Question? When the word “electability” is thrown around do you define it by difficulty? Is the least electable candidate the most ‘difficult’ to get elected? Is the most electable candidate the ‘easiest’ to get elected?
For me this question of ‘electability’ is moot. I am not looking for ease or convenience, I am looking for principled character. Right vs. Wrong. Personally I am beyond the point of voting for the least wrong candidate, and I choose to weigh my advocacy against the best candidate absent of considerations of difficulty.
I believe in America. I believe that when Honest Principles meet Deceptive Opportunism, the common sense electorate will readily identify the person they can trust. People are awake now, and paying greater attention. The mere fact the DNC and WH advocates feel a need to raise $1 Billion reflects their fear of an engaged electorate.

Right is right even if nobody does it, and wrong is wrong even if everybody does it.

Average, everyday, ordinary citizens know this. They might not talk about it. They might not openly discuss it. But they know. Americans are NOT stupid, and do not cotton to being lied to.
Put an honest principled conservative up against deceptive Obama and Obama will lose. The progressive elitist mindset on both the left and the right, do not want you to think in these common sense simple terms. Hence they, along with the media, create endless considerations to avoid the simple question ‘who do you trust’?
Perhaps, set aside the conversations of difficulty and instead ask the simple question. When you ask the simple question. The fog surrounding the best candidate clears up pretty quickly.