Posted on 04/04/2016 11:20:12 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
With a varied cast of characters pursuing each party’s nomination for president, the subject of electability — the idea that some candidates are inherently better or worse general election candidates than others — keeps coming up. It’s come up in reference to Bernie Sanders, a Vermont socialist in a party that has seen multiple northern liberals lose the presidency. It’s come up in reference to Hillary Clinton, who would be the first woman to top a major party ticket and whose political career has been dogged by scandals. And electability questions have been raised perhaps most often on the Republican side, about the two candidates now leading the GOP field, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
But what does “electability” mean? Is it real?
Oftentimes, it’s simply a stand-in term for ideology. When a pundit or analyst says a candidate is “not electable,” what they really mean is they’re too ideologically extreme for general election voters. There’s some evidence for this — for example, two of the most ideologically extreme candidates of the 20th century, Republican Barry Goldwater and Democrat George McGovern, each received far fewer votes than predicted by political science forecasting models based on non-ideological factors like the economy. And, of course, it’s intuitive that voters would be put off by candidates whose views lie far outside the mainstream.
These ideological tinged electability concerns are most often raised about Cruz and Sanders. Data suggests that both are, in fact, more extreme than past nominees. Looking at Sanders’ DW-NOMINATE Common Space scores (which places all House and Senate members on the same left-right scale), Sanders, as of the 113th Congress, was well to the left of any recent Democratic president with a Congressional voting score....
(Excerpt) Read more at fivethirtyeight.com ...
Cruz maybe
Sanders NOT SO MUCH
Not what I meant to say at all.
I don’t see Sanders as being electable at all.
I see a possibility Cruz could be elected.
Cruz yes. I know a lot of pubs who are leaving the party because of him if he wins. He is arrogant, smug and holier than thou and gives Christians a bad name.
Sanders, not so much. He is probalby more electable than Hitlery.
The chart is crap; they have Hillary being more of a lefty than Obama. She’s a FABIAN SOCIALIST and wee barry is a farther left RACIAL JUSTICE MARXIST.
You’re closer to the truth than most will accept.
Cruz is.
He has no path to the nomination .
Not a possibility.
I have so much difficulty with the idea that anybody would prefer Hilary to anybody else. The idea of Hilary being President should be enough to cause people to overlook all but the worst possible qualities in a human being and vote for them.
Cruz will win on the 2nd ballot and trump will cry all the way back to New York how he was cheated when everyone knows the rules.
I can’t wait to see the slimeball self immobilize when he loses.
Cruz has far less chance on any contested convention ballot than Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush.
The open borders cabal controls too many delegates, and even with his hard left turn embracing Neil Bush they don’t see him as reliable.
If Cruz can’t go in and win on the first ballot, he can’t have any path of any sort to the nomination.
You would think but Cruz isn’t electable. And I don’t vote for cultists.
I think the GOP wants Hillary to win, I really do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.