Exactly what does "electable" mean?

So much of what we hear about the Republican field is centered around whether or not the candidate in question is "electable" or not. Certainly since an undocumented illegal alien from Kenya currently holds the post, this electability questions should be moot.

But what exactly does "electable" mean? Does it mean the candidate has to be well spoken? Does it mean he or she must "look the part"? And what exactly does "looking the part" mean?

Abraham Lincoln was elected President not once but twice while sporting a beard that made him look like an Amish farmer. Robert Taft was so fat when he was elected that a special bathtub had to be installed in the White House to accommodate his girth. If you look through the gallery of Presidents, there have been pinheads, bald guys, mustachioed guys, clean shaven guys, guys in glasses, guys in wheelchairs, and no one anywhere would ever call Richard M. Nixon a "handsome fella".

So electability may have little to do with one's personal physical appearance. What about speaking ability?

Our current President, Barack Obama, is known as a powerful orator, that is until his teleprompter malfunctions. Then, as we have all seen, he's a slow, stuttering, extremely nervous speaker with a halting delivery and a tendency to mispronounce words like "corpsman" (repeatedly). He also has a disturbing habit of not knowing which state he is in. Or even how many states comprise the United States (hint: not 57).

So speaking ability is not critical.

That leaves only policy.

A Candidate's policies are the road map for the direction he wants to take the country should he or she be elected to high office. Questions as to the country's energy strategy, whether or not to go to war, what the immigration policy of the country should be and plans to curb or expand government spending are all indicators of a candidate's policies.

While it is a given that policies change as the conditions of the country change, policy statements are how voters should and have decided for which candidate to cast their vote. But which policies can make a candidate unelectable?

That is a question for those who claim that none or only one of the Republican field of candidates is, after all is said and done, electable. For example, would running up the government's debt with no real infrastructure improvements to show for all the money spent, would that make a candidate "unelectable"?

Would bailouts and sweetheart deals to prized constituents (a politically correct way of describing bribes and kickbacks) make a candidate unelectable?

Would an energy/conservation policy that drives up fuel prices and the costs of almost everything else make a candidate unelectable?

Would engaging in unconstitutional and illegal military actions make a candidate unelectable?

Would identifying with a very unpopular but very vocal group agitating for violence against their fellow citizens and destruction of private and public property make a candidate unelectable?

Would spending exorbitant amounts of taxpayer dollars on extravagant vacations and extraordinary perks, like a big black bulletproof bus used for campaigning but manufactured in Canada, during a time when most Americans are tightening their belts and canceling their vacations make a candidate unelectable?

And which Republican candidate has advocated for or predicted his acquiesce to any of the above mentioned policies? To my knowledge, not one. And which candidate for President has not only advocated for but actually imposed these dreadful policies? To my knowledge, only the incumbent.

So why or how could anybody claim that the Republican field of candidates is largely "unelectable"? Is that wishful thinking or just shallow prejudice?

You decide.