Define Winning
Two more major primary elections are being held today, in Pennsylvania and North Carolina…and a runoff is on tap for various races in Texas.
So when going to the primary election polls…in Iowa in three weeks, or anywhere…you are selecting your party’s nominee for whatever race; of great interest this cycle, of course, are the primaries for U.S. Senate.
What’s most important for voters…picking a candidate who subscribes to a majority of their views, or the one with the best chance to win a general election?
Let’s say you pick the candidate with the best chance of winning in November…should your candidate win, what have you actually won? How will they act once in office?
There are plenty of examples over time…particularly of late…where a candidate has a D or an R by their name, but they don’t often act the way you think the party designation would suggest. This is not to say that candidates should be robots marching lockstep with party leadership…but how disappointed do you feel when your chosen candidate does not pan out as you wish?
Let’s say you pick the candidate who subscribes to a majority of your views…but they are poorly positioned to win a general election, one in which non-affiliated, no-party voters make the difference? No matter how in sync you are with the candidate, if they can’t win, you are not affecting policy.
The trick is to do your own research to where you can tell what a candidate stands for, besides party label. Ultimately that leads to you being more satisfied with your choice, and ultimately to better governance.
But there’s no doubt that weighing key electability factors is important, given the closeness of majorities these days, as well as what’s on the line.
