Finally, someone who agrees with me -- talk of electability is meaningless. Good post, Mr. McCarthy. Thank you.

I agree that polls matching theoretical nominees against Obama are of limited value, but a less quantitative and more qualitative evaluation of the possible match-ups is still a valid approach to selecting the Republican nominee given the crucial importance of defeating Obama and the likelihood that the election will be close.

"The election is going to be about Obama." Well, not if the Democrats have anything to say about it. It SHOULD be about Obama, and if it is about him, his record, and his vision of decline for this country, we win. On the other hand, the two-pronged Obama strategy is clear: stoke envy of the successful and demonize the Republican nominee as so frightening that Obama actually seems safe by comparison. Knowing that, the candidate who can most easily deflect the attacks that will be leveled against him may very well be more electable.

A plausible argument can be made for Romney on that basis, and in fact explains how well Romney seems to have done with New Hampshire voters based on tonight's exit polls. I'm not advocating for Romney over Santorum, but it's something to think about. Gingrich and the others who have recently attacked Romney for the sin of being productive have disqualified themselves from being the Republican standard-bearer, but after tonight's results they're pretty well out of it anyway.

Gingrich's attack on Romney, by the way, proves that all the criticism made of him after his rise in Iowa was correct. He's no advocate of free markets and, incredibly, by attacking Romney's success he was in effect repeating the same mistake he made undercutting the Ryan budget proposal - adopting the Left's worldview. This should have settled his hash at once. Obama could defeat Gingrich merely by running a tape of his own words against him; he would have a much harder time with either Romney (despite RomneyCare) or Santorum.

Andy, I guess you haven't been reading the tweets. Gov. Romney, in a small state of moderate GOPers, looks like he will get 4 delegates (others will get 8). Therefore (if I read the tweets right), it's *over,* there is no chance of a brokered convention, and Ron Paul and his supporters (some of whom are switchable to the GOP) must be loudly considered to be 'beyond the pale.' Newt must now also be considered to be 'beyond the pale,' because Newt treated Romney about as roughly as the Romney supporters treated Newt.

None a bit this makes any sense, and furthermore -
1. I really miss Michele Bachmann
2. Newt's South Carolina pro-life ad is great,
3. Ron Paul's isolationism is extreme and some of his supporters are entirely insane, but who else is truly serious in opposing big government? (I hope Paul continues to do rather well, if only because he drives the Establishment up the wall).
4. I do not agree that it is over yet, and that provides great consolation, on this New Hampshire evening.

Obama will have a field day with Romney if he is the nominee for his wall-street prep-boy elitism. Also with his taxes! The reason Romney will not publish his tax returns is that he pays a tax rate (on his multimillion $ income) that is lower than the effective tax rate for anyone on his staff. When this becomes known to the general public, Obama will pound on him that he wants to further lower taxes on people like him that pay very little in taxes anyway, while increasing the taxes on lower-income Americans. A flip-flop multimillionaire, with no core convictions (except that "greed is good"), who pays <15% tax rate and wants to reduce his taxes even further, while regular middle class Americans pay 25-35% in federal taxes, will never win the Presidency! Romney (and his tax rate when his returns are published) will become the poster boy for not extending the Bush tax cuts.

To state the obvious...

"Electable" is often related to a Candidate's basis for the position or job. It may seem like a superficial aspect which shows up in polls, but it indicates much more.

It is a poor term "electable", far too generic, but it describes how serious the perceived offering is for the office in consideration. Do they have the credentials, ability, experience, stability, insight, etc?

Simply, Americans will always consider whether a Candidate can be President. No doubt we Americans often get it wrong. But running someone who is clearly not considered a serious offering is just foolish.

Just as foolish as running a Washington Politician or Beltway Insider who has no executive experience, no private sector ability, no economic credentials, etc., at this time. Especially when the American Public holds those connected to the Federal Government in contempt and when the terrible economy is the essential concern of the USA.