Nor do I understand the fascination with Joe Biden and how he could have beat Hillary if he had just entered the race.
Remember, he ran for the Democratic nomination twice, and dropped out early both times, due to … issues (like plagiarism) and well, lack of support, which is even more of a killer for a politician.
Note that in 2008, he came fifth behind Obama, Edwards, Clinton, and Richardson.
So why this repeated thought that Biden would have mopped the floor against Hillary this time around? There doesn’t seem to be any basis in reality for it.
Why cold the current GOP not win the popular vote if they did so in 2004 with an incompetent as the candidate?
We’re again seemingly acting as if Trump is fifty points behind. He is six points behind, maybe. How many of those votes do the GOP gain back if Trump is NOPT despised and mistrusted by women, Catholics, Mormons, Hispanics, and God only knows who else? More than a few, I’d say.
It is quite plausible that John Kasich could have defeated Hillary Clinton by a solid margin. But they chose to nominate a loon instead of an experienced politician.
Being a popular Vice President has helped raise his profile. But, I’m not sure he would have beat Hillary, and I don’t think the battle would have been good for the party.
He was an incumbent. In his first election, he lost the popular vote. I guess if Kasich or some other mostly sane GOP candidate won the EC, but lost the Popular vote, and did fine for 4 year, yes he could then win the popular vote. Oddly it was right after GWBs 2nd election that the lies and stuff started to come out.
Sure, but sitting Vice-Presidents have a poor track record getting elected as Prez. They carry all the baggage of the previous administration, and have to simultaneously by a stand-in for the outgoing President’s eight years of baggage, and also say that they’re fresh and new. It’s a very hard sell to make, and only two sitting Vice-Presidents have done it since the 12th Amendment passed.
Major demographic shifts, for one thing. The GOP presidential base has been the white vote, with pick-ups from other demographics. But the white vote has been shrinking as a share of the overall population, and other demos, who tend to vote Democratic, have been growing. The vote dynamic has changed since 2004, and not to the advantage of the GOP.
Which is not to say that a popular GOP candidate couldn’t win those other demos. But to do that, the party has to have policies which are attractive to those demos. And the fact that Trump has won the nomination by policies which are not favoured by those other demos shows that any GOP candidate who wants to set forward those types of policies will have trouble winning the nomination.
There’s a reason Little Marco abandoned his own immigration bill: pushing it would have torpedoed his chances at the nomination. And that worked out well for him…
Why do you think it impossible for Kasich, a perfectly good candidate and certainly a smarter and more impressive man than George W. Bush, could not win the popular vote? What evidence do you have this is true?
He’s a Republican. His plans included “dismantling Washington.” And protecting the Sanctity of (Unborn) Life. And protecting the Second Amendment. And ending Obamacare. Plus a lot of the regular glurge.
So, he wasn’t quite as bad as the other Republican hopefuls. That’s still not good enough.
So? I’m not asking if you’d vote for him. DONALD TRUMP is carrying 41% of the vote. An outright clown. It is nonsense to pretend a real politician could not raise that figure significantly.
Many Americans actually are pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, or are willing to look past those things. You’re making the Pauline Kael error.
I’m sure many of them are, but clearly as it stands quite a few are not. Trump is polling at 42%, at best. Mitt Romney got 47.2%, so just between Trump and Romney, approximately seven million people who voted Republican for an incredibly dull, uninspiring, gaffe-afflicted candidate are refusing to vote Trump. That’s a rather large number of votes. If the GOP had just nominated someone as good as Mitt Romney, they’d clearly be much better off. We know there are specific demographics where Trump underperforms Romney by a crippling degree.
The baseline of GOP support isn’t Trump’s 42%. Romney lost with 47.2%, McCain with 45.7%. If John McCain can pull 45.7% following an immensely unpopular Republican president with an SNL caricature as his running mate against an exciting, inspiring candidate, being almost four points below THAT while running against a dull, negatively viewed candidate is a level of ineptitude without precedent in recent history.
It is preposterous to say a more competent GOP candidate wouldn’t do better. Of course he or she would. But as it turns out, they didn’t want a competent candidate, they wanted either a fascist or a fundamentalist, and as it turns out the general population isn’t as enthusiastic about the idea.
This is hardly a new phenomenon; when choosing a candidate, sometimes a party’s fundie wing takes over and decides they’d rather be pure than win.
I think a lot of people overlook the impact of negative campaigning.
Front runners like Obama or Clinton bear the brunt of negative campaigning. Nobody wastes resources on the unlikely contenders.
People look at this superficially and say “Our front runner has all this baggage. We should have nominated that other guy instead. He’s unsullied.”
But they’re not making the connection. The reason that guy is unsullied is because he isn’t the nominee. If he became the nominee, he would become the principal target of negative campaigning and his reputation would decline.
If the Democrats had nominated Biden or Sanders in this election, their reputations would be trashed by now and people would be asking “Why didn’t we nominate a good candidate like Clinton?”
Exactly what I have been saying. And they have been attacking Clinton for decades and the worst they came up was her error in the emails. Certainly a gaffe, but when you consider how many Congressional hearing how many Rovian lies , how hard the GOP worked to make anything stick- it’s actually not bad.
Well, Obama was the target of negative campaigning, and he is still pretty much unsullied. No financial, ethical, personal, marital, or any other kind of scandals. The couple of things (the bogus “birther” crap and some preacher he knew) don’t rise (or sink) to the level of anything haunting any candidate in the present or recent past. None of the negative campaigning stuck because there was nothing to stick to.
Except, of course, being black. That was his biggest offense, namely, “being President while black.”
But Minority views, unless you are willing to make concessions. I mean banning late term abortion can get a polling majority, but banning even in case of rape? Small beans.
Supporting the 2nd Ad & Heller? Sure. Wanting even felons to have the right to own full auto machineguns? Nope.
John Kasich was never more than a curiosity in the GOP field. If Trump had been abducted by Santa last Christmas, we’d be talking about JEB! or Cruz today, not Kasich.
If Santa had abducted everyone except Kasich - I don’t believe he’d be setting the world on fire with his mad charisma. That said, he’s a professional with a professional staff. It’d be a lot closer but I don’t think it would be a blowout. He’d still be losing the women’s vote, and the black vote.
Only because Bush quit. If there were no Trump, I think the GOP would have fallen in line behind the familiar Bush Machine. For the long shot - I think Cruz would have picked up Trump’s supporters.
