RUSH: Dan Balz of the Washington Post is worried about Democrats falling into the “electability trap” in choosing a nominee.

After all, he asks, can anyone really define what “electable” means? He points out that in past election cycles, supposedly “electable” politicians — like Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton — failed. Whoever said they were electable? The left did. I never thought they were. Jimmy Carter came out of nowhere, and won. Nobody thought he could win.

Four years later, Ronald Reagan. He wasn’t considered the most electable candidate when he ran for president against Carter, but he won in a landslide.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. They were seen as long shots when they first announced, but they won anyway. In the 2016 election, every political insider said Donald Trump was not electable. He’s in the White House now, while Hillary and her supporters are blaming the Russians, James Comey, Jon Stewart, deplorable voters, Facebook, and anybody else they can think of.

Now, Mr. Balz might have a point. Focusing on “electability” could be a trap for Democrats. Instead, maybe they should ask which of their candidates are “unelectable.” And when they look at it that way, the answer has to be: All of them.