Editor’s note: This article is the type of discourse we like to see on our site. We agree on the objective, a more free society, based on constitutional principles, while possibly disagreeing on the best path to get there.
Ed
In the Guest Editorial by Yossi Gestetner, You Can’t Lose to the Loser and Claim to be a Winner, Gestetner claims that by losing a primary, a candidate has shown they are not the stronger general election candidate as a result of not winning more primary votes than another candidate. The article goes on to explain that if a candidate was better, they would win the primary, as they need those voters to win the general. I disagree completely.
The biggest factor in winning general elections and primary elections is being a good candidate. Good candidates aren’t necessarily moderates or conservatives, but candidates who connect with voters. This is how Brian Kemp easily wins re-election when the same voters return Raphael Warnock to the Senate. There are other examples all over the place. Utah has Mitt Romney and Mike Lee. Kentucky has Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul. Ohio has Sherrod Brown and J.D. Vance. Ideology doesn’t have near as much to do with electoral success as being a good candidate. A high name ID, power and lots of money can make up for a lot of shortfalls in other areas. A good (or at least better) candidate can be overwhelmed in the primary by name ID, money, celebrity or being many people’s second choice, but fewer people’s first, and still be a stronger general election candidate by having a broader appeal and smaller base.
In the example used of the U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania, Mehmet Oz defeated David McCormick by 0.07%, 31.21% to 31.14% or as the author noted, 951 votes. Let’s think about this for a minute. The argument is that because McCormick couldn’t earn another 0.07% of the primary vote, he could not then have a better chance in a general election than Oz where those extra 951 votes represent 0.02% of the general election votes. 68.79% of Republican primary voters preferred someone else to Oz, yet we are supposed to believe that makes him automatically the better candidate for the general because he got 0.07% higher than McCormick in the primary. That doesn’t pass the logic test. If he won the primary 70-30 over McCormick, it would be a strong argument for this conclusion. He didn’t.
When we are dealing with tiny margins, specially where candidates are well below the majority of Republican primary voters, we cannot just conclude that more primary votes means a better chance in the general election. It does not mean a candidate is not better; it is just far from a guarantee.
We would need to do a deep dive into favorable/unfavorable numbers and head-to-head general election matchups to determine who might be stronger as a general election candidate in situations where there is not a clear, overwhelming primary favorite. Even then, it is a lot of speculation. We also must account for name ID in such metrics, as a candidate with higher name ID will perform better than a lesser known candidate in most situations.
If Trump wins the first few primaries 60-15 over DeSantis, DeSantis will not have an argument for being the stronger general election candidate. In that case, the appeal just isn’t there for whatever reason. That completely changes if we start looking at a 45-40 type primary results
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA