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 GOP had nominated anyone else, say JEB, Ted Cruz, Rubio, etc. could they have beaten Hillary?
What say you?
They probably wouldnt have beat Hillary as they wouldnt have used the same election strategy of hate,smear campaign and character assassination branding Hillary a corrupt criminal,a strategy that obviously most Trump supporters fell for and got Trump the presidency,well played Mr Trump.
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.
You can't compare a primary result to a general election result. Just because Sanders won the Great Plains states does not mean he would have done better then Hillary there. The same goes with with Republican primary results. Primaries and general elections are very different.
I think almost any of the Republicans could have beaten Hillary, not because they were strong candidates, but because Hillary was such a weak candidate. Your third point is a clear sign of how weak Hillary actually was, socialist Sanders was actually fairly close to beating her. He is not at all a mainstream candidate.
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?
You can't compare a primary result to a general election result. Just because Sanders won the Great Plains states does not mean he would have done better then Hillary there. The same goes with with Republican primary results. Primaries and general elections are very different.
I think almost any of the Republicans could have beaten Hillary, not because they were strong candidates, but because Hillary was such a weak candidate. Your third point is a clear sign of how weak Hillary actually was, socialist Sanders was actually fairly close to beating her. He is not at all a mainstream candidate.
yes you can....if a candidate is weak in the primaries and losses ALL contests which are over 50 for the exception of 1 and that's because he is the sitting governor of his state and couldn't get above 46% in his state that means he doesn't have a strong base in the party and doesn't appeal nationwide and without a strong base in the party you have no chance in the general.
that's why we have primaries and over 50 contests and a delegate system, to pick the best candidate to unite the base nationwide.......that's why we have the playoffs in the NFL before the Super Bowl...if you can't win the wild card game or the division playoff game, what makes you think you can win the Super Bowl?
I don't consider Hillary weak at all....she actually got more votes than Obama in the 2008 Democrat Primary but the Super Delegates gave it to Obama. She got over 4 million votes than Sanders which wasn't easy to do since Sanders ran a populist campaign in an election cycle anti-establishment and Hillary was under FBI investigation and still she won comfortable her nomination.......she just went against Trump....Trump beat 16 Republican establishment candidates and beat Hillary, give credit where credit its due. Trump won because he didn't listen to the GOP establishment on NAFTA, TPP and open borders and did it his way and got Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Iowa and Pennsylvania and Florida where Rubio lost badly in the primaries, his state.......no way Kasich or Rubio would have won those states with the same old Bush doctrine.
Trump didn't take the talking points memos of the GOP establishment that to win the W.H. a GOP candidate needed the Latino vote and be for open borders and for amnesty.....Kasich and Rubio were taking those talking points like Jeb Bush and were rejected badly in the primaries.....Trump took the opposite and won.
Trump won because of the trade deals and immigration and being against the Bush doctrine of globalism of endless wars and endless occupations.....NO other GOP candidate took on the establishment except for Trump...That's why no other GOP candidate could have pull what Trump did, not running on the Bush doctrine....there is a reason why W Bush when he left office he had lower approval ratings than Nixon post Watergate ERA, that's why Republicans lost in 2008 and 2012 and would have lost in 2016 if they ran the same candidates with the same talking points.
Kasich would've won in a real landslide. I know many Democrats who voted unhappily for Clinton due to their hatred of Trump and they all said Kasich would've gotten their vote.
The opposite side is how many Trump supporters would have stayed home because Kasich is viewed as an establishment candidate that Trump supporters were against. Ultimately I think Kasich would have won both the electoral and popular vote. A lot of Democrats liked him, minus a few "social issues".
WRONG! wishful thinking with no facts to back it up. Just on the abortion issue, taxes and how Kasich is a Republican from the Newt Gingrich congress from the 90's and he is for the continuation of the Bush doctrine in foreign policy the majority of Democrats would have never cross party lines for Kasich....Kasich didn't do well in the open primaries in the GOP with independents or Democrats.
tell me 1 issue that liberals like that Kasich offers that Hillary doesn't? name 1....you can't......Kasich and Hillary have many things in common since both are pro establishment and what they differ from like abortions, gun control, taxes, regulations and the Bush doctrine in foreign policy, NO liberal democrat will cross party lines to vote for Kasich.....to say many democrats will cross party lines to vote for Kasich is a myth.....not after the Democrats finish attacking his record and quotes on the issues 24/7.....democrats would treat Kasich like Mccain and Romney....before and during the primaries say nice things about them and then when they get the nomination, crucify them until the general election.
Since Kasich sucked during the primaries, NObody ever bother to attack him or spent money attacking his record and his views. if Kasich would have been the GOP nominee, he would have been exposed by the Hillary/ Democrat machine and the MSM.......any candidate looks good on paper until they start attacking the candidate from both sides with millions of dollars of negative campaign. Since Kasich poll numbers sucked during the primaries, nobody bother to attack him, not Hillary.
There is a reason why a PRO LIFE Democrat could NEVER win the nomination in the Democrat party for President. The abortion issue is that big for democrats like gun rights is for the Republican party.......most Republicans are not going to cross party lines to vote for a democrat that his for abortions on demand, for gun control, higher taxes and more government........Kasich sucked during the GOP primaries including open primaries and its a myth that he would have won by landslide in the general....no facts or data to support that.
Nikki Haley would have been a good choice. Moderate in many ways, but leans conservative. She would have crushed Hillary I think.
based on what data? any Republican can win in South Carolina......Haley is for open borders, amnesty and for the same trade deals Hillary is for and the same foreign policy of Bush.....tell me on what issues exactly she would have "crushed" Hillary?
Running a national election as a Republican is a lot different than running in South Carolina.
Had it been any other candidate than Trump, while it should never have happened because Hillary herself was a terrible candidate, I think she might have prevailed. Trump ran an incredibly smart campaign, very non-traditional, and that had a lot to do with why he won - well that plus so many of the people who have been silent for years were ready for someone like him .. a maverick.
Any traditional candidate would have run a traditional campaign and besides the fact that there was really no other candidate who was so dynamic, that would have defeated them, even though the people were fed up .. they just would not have been excited and turned out to vote.
Trump's winning formula included a very strong message, incredible energy, going right to the people day after day and making many who have felt disenfranchised for a long time feel as though they could be part of the process again, and a backroom data management team that clinched it all for him.
Trump took on immigration with no open borders and no amnesty and go after the bad trade deals, that's why he won. NO establishment Republican would do that, they got shy after the Romney defeat in 2012 and the establishment passing orders that the party has to go soft on immigration enforcement or else.
what was Kasich message...open borders, pro amnesty, pro NAFTA, pro TPP and for common core......what was his vision for foreign policy? more of the Bush doctrine.......you think that would have won Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida?
even in Ohio, Kasich would be neck and neck with Hillary because of NAFTA and TPP sice bioth support it.....but support a war with Russia.....so why anybody vote for Kasich?
based on what data? any Republican can win in South Carolina......Haley is for open borders, amnesty and for the same trade deals Hillary is for and the same foreign policy of Bush.....tell me on what issues exactly she would have "crushed" Hillary?
Running a national election as a Republican is a lot different than running in South Carolina.
The data that at least she isn't Hillary which is why many Trump voters voted for Trump. Not a chance party hardliners would have voted for Hillary over Nikki.The thread asks if the GOP nominated someone besides Trump could they have won? I think Nikki would have beat Hillary. She doesn't carry Hillary's baggage, isn't known to be in bed with Wall Street, hasn't insulted middle class Americans, and no history of blaming a movie for Benghazi.
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.
