When the Perfect Is the Enemy of the Good

I became aware of a new Harris poll by means of a tweet from Iowahawk, to wit:

iowahawkblog

77% of Americans have no idea who Thad McCotter is; 43% would vote for him over Obama bit.ly/ot3skj 

So I went and checked out the poll and its results, which pretty much confirm the thoughts I've had about the Republican field... up to this point.  The Readers Digest version:  I'm not happy with most of the candidates and the ones that please me have the proverbial snowball's chance in The Hot Place of actually winning the election.  That's sorta the point Mr. Burge was making but not really; Burge is more on about how a complete unknown would run a good race against The One.  Point taken, Mr. Burge, but Rep. McCotter would still LOSE... and here's what the Harris people have to say about that:

Against President Obama

Looking ahead to November, it seems there are three possible candidates who could give President Obama a difficult time. President Obama would lose his re-election if Rudy Giuliani (53% to 47%) or Mitt Romney (51% to 49%) was the Republican nominee. Each candidate would receive 50% of the vote if the President was running against Ron Paul. Right now, President Obama would win re-election against the 10 other candidates presented.

So What?

Right now the Republican party needs to figure out who they are and begin the process of coalescing around one candidate. In the study of politics, there is always a debate regarding electability and this election may show that clearly. Should Republicans nominate a candidate who stands for certain values or policies important to a sub-section of the party, even though that candidate may not be electable in the general election? This is a question the Republican party needs to answer if they want to win next November.

It's an old, old tale but it's one that bears repeating and above all, remembering as primary time approaches.  I know some conservatives (can you say "Palinistas?"  Sure you can!) who would rather see Obama in office for another four years than see the GOP nominate a candidate who fails some aspect of their ideological purity test.  This line o' thinking usually features the "I'll stay home if so-and-so gets the nomination" argument and that consistently amazes me.  This line of thinking has to be The Mother of All Facepalms, as the graphic on the right illustrates.  

The other thing that knots up my underwear is the sheer hubris of such a statement... as in who the fuck cares if YOU, as an individual, stay home?  Not me.  The problem is the aggregate effect of that attitude, which is to say thousands of individuals throwing a hissy fit and staying away from the polls on election day.  There's always an exception, of course, and by that I mean if those thousands of individuals happen to be moonbats who think Obama has betrayed them... in which case, yes.  Stay home.  Please.  

But if it's the conservatives that throw the hissy fit?  I mean... WTF?  You'd rather see Barry Fuckin' Obama win another term than see Romney in the White House?  Really?  You need to see a shrink if you REALLY feel that way, coz you're one sick puppy.