Posted by
Reeson on Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:06:31 AM
By Greg C. Reeson
Writing on RealClearPolitics.com today, Steven Stark offers his assessment, based on historical trends and individual appeal, of each major presidential candidate's chances at winning the White House next November. Of course, the assessment is hypothetical, based on the assumption that each candidate would secure his or her party's nomination.
First on his list is Senator John McCain, GOP candidate from Arizona. Stark says McCain is well known and trusted (by whom, I'm not sure), and that he has appeal to some Democrats and independents. How that's good for conservatives I can't quite figure out. McCain may not be doing so well in GOP circles, Stark says, but in a general election he's the guy with the best of chance of winning--unless Iraq falls apart.
The next one on the list I really don't understand. According to Stark's list, former Senator John Edwards comes in second in electability next Fall and his winning of the Democratic nomination would put some Republican states, like Virginia, into the questionable column for the GOP nominee. I still see Edwards as the shady trial lawyer that he is, and his extremely liberal views are not embraced by a majority of American voters.
Another GOP candidate comes in third--former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, because America's mayor pulls an Edwards for Republicans by putting New Jersey and Pennsylvania into question for Democrats. The danger, Stark warns, is that a Rudy nomination by Republicans might cause a third party social conservative candidate to enter the race, a move that could hand the White House to Democrats.
Stark has Senator Clinton and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee tied for fourth on his list, with Senator Barack Obama coming in sixth for electability to the presidency. Bringing up the tail end, Stark places Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson seventh and eighth, respectively.
I take his assessment for what it is--his opinion on the likelihood of any one candidate winning the White House next November. But what concerns me is the attitude toward "electability." My hope is that Republicans are more concerned about a candidate that best represents conservative values, and not about redefining conservativism to fit a candidate that has the best chance of winning. I can understand wanting to keep the White House after the poor showing by Republican candidates in November 2006. But I am convinced that the backlash against the GOP had as much to do with the Republican controlled Congress straying from conservative principles as it did with public dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq.
In the end, Republicans will likely support whichever candidate has the "R" after his name on the ballot. But it is important that whoever ultimately wins the GOP nomination best represents the majority of conservative voters and not the best odds of beating the Democratic candidate.