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.
If the Democrats had nominated anyone else, could they have beaten Trump? Maybe someone smart enough to more actively and forcefully call out his BS?
you think the 1.2 billion plus dollars the Democrats spent and the MSM and 99% of ALL American newspapers and publications like Time campaigning against Trump wasn't enough and they still failed that some other Democrat would have done something different to change people's minds about the establishment and won? LMAO!
Kasich probably could have won. He would have likely outperformed Trump in Ohio, and I think that goodwill would have extended into relatively similar states that Trump won like Iowa, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Plus Kasich would have done better in Virginia and Colorado than Trump did. Florida is probably a wash, though.
I think Rubio might have had more challenges because he was more of a "national" Republican candidate than Kasich was. I'm not sure he would have made inroads in the Midwest where Trump did and Kasich might have. But he would have also outperformed Trump in Virginia and Colorado in my opinion, shifting the allocation of resources.
Cruz, on the other hand, probably wouldn't have. The voters who he appeals to in states that switched from Obama to Trump were already voting Republican, and I don't think the people who switched from Obama to Trump would have come around for Cruz.
Keep in mind that with another candidate, the overall campaign season would have been much nicer and I don't think Hillary Clinton would have been attacked nearly as much. I mean, remember the #SickHillary stuff? That wouldn't have flown with Kasich or Rubio, but it was somewhat effective with Trump.
Sanders might have been able to beat Trump because he's the only other candidate other than Trump to see that both parties are in crisis mode right now, and I don't think that Trump being Trump would have been quite as effective with him. With an establishment Republican, however, Sanders might have been exposed as crazy to a majority of the electorate.
1) Kasich??? really???? Trump got 2,841,005 votes in Ohio......the most Kasich got as governor was 1,944,848 as a sitting governor running for re-election against a weak Democrat candidate in Ed Fitzgerald.......In the 2016 GOP Primary, Kasich got 46% in the only state he won and he didn't even crack above 50% and he is the 2 time sitting governor of Ohio. He had to be above 60% in his state since he is the sitting governor add that he lost every other state in the primary by coming third at best or worse shows he wasn't a good national candidate.
2) In the GOP primaries in Michigan and Pennsylvania , Kasich came third behind Cruz........that is not a strong showing, especially from a 2 time sitting governor and from a well known establishment Republican for over 20 years.......I doubt Kasich would have won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
3) Sanders is a socialist and all Trump had to do is paint him to the extreme left and Sanders would have gone along with it because he will not deny it he will embrace it......people didn't want an Obama 3rd term and people didn't want an agenda more left to Obama's......so that's where I think Sanders would have been exposed!.......Sanders is too far to the left even for the Democrat Party.
Yes. I think Rubio or Kasich could've beaten Hillary. But they would've beaten her more narrowly and with more traditional battleground state wins. Trump's victory was the broadest possible for a GOP nominee this cycle and sets the GOP up for a better future than perhaps any other candidate could.
Trump won all the Battleground states and destroyed Hillary's "Blue Wall". He disproved all those who claimed he had no path to 270. Trump will be the 45th President of the United States.
Hillary for her part had a $2B war chest, the entire MSM behind her, and people said she had a ground game that nobody could match. Yet she lost to Trump So the question is this.
If the GOP had nominated anyone else, say JEB, Ted Cruz, Rubio, etc. could they have beaten Hillary?
Polls showed Rubio beating her by 2-5 points and Kasish by 7-11.
I am not degrading Trump, who beat BOTH political parites in the most stunning upset in world history, but the writing eally is on the the wall for the Democrat party, which, and lets be fair to them, is crap.
Trump won all the Battleground states and destroyed Hillary's "Blue Wall". He disproved all those who claimed he had no path to 270. Trump will be the 45th President of the United States.
Hillary for her part had a $2B war chest, the entire MSM behind her, and people said she had a ground game that nobody could match. Yet she lost to Trump So the question is this.
If the GOP had nominated anyone else, say JEB, Ted Cruz, Rubio, etc. could they have beaten Hillary?
What say you?
With Putin's help, anyone could have won beaten Hillary, even Mickey Mouse.
I believe there were other candidates just as deserving to beat Hillary but not convinced they could have. You had to beat rigged elections and only Trump would address that.
This is a difficult hypothetical given Hillary was such a horrible candidate and the country was desperate for a sea change. I tend to think any Republican nominee would have beaten Hillary. We will never know.
I wonder if Bernie could have beaten any other Republican. He wouldn't have beaten Trump, but I think he could have beaten several of the other Republican candidates, including Bush, Cruz, Rubio. .
Im not sure anyone would have beaten Trump. The more the polls and media proclaimed he wouldnt win the stronger he got. In the end it just showed how bad the media is.
With Putin's help, anyone could have won beaten Hillary, even Mickey Mouse.
So it's your claim that Hillary would be just a poor leader against Putin as Obama? i.e. If Putin can cost Hillary the election, imagine how poorly she would fare in a real world crisis against Putin.
Why do you support such a weak woman for President?
Polls showed Rubio beating her by 2-5 points and Kasish by 7-11.
I am not degrading Trump, who beat BOTH political parites in the most stunning upset in world history, but the writing eally is on the the wall for the Democrat party, which, and lets be fair to them, is crap.
the same polls that had Hillary beating Trump easily? LOL
Rubio or Kasich could never bring in the voters that Trump brought in......they are 2 conventional establishment candidates.....against Hillary, they would have been a wash.
Rubio and Kasich did so poorly in the GOP primaries, explain how they were strong candidates for the general?
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.
Trump got 2,841,005 votes in Ohio......the most Kasich got as governor was 1,944,848 as a sitting governor running for re-election against a weak Democrat candidate in Ed Fitzgerald.......In the 2016 GOP Primary, Kasich got 46% in the only state he won and he didn't even crack above 50% and he is the 2 time sitting governor of Ohio. He had to be above 60% in his state since he is the sitting governor add that he lost every other state in the primary by coming third at best or worse shows he wasn't a good national candidate.
