Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trump changes the Electoral Map for the Worse not Better
FoxNews personalities keep pushing the narrative that Trump changes the Electoral Map for the better, this is pure fiction.
#1 Some traditional Red States are now in play that wouldn't have been with a different GOP candidate. Utah, Arizona, South Carolina, and Georgia are closer than they should be.
#2 A more traditional Republican like Kasich or Rubio would be heavily favored against Hillary. Kasich literally was beating Hillary in every swing state including clear leads in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania and Kasich had polls where he was beating Hillary in blue states like Connecticut and New Jersey.
#3 Hillary is clearly a corrupt liar matching her up against another corrupt liar mostly mitigates her corrupt lying.
I am not saying that Trump can't win, just that he didn't
Cruz wouldn't stand a chance against any Democrat; he's simply too far right and too much of a religious nutcase to appeal to anybody except right wingers.
Kasich would have had the best shot, but I think that he would suffer from the same problem that McCain and Romney suffered from: little appeal outside of the older, white, rural, male demographic. There really isn't a huge untapped reservoir of older, white, rural male conservatives just waiting for the Right Wing Messiah to lure them to the ballot box if only the GOP candidate was extreme enough.
The biggest group of votes that are up for grabs is in the center of the political spectrum not on either wing, and it's probably moving somewhat leftward as the percentages of Latinos, non-whites, college educated, and younger people in the electorate increase. The GOP left these votes to the Democrats in 2008 and 2012, and in this election cycle, they've literally kicked them to the curb.
Rubio or Kasich would have been more likely to win but Trump still has a 40-50% chance of pulling it off. I agree with Rand Paul the most and I just know that Crooked Hillary is the worst so I'll decide between Johnson or Trump....never Hillary.
Kasich would have resulted in a huge number of stay-at-hone voters. Why vote for a Republican that is basically a Democrat?
Maybe so. But AFAIK, Kasich was never a registered D, nor did he ever donate to D politicians.
I loathe Trump, and as a D, I'm glad he chose to run for the R nomination. But this idea that Trump is somehow more Republican than Kasich is, in my view, just plain silly. It's a testament to skillful rabble-rousing that so many people now actually believe that someone like Kasich is a RINO.
BTW, I wouldn't vote for Kasich either. He's way too Republican for me.
Maybe so. But AFAIK, Kasich was never a registered D, nor did he ever donate to D politicians.
I loathe Trump, and as a D, I'm glad he chose to run for the R nomination. But this idea that Trump is somehow more Republican than Kasich is, in my view, just plain silly. It's a testament to skillful rabble-rousing that so many people now actually believe that someone like Kasich is a RINO.
BTW, I wouldn't vote for Kasich either. He's way too Republican for me.
Kasich is also too establishment, which is what explains why Trump won and Cruz was second. Trump might overturn the apple cart, there is no way kasich would have. That's why I might vote for trump but would never vote kasich.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.