During the Republican primary, I generally refrained from using the electability argument.
Electability is important, but the arguments often seemed to me counterproductive and almost always conveniently supported the candidate of choice of the person making it. John Kasich is the “only one” who can beat Hillary because he is a moderate and will appeal to centrists. Cruz is too conservative.
Or Cruz is the “only one” who can beat Hillary because he will fire up the base and bring them to the polls. Kasich will inspire apathy in voters like Romney did.
First of all, if someone is going to pronounce their candidate the “only one” who can win, I want to see some data to back that up, not just boilerplate prognostications that support the narrative of the one making them. Second, if a particular candidate is the “only one” who can beat a very flawed candidate in Hillary Clinton, that doesn’t say much for your party or your platform. While I am a longtime paleoconservative with very firm beliefs, I prefer Kasich and Cruz to Hillary, even though I didn’t support either in the primary. Declaring all the other candidates but your own dead meat in the general has always struck me as unhelpful. Why do you want to dis the electoral chances of your party and anyone who might wind up representing it?
More @ The Economic Populist