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.
This should have been a fairly straight forward election for the GOP.
I always characterized this election way back a year or two ago that Americans, quite simply did not want to elect another politician named CLINTON or BUSH. I've had strong suspicions that Americans were looking to purposefully avoid electing those two dynasties if they could.
So logically I assumed that if the Republicans could put any electable candidate not called BUSH, they would have an excellent chance in this election as Americans were looking to vote away from one of those dynasty families that have been in power for so fricking long.
So it isn't surprising that almost every Republican (apart from Cruz who doesn't fit my definition of electable) polled positively against Clinton, simply because they weren't called CLINTON. "Anybody but Hillary" is the mindset of many Americans, please give me something else.
Sadly, however, they have arguably put up the worst presidential candidate for one of the two major parties in our lifetime, certainly in terms of unfavorable ratings lack of resources, lack of knowledge of how the government is run etc. Outlandish racial remarks etc, offending everyone.
I mean they've effectively found the only candidate to have higher unfavorables than her.
This was an easy election to win for Republicans. And for me I think they've blown it. There's a lot of crowing from Democrats that they have a lock on elections, but they don't.
This reminds me of the 2010 Delaware senate race between what should have been Mike Castle (R) vs Chris Coons (D). Moderate Mike Castle was projected to win by 10+ points, but they primaried him and put in "Tea Party" Christine O'Donnell who was projected to lose by 15 points, the voters knew of those polls, but put her in anyway. And she lost by exactly that.
Republicans have a terrible judgment of electability in the past few years.
I don't think so. I think the Repub power people wanted Trump so they will have a clear popular go-ahead to clean out the GOP of the resident nut jobs that had taken it over. A massive election defeat is what the GOP needs and wants.
The entire "We know Hillary sucks, but Trump is worse" Democratic campaign strategy.
Hey, NO ONE is worse than Trump. He has the worse approval ratings of any candidate in U.S. presidential election history. So, even with all of Hillary's baggage, she's wayyyyyyyyy better than Trump. If GOP voters weren't so stupid they might have had a shot in this election.
Hey, NO ONE is worse than Trump. He has the worse approval ratings of any candidate in U.S. presidential election history. So, even with all of Hillary's baggage, she's wayyyyyyyyy better than Trump. If GOP voters weren't so stupid they might have had a shot in this election.
She's not blaming white people for everything. Sheesh!
.
Well actually, she is. But I've noticed that's where Democrats seem to be going this election. They're abandoning any pretense of going after the white vote while at the same time running lily white candidates. And really, why would the white middle class vote for her? It's just going to mean higher taxes and skyrocketing medical expenses along with being blamed for all this country's problems. She's lucky the Trump campaign is floundering, any other candidate would have crucified her by now.
Hey, NO ONE is worse than Trump. He has the worse approval ratings of any candidate in U.S. presidential election history.So, even with all of Hillary's baggage, she's wayyyyyyyyy better than Trump. If GOP voters weren't so stupid they might have had a shot in this election.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6031
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharpshooterTom
A recent SurveyMonkey poll showed Ryan beating her by two points, and Romney tied with her. A consistent theme has shown was any competent Republican who wasn't far right was polling at least neck and neck with her.
Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney ran for President in 2016 ???
surely you understand why arguing with examples of people who didnt run is a fraudulent argument
Quote:
I would say the flipside to your statement is that there were only two candidates consistently losing to her, Trump and Cruz.
My argument was never that she was beating everyone else in a land slide, so no, thats not really the "flipside" of my argument.
Besides, polls this far out dont mean much unless they are landslides all around. beating someone by 12 nationally, but only by 3 in swing states leads me to believe someone is over polling.
Thats why the Rasssmussen and FOX polls never make sense. They have the Republicans leading or tied, but still losing the swing states by 2 or 3 points. It means they are over polling people in red states.
Others have done the same on the Democratic side.
Last edited by dsjj251; 07-10-2016 at 11:04 PM..
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.
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.
