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.
Al Gore lost because he tried to distance himself too much from Bill Clinton, thanks to impeachment and the Lewinsky scandal. Gore didn't run on Clinton's legacy but on how he wouldn't be more of the same. If he ran on Clinton's accomplishments, he would have won in a landslide.
Also in 2000, the GOP had a candidate that energized all factions of conservatives and polled well with Latinos.
Gore lost because he was a boring candidate and arrogant elitist, see his debate with Ross Perot on CNN over NAFTA which Ross was telling the truth and Gore was lying and his debates with W BUSH, Gore turned people off with his gestures and how he look people down. Running on Clinton's 3rd term is not the strategy to win on your own merits.
What you forget the Republican congress force Bill Clinton to cut spending and reform welfare. Gore couldn't run on that because he is to the left of Bill Clinton.
When Bill Clinton said in 1996 the Era of big government is over.....how does a liberal left winger like Gore run on that?
Gore had to distant himself from Bill on many points.
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.
so you based your thinking on snapshots of polls over actual elections?
Trump got more votes than any Republican in GOP primary history.....he did it with NO Super Pac money and the GOP establishment against him and the media not doing any favors.
Can Hillary with the Democrat nomination with NO SUPER PAC money, the party establishment against her and the media NOT protecting her?
we all know the answer to that....so for you to say Hillary is better is really stretching the truth. Hillary has been running for President since 2005 and has been given everything on the silver platter, she has the media and the DNC on her side, Obama and the big donors for her and wall street and the banks for her.....even the FBI gave her a gift.
with all that she is neck and neck with Trump.......she should be 20% to 25% ahead before the GOP convention but she isn't. She is in trouble.
Keep thinking she has this in the bag.....I will be laughing my a$$ off if Trump beats 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
Why is it a "fraudulent" argument? He was illustrating his premise that a consistent theme has shown any competent Republican who wasn't far right was polling at least neck and neck with Hillary.
I agree. Romney, Ryan, Jeb, Kasich, Rubio, et.al would not only show at least even in polling but would in all likelihood beat her or have a very good chance where Trump is already behind in the polls and will slip further after the convention if my guess is correct.
I would have voted for any of those above if they were running against Hillary but being vehemently anti-Trump, I'll do my small part to do anything to keep him from being president.
~amanda
I agree. Romney, Ryan, Jeb, Kasich, Rubio, et.al would not only show at least even in polling but would in all likelihood beat her or have a very good chance where Trump is already behind in the polls and will slip further after the convention if my guess is correct.
I would have voted for any of those above if they were running against Hillary but being vehemently anti-Trump, I'll do my small part to do anything to keep him from being president.
~amanda
based on what?........Trump was always on top of the polls so he got hit from all sides. It comes with being the front runner and staying there for the whole GOP Primary.
If Romney, Ryan, Jeb, Kasich and Rubio would have been taking the hits from all sides for being front runners then their polls numbers comedown....but since all of them sucked during the primary (except for RYAN and Romney who didn't run) nobody bothered to attack them and their record like they did Trump.
so for you to say Romney, Jeb, Kasich or Rubio would have better polls numbers is just wishful thinking.
Romney in 2012 was the front runner against a very weak GOP primary competition and he came out banged up and he was trailing Obama all year.
if Kasich was the front runner his record would have been attacked by everybody including Hillary's Super Pac.....nobody bothered because he sucked badly during the primary......the same for Rubio and Jeb.
Jeb had the most SUPER PAC money next to Hillary and he couldn't get to #3 in any states in the primaries before dropping out in South Carolina but you believe he would be tie with Hillary? LMAO!!! Another Bush? LMAO!!
I was referring to the polls showing head to head with Hillary.
those polls don't mean anything because those names were NEVER the front runners and never got attacked by all sides.
When you are the front runner you get more attention and attacked more by far by all sides.....that's how you test if your polls numbers are for reals.
Kasich was never the front runner, his numbers were so low that nobody bother to attack him and his record........Rubio the same and Jeb the same.
The only ones in the GOP PRIMARY that were tested by all sides including the media and the GOP establishment was Trump and to a lesser extent Cruz who lasted the longest and actually won 11 states, something I can't say for Rubio, Kasich or Jeb.
Ok, fair enough; you win the argument. My personal opinion is that Trump will lose to Hillary where Jeb, Rubio, Kasich, etc. would have won easily. Let's see what happens.
Ok, fair enough; you win the argument. My personal opinion is that Trump will lose to Hillary where Jeb, Rubio, Kasich, etc. would have won easily. Let's see what happens.
EASILY? based on what?.........you know Jeb has a last name of Bush?.....you know the name Bush was rejected badly within the Republican Party and that's with Jeb having the most Super Pac money than anybody only behind Hillary?
So let me get this straight, Jeb Bush was rejected badly by the Republican party and I don't mean the establishment, I meant the voters but he will unite the Republicans and independents to beat Hillary easily?
Rubio was rejected by the voters of his state..The people that knows him best and he was never the front runner......if he was his numbers would have been lower.
Kasich lost in 49 states....he would have lost his homestate of Ohio if he wasn't the sitting governor.....and he was never the front runner, if he was his poll numbers would be lower.
You can't put names that have NEVER been front runners and tested in a primary against Hillary because those numbers are not accurate. Hillary was always the front runner and she was challenged by Bernie in a contested primary.....those Republican names weren't.
I have to agree with Ann Coulter on her assessment about Kasich. There is no way he is going to energize anybody with the way he carries himself. I liked Rubio but now I think he is too inexperience to run against Clinton.
so you based your thinking on snapshots of polls over actual elections?
What "ELECTION" has Trump ever won against a Democrat?
Polls is all we have at this point - and they show - in poll after poll after poll - that Hillary has the upper hand. Combine that with the electoral college advantage (ie the "Blue Wall") and the changing demographics and it's pretty clear Trump is going to have really, really, really tough time winning. That's just the reality.
Trump got more votes than any Republican in GOP primary history.....he did it with NO Super Pac money and the GOP establishment against him and the media not doing any favors.
"Media not doing any favors"???? What planet do you live on? Trump got massive free media coverage - way more than any other GOP candidate. Trump even says that himself. In fact the reason he feels he doesn't need to spend so much money is BECAUSE of all the free media coverage he's gotten (and still expects to get).
"....Early in the campaign, Trump acknowledged his media advantage. “I’ve gotten so much free advertising, it’s like nothing I’d have expected,” he told the New York Times in September. “When you look at cable television, a lot of the programs are 100% Trump, so why would you need more Trump during the commercial breaks?”
Can Hillary with the Democrat nomination with NO SUPER PAC money, the party establishment against her and the media NOT protecting her?
we all know the answer to that....so for you to say Hillary is better is really stretching the truth. Hillary has been running for President since 2005 and has been given everything on the silver platter, she has the media and the DNC on her side, Obama and the big donors for her and wall street and the banks for her.....even the FBI gave her a gift.
with all that she is neck and neck with Trump.......she should be 20% to 25% ahead before the GOP convention but she isn't. She is in trouble.
LOL
NO ONE who is "ahead" is "in trouble". But go ahead and believe that if you want. You'll just be shocked and dumbfounded on election night - just like the Romney folks were.
Keep thinking she has this in the bag.....I will be laughing my a$$ off if Trump beats her.
I'm sure you would be - but it's not likely to happen.
Ken
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.
