Electability is not a four-letter word

If the average of recent polls showing Donald Trump losing to Hillary Clinton by more than 11 percentage points is correct, you’d have to go back to Ulysses Grant’s 1872 thumping of Horace Greeley to find such a landslide.

Even recent elections that we think of as utter domination (1980 – Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter by 9.7%, 1988 – George H.W. Bush over Michael Dukakis by 7.7%, 1996 – Bill Clinton over Bob Dole by 8.5%, 2008 – Barack Obama over John McCain by 7.3%) pale in comparison to Trump’s looming loss to Clinton.

Perhaps the comparison to 1872 is particularly apt as Grant, running for re-election, carried a whiff of corruption and scandal (which turned into outright stench a few years later) but won an overwhelming victory against a famous but unappealing challenger who ran, literally, as a Liberal Republican. In 2016, we face the spectacle of an utterly corrupt, national-security-risking, professionally incompetent Alinsky-loving rape-defending shakedown artist and liar trouncing the current front-runner of the FGOP (Formerly Grand Old Party) who has a lifetime full of holding liberal policy positions.

From time to time, “conservatives” tell me that my consideration of electability — who has the best chance of winning the general election — is misplaced and I should focus more on principle. Then when I do (as I always do anyway), and write that, for example, I can’t support John McCain, they tell me that the most important thing is beating the Democrat and I should vote for any candidate, no matter how flawed, who has an “R” after his name. They can’t have it both ways.

Please read the rest of my article for the American Spectator here:

No feedback yet
Leave a comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in now!