This is really a no-brainer for anyone who studies political science.

Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire — the states that begin the presidential nominating battle — say Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards are more likely than Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to say what they believe, rather than what they think voters want to hear, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Polls. But they also view Mrs. Clinton as the best prepared and most electable Democrat in the field, the polls found.

Republican voters in those two states say that Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, shares their values and views on immigration, a red-hot issue for Republicans in Iowa especially. But they are divided over whether Mr. Romney or Rudolph W. Giuliani, who Republican voters say does not share their values, would be the party’s strongest general-election candidate — and electability looms as a crucial factor for Republican voters in those states.

These are some of the findings in twin polls conducted by the New York Times and CBS News in the two states, which will begin the nominating process in less than two months. The polls found that the electorates in the two states had different perceptions of the candidates and concerns about issues, while suggesting that the outcome was far from settled in either place.

Political parties exist for one purpose -- to elect candidates to office in order to implement public policy along a general framework supported by its members. That means, in order to be successful, a party needs to select candidates with the ability to win elections, not the most ideologically pure candidates.

I've endorsed Mitt Romney. I have stayed with Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney offers an agenda I support. That said, I will wholeheartedly embrace Rudy Giuliani, despite my previously expressed doubts, if he is the nominee. After all, I want the process to produce a candidate who can win the Presidency more than I want the perfect candidate.

Indeed, if you want an example of where that difference has been most striking in recent years, look at the Connecticut Senate race in 2006. Yes, Ned Lamont offered a vision closer to that of the majority of primary voters. But when the chips were down, was he electable? No -- as evidenced by the fact he was crushed by Joe Lieberman, who he had defeated in the primary. What did the ideologically pure folks who nominated Lamont gain by their purity?

Posted by: Greg at 11:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.