Jon Tester stands above Morrison because he deals with more than one thing at a time.

2) A win is a win. Anyone who follows football as rabidly as I do knows that as a fact. You want, oh so desperately, to say that one win is "bigger" than another. But you fail to see the game for what it is. Just because Morrison will beat Tester (based solely on name recognition) doesn't mean that Burns isn't saving his attacks for your boy.

[na]

Pogie-

Morrison has one main theme when he talks about Iraq: we cannot make ourselves permanent occupiers of Iraq for the simple reason that 90% of the terrorists are nationalist terrorists who want us out, not foreign fighters like al-Qaida. Let Iraqis know we are leaving soon, and a lot of terrorism will stop.

Wulfgar-

I agree that a win is a win. But Morrison has a more secure win at this stage because polls have had him up by 5 points or more for the last few months. Tester, however, has always hovered inside the poll's margin of error.

We aren't going to get anywhere with the other discussion.

And I only returned to post because you need at least one moderate voice in here ;)

[Liberals Are Funny]

I cracked up when I read "citizen farmer."

[Eric Coobs]

I just got an idea - I'll sell Morrison a hardhat, rent him a dump truck to pose by, and he can film a commercial, talking about working men! The one where he's got a new pair of work gloves is classic.

[Cal Thexton]

Eric-- Got any idea how I can sell some unregistered securities in Montana? My wife isn’t very sexy so I thought maybe I could hire a babe and have her pretend to be my wife. Do you think Morrison would go for something like that?

[The Blue Barn]

Cheers to Wulgar. You said it all. Good piece.

[GeeGuy]

Hey, come over to my place. I am thinking of starting a new club: "Republicans for John Morrison (at least until July '06)"

[Montana Maven]

Wulfgar, you are on the mark in emphasizing courage. It is timid to take the "Safe" route. The powers that be i.e. the Republican Democrats- the mushy middlers- want someone"controllable" and they figured Morrison fit that bill. We, the grass roots want a fighter for the middle class against the corporatists. We want someone who will help expose the lie of the Flat headed Flat Earthers like Tom Friedman. And Our bill of rights are at stake, for God's sake. This is no time for "safe". This is the time to make a stand. We need a sense of urgency

[Mark]

So let me see if I got this straight - you're saying, Wulfgar, that you are not willing to "hold your nose" and vote for Morrison in November - that you would take a stand on principle rather than let a bad candidate win on the simple premise that he's better than a worse candidate.

On the other hand, you are pissed off about the "morons" who voted for Nader in Florida.

Have I got this right, Wulfy?

[Wulfgar]

Yes, Marky, you're pretty much spot on.

And I have no delusions about how Morrison supporters will feel about that, either.