This article is behind a paywall but here’s two paragraphs I found interesting:
The problem with judging candidates on electability is not just that we tend to be bad at it, but also that it means that instead of asking who you like, you’re asking who you think other people will like. Go too far down that road and you wind up with a nominee no one is too enthusiastic about. On the other hand, when parties nominate candidates who make their base excited, even if they don’t look electable at the outset, they have a better chance of winning. That’s how we got President Barack Obama. And also how we got President Trump.
and then it goes on to say that we should look at how well candidates will govern. It then notes:
Democrats have a history of nominating experienced, competent, serious people who would have been excellent presidents but never got the chance because their campaign skills weren’t as impressive. Thinking only about how they’ll perform in office tends to get you nominees such as Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.
That’s what I hope to dig into with this blog. I want to not only figure out who is the most electable, but also who would make the best president. This is a hard task. What do you think?