Most Democrats believe retaking the White House is what matters most. Unfortunately, that leads to 2020's most meaningless question: Which candidate is best equipped to defeat Trump? Next time you hear a candidate or pundit talk about "going toe to toe with Trump" you might want to throw a brick at the screen.

Let's stipulate: (a) The GOP's fall campaign will be vicious; (b) No matter who the Democratic candidate is, he or she will be lambasted by Trump's machine; (c) Every Democrat in the race has exploitable flaws; (d) Incumbent presidents, especially those able to cite robust economic figures, have an enormous advantage; (e) Trump's base is solid, so the election will hinge on swing voters in a few battleground states.

Thanks to cable-TV, social media and zealous opinion writers like me, Democrats can't stop second-guessing themselves. When a candidate shows a bit of spunk in a debate, we pivot and enthuse that he or she can "take it to Trump." It's not going to work that way.

Trump will campaign by holding raucous rallies and attacking via Twitter. There is no guarantee that he will agree to even a single debate — a possibility his team has already floated. He has successfully ignored everything from releasing his taxes to complying with Congressional subpoenas, so clearly he will play by his own campaign rules. Trump prefers dancing toe to toe with sycophants like Sean Hannity and Medal of Freedom winner Rush Limbaugh.

Meanwhile, Democrats should reflect on the fact that gut instincts have served them well in their victories over the last half-century. Hillary Clinton was the brainy choice in 2008, but Barack Obama stirred enough passion to win the nomination and eight years in the White House. Bill Clinton was hardly the safe, strategic selection in 1992, considering his limited national experience and tabloid-pleasing past. In 1976 Democrats had an overcrowded field and eventual winner Jimmy Carter was by no means the logical choice.

This year, however, voters I spoke with in Nevada said things such as, "I like Pete but I'm caucusing for Bernie," or "Amy seems best, but Biden is safest." Second guessing is inherent to the caucus process, which is why caucuses are likely to disappear after this cycle. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders was the clear winner in Nevada but he received barely a third of the votes on the first and most meaningful ballot (about 34%). After second guessing he jumped up on the final ballot (40.5%), and due to Nevada's complicated and confusing process he climbed even higher in the ultimate county delegate distribution (46.8%).

The caucuses in Nevada and Iowa, where voters shift allegiance from one candidate to another, mirror what's been going on, unofficially, in the minds of many voters across the nation.

There are several analytics we should cleanse from our thinking: "Who has the money to compete with Trump?" "Who can win the African-American vote?" "Are Americans ready for a woman president?" These are, in Nevada-speak, the makings of sucker bets.

Yes, money poured into campaigns by billionaires Mike Bloomberg and Tom Steyer has affected early polling but it won't matter much in the general election. Both parties will have plenty of cash. True, Joe Biden was an early favorite among black voters, but Bernie Sanders is making some inroads. Moreover, it's demeaning if not outright biased to suggest that black and brown Democrats would not enthusiastically support whoever faces Trump. A woman? That's asked and answered: In 2016 the woman candidate got 2.8 million more votes than the man.

Voters should also stop worrying that bold progressive plans will never get through Congress. As long as Republicans control the Senate, most proposals from any Democratic president will fail. Besides, the role of presidents is primarily to point the way, not write legislation — and every Democratic candidate is pointing toward improved health care, combating climate change, fair treatment of immigrants, and progressive executive action to clean up Trump's mess.

The single word that sent this marathon campaign in the wrong direction and dissuaded Democrats from trusting their instincts was "electability." It was a false metric a year ago, and it's an imponderable now.

Watch the debates and town halls and ask yourself who makes you hopeful? Who articulates your concerns? And, yes, who makes you smile? Then go with your gut.

(c) Peter Funt. This column originally appeared in USA Today.