Jay Cost weighs in on the ongoing debate over whether or not there is such a thing as "electability." Cost's conclusion:
All of this .. means that perceptions of electability are probably manipulable. This would explain why candidates - and not just analysts - are participating in the conversation. These strategy memos are not designed to elucidate the true state of the race for us. They are designed to do what all campaign actions are designed to do: persuade voters. Candidates have an incentive in creating the impression that they are electable - and the subjectivity of electability means that they might be able to create that impression.
Here's how Andrew Ferguson put it in his classic 2004 essay "The Pomo Primary":
In the pomo primary everybody was thinking like a pundit, especially voters. How else to account for the instant cliche of the season, 'electability'? Since the first seeds of self-government sprouted in the Agora, this is surely the strangest rationale yet devised for choosing one candidate over another. Voters voted for someone because they thought voters would vote for him. It is second-order reasoning, a meta-rationale, a judgment about a judgment about a judgment. It will make your head hurt if you think about it too long.
I agree! Thus, a solution to the problem of thinking about "electability": Let's not think about it.