Martin: Who can beat Hillary?

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to customers at the White Mountain Cafe & Bookstore, Thursday, Oct. 29, 2015, in Gorham, N.H.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to customers at the White Mountain Cafe & Bookstore, Thursday, Oct. 29, 2015, in Gorham, N.H.

All right Republicans, it's time.

We've now watched three debates - or six, if you count those "happy hour" warm-ups - each featuring GOP presidential candidates of all walks. Sixteen shades of conservatism. With a field that expansive, there has been an onstage option for almost every flavor of right-leaning voter, ideologically and stylistically.

And though the debates have been excruciating affairs at times - like CNN's "greedy" third hour and CNBC's bush league moderators - they've served their purpose by (slowly) thinning the herd and giving the conservative electorate an opportunity to better evaluate their roster of presidential aspirants.

Now, as we start closing in on the Iowa caucuses, it's time for conservatives to start asking themselves the most important question of the primary season: Which one of these options stands the best chance to beat Hillary Clinton?

Not "Who do I like the most?" or "Which one appeals to my conservative sensibilities the most?" Neither one of those questions really gets to the meat of the matter.

I'm not saying those are irrelevant questions. One of my favorite things about starting out with such a deep bench of Republican candidates was that the vast majority of conservative voters were able to closely identify with at least one of the Oval Office-seekers. That's a luxury not always enjoyed.

Whether we've been actual fans of particular candidates, most of us have picked one or two that best line up with our personal preferences, and we've watched the debates with a special eye on those individuals. But selfish biases need not distract us from the larger goal, which is to make sure the White House changes party hands after the 2016 presidential election.

Though I wouldn't say I've been completely in the corner of a particular campaign, early on I chose a camp that I've followed more closely than others. I liked many of the ideas and the philosophies guiding it. However, after a third round of debates, that goose is pretty much cooked.

I'm okay with that. It's not the end of the world because there's a more important issue at play: winning in November.

During Wednesday's CNBC telecast, two candidates stood in sharp contrast to the rest of the field - Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Carly Fiorina caught a sliver of limelight, but the rest of the stage's occupants delivered forgettable performances.

In a general election debate, a forgettable performance can kill a campaign. That's one reason why conservatives must start looking at these primary exchanges in a larger perspective. Republicans can't afford to nominate a candidate who will get outdueled by Clinton. Holding serve isn't good enough either.

Republicans have to select a candidate who can beat her onstage and on the campaign trail in convincing fashion. The GOP nominee has to be able to deliver tactically sound performances that are so inspirational and full of substance that they'll actually win voters over.

Hillary's husband, Bill, once said, "In every presidential election, Democrats want to fall in love. Republicans just fall in line." Conservatives have a chance to stand that proclamation on its head with the right nominee. This go round, the Democrats appear to be taking the "fall in line" option, while Republicans have the rare opportunity to win an election by putting a candidate forward who can woo America.

It may be a bitter pill for some on the right to swallow, but we've arrived at the impasse where we have to put our focus on winning the war, not intramural scrimmaging.

Let's get it right.

Contact David Allen Martin at davidallenmartin423@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @DMart423.

Upcoming Events