A rational (fact-based) discussion on Trump v Clinton
Dems and Pubs, do you want your candidate campaigning with your Senators?
Because Clinton would have beat them very badly. Why? Because Clinton is very popular with Democrats. You just said so.
If Trump wins you will *really *be wondering how it all came to this. Can’t remember who said this originally, (paraphrasing) “Hillary will be a bad president but within normal parameters of bad presidents. Trump will be a bad president beyond normal parameters of bad presidents.”
“I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises. It’s the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she’s way behind in second place. She’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.”
True but aren’t other Democrats as popular as she is? I’m not being obstinate. I just don’t understand how your side of the aisle has Hillary leaps and bounds above other popular Democratic politicians.
Hillary was always going to be the Democratic front-runner, no surprises there. Sanders never came close to beating her.
As for Trump, he got the nomination only because there were 15 other Republican candidates jockeying with each other and splitting the vote. If he had run one-on-one against only one or two other candidates, no way he gets the nomination.
No. Except for Obama.
The transitive property of inequalities does not apply to politics.
Exactly. It’s like sports - the 16-0 Patriots beat everyone they encountered in the 2007 season, yet lost to the 10-6 Giants in the Super Bowl. Why? Because the Giants had perhaps the best pass rush of any team they faced, and that was the Patriots’ Kryptonite, since New England’s offense depended heavily on Tom Brady having time in the pocket.
Hillary’s Kryptonite is a ***good ***anti-establishment maverick. Trump is a *ridiculous, lousy *anti-establishment maverick, that’s why he’s losing. But if there were a smart, savvy, popular, younger, good-looking Republican anti-establishment maverick who was able to lure Bernie supporters, he or she might be leading Hillary by double digits right now.
He seemed to do pretty well when it was down to just a couple others.
And I would like a pony too, but the Republicans had to settle with Discord before he reformed.*
- (It helps to have a little niece to know that
)
Any other repub but Trump could have beat Clinton.
And Sanders would have lost to pretty much any repub, possibly including Trump.
Hillary is not a weak candidate. In 2008, she nearly beat a very charismatic Barack Obama who also happens to be an orator in the Martin Luther King class. When she lost, she put her big girl panties on and got four more years of experience and as a result is one of the most highly qualified candidates in history. She’s only a weak candidate if you listened to the endless litany of trumped-up (no pun intended) charges that Republicans have levied against her since 1992.
Trump, on the other hand, is a weak candidate. He discovered that if you unite the white supremacist vote, you can win the nomination. That’s a problem for Republicans to figure out for future years. For now, they’re stuck with a bigoted candidate in the Strom Thurmond-George Wallace class. Let them wallow in their misery come November.
We nominated her because we can’t nominate Obama again.
Very well put.
Plus spent those years making sure she did all she had to not to have a repeat of '08. With the Dem Establishment she applied the Art of War maxim about victory being achieved before a single arrow flies. So she ended up facing a weak mainstream candidate, and an insurgency that ended up heckling their putative leader when he pointed out it was time to settle for the possible.
I don’t think you can call Cruz an “outsider”. He’s a senator, which is one of the two standard stepping stones before the presidency, and he’s one who’s very influential within the current Congress (albeit, oddly, being more influential in the other house). Which of course doesn’t stop him from claiming to be an outsider, but this cycle, everyone was claiming that.
I don’t think you can say Hillary would have easily beaten Joe Biden. As experienced as Hillary is, Joe is much more; and he has even closer ties to Obama than she does. People who want a continuation of an outgoing presidential administration vote for the VP. He’s also got the charming, everyman, blue collar thing going for him - he’s a natural glad-handler, which is truly Hillary’s kryptonite. And if he had campaigned in the wake of his son’s death you can toss in a layer of sympathy votes as well.
Sigh. What might have been.
Anyway, I agree that Hillary would be in deep shit if the GOP had nominated a reasonable Republican - I don’t think she’d beat a Bush or Romney. She’d struggle against a Rubio or Cruz, even.
Obama is but, as has been pointed out, he can’t run again. She really is the most popular–she’s been at it a long time. (We do need to start raising up some young ones for the future!)
Your side of the aisle is the one that’s got some explaining to do…
– my italics.
Which, in turn, explains why the Democrats could afford to pick Hillary.
That said, I’m afraid I hardly see this election as a “done deal” as so many Dem-leaning posters – or those simply aware of what an utter disaster in the making Trump is – seem to think. How quickly we forget this is the same nation that had George W. Bush as its President for eight insane years.