The General Election

[knapplc]

A valid question is: Does it take a clown of a candidate like Donald Trump, saying and doing all the wrong things, to guarantee a Hillary victory?

 

As in, would she have defeated Cruz, Rubio, Bush or even Romney, if he had run? It's this close with all of Trump's mistakes. How close would it be, or how far down would Hillary be, if she wasn't running against a complete goof?

[TGHusker]

It's actually a pretty big deal that a former president won't vote for his party's own candidate.

 

That's a pretty big endorsement for Hillary, crossing party lines like that. I think the instinct of Trump voters is to downplay the fact that not one single former president (Carter, Bush I, Clinton[duh], Bush II or Obama) will endorse Trump. 40% of them are Republicans.

 

Of course, Trump isn't a Republican, but that's not stopping anyone from the Right side of the aisle from voting for him.

Yes, when I consider it is Trump it isn't surprising that he doesn't get support from the former presidents, but when I consider the big picture, as you note Knapp, a former President not voting for his party's candidate, is a huge deal. It points out the clear picture that the party got hijacked by a guy who capitalized on fear, anger, pettiness and all of our lower character traits. One who did not appeal to our higher ideals. Reagan, JFK, Obama and so many other former presidents or candidates may have spoke of the negative (reason to change course) but they appealed to our better character and our dreams and aspirations. They didn't put others down as doormats or scapegoats to be stepped on to reach that higher dream as Trump has done.

[TGHusker]

A valid question is: Does it take a clown of a candidate like Donald Trump, saying and doing all the wrong things, to guarantee a Hillary victory?

 

As in, would she have defeated Cruz, Rubio, Bush or even Romney, if he had run? It's this close with all of Trump's mistakes. How close would it be, or how far down would Hillary be, if she wasn't running against a complete goof?

I think Romney and Rubio would have run away with the election this time around. Romney would get the 'opps I made a mistake last time' vote and Rubio would get the younger generation and Hispanic vote looking his way. I think Cruz vs Hillary would have been closer. Cruz can be very polarizing but in a different way than Trump. Hillary is such a flawed candidate. Any respectable Dem would have been far ahead by now against this 'clown'. I think Webb or O'Malley (sp) would have done better than Hillary and they dropped out far to early in the process (thanks DNC chair for your bias against all other candidates). Bernie would have been a polarizing figure (way to leftist for most) - but he'd make it interesting.

[Undone]

As in, would she have defeated Cruz, Rubio, Bush or even Romney, if he had run?

 

I feel pretty strongly that Cruz would have a very measurable edge against her right now.

 

I just can't imagine the idiots that went to their primary polling place and chose *Donald Trump* as their first choice candidate. The mind boggles.

[TGHusker]

Oh, forgot the valid question of Knapp's - Yes, it takes someone as bad as Trump to guarantee a Hillary win. But I'll also flip that - it takes someone as bad as Hillary for enough people to even consider Trump. They deserve each other - go find an empty island in the middle of the Pacific and fight over ruling it. Neither deserve being the president of the USA.

[BigRedBuster]

It's like these people don't even think before they open their mouths or type out a tweet.

[Danny Bateman]

 

A valid question is: Does it take a clown of a candidate like Donald Trump, saying and doing all the wrong things, to guarantee a Hillary victory?

 

As in, would she have defeated Cruz, Rubio, Bush or even Romney, if he had run? It's this close with all of Trump's mistakes. How close would it be, or how far down would Hillary be, if she wasn't running against a complete goof?

I think Romney and Rubio would have run away with the election this time around. Romney would get the 'opps I made a mistake last time' vote and Rubio would get the younger generation and Hispanic vote looking his way. I think Cruz vs Hillary would have been closer. Cruz can be very polarizing but in a different way than Trump. Hillary is such a flawed candidate. Any respectable Dem would have been far ahead by now against this 'clown'. I think Webb or O'Malley (sp) would have done better than Hillary and they dropped out far to early in the process (thanks DNC chair for your bias against all other candidates). Bernie would have been a polarizing figure (way to leftist for most) - but he'd make it interesting.

 

 

I pretty much agree with your assessment, TGH.

 

I think a center-right candidate like a Rubio, Romney, or Kasich would have done very well against Clinton. The problem is two of those guys couldn't garner hardly any support in the primary, meaning they weren't ready for the general. Rubio may have had a shot, but that meltdown in the debate pretty much destroyed him. Kasich, for whatever reason, tried to be the reasonable adult in the room, but couldn't gain any traction whatsoever outside his own state. And Romney didn't run.

 

Hell, I'd have settled for Jeb. If any other those guys had been on the ballot, I'd at least consider the Republican ticket. I have found out Rubio is pretty spineless since then, which hurts my impression of him.

 

Cruz-- he's essentially Bernie's polar opposite. He's the right's version of Bernie, in that he's far-right everything. He himself is also fantastically unlikeable. I think he's such a cookie-cutter conservative that he would've struggled to make inroads in some of the important swing states-- Pennsylvania and Florida for sure. He wound up getting 17% in both Ohio and FL, and 25% in PA. He's a very hard sell on either coast. I don't know that he'd be competitive in a general-- he's just too stereotypical conservative and easy to hammer for an opponent.

 

I don't know how things would have gone with another Dem nominee. Conventional knowledge says Biden or Bernie would be kicking ass. I think Biden would probably be doing quite well right now. I feel bad for the man, losing his son like he did, and I respected his decision to not run. Bernie, on the other hand-- I'm not so sure. I think you may be right. He's very popular, in terms of polling, but when you get a guy so far left his title includes the word "socialist"... I think the GOP would just hammer "taxes, taxes, taxes" until the cows come home.

Is that effective enough to work? Maybe.

[BigRedBuster]

I remembered this tweet and just the title is pretty appropriate at this time.

 

[BigRedBuster]

And....as to the question being discussed.

I FIRMLY believe that almost any other candidate on the Republican stage would be beating Hillary right now. That's why this nomination of the village idiot is so mind boggling.

[TGHusker]

And....as to the question being discussed.

I FIRMLY believe that almost any other candidate on the Republican stage would be beating Hillary right now. That's why this nomination of the village idiot is so mind boggling.

Maybe the RNC chair should have been as involved as the DNC chair was in her party. Then maybe we might have had someone respectable to talk about. Even at this point I would have took Jeb if I'd known it came to this as much as I hate having another Bush or Clinton. Kasich would have been very acceptable.

[knapplc]

This bums me out a little, the bold:

 

 

Sources: Bush 41 says he will vote for Clinton

 

(CNN)Former President George H.W. Bush said in a room of roughly 40 people Monday that he would vote for Hillary Clinton in November, according to sources close to Bush -- an extraordinary rebuke of his own party's nominee.

 

Representatives of the Bush family are declining to publicly acknowledge the former president's decision. But sources close to Bush tell CNN that he shared his plans with board members of the bipartisan Points of Light Foundation during what he believed was a private gathering Monday in Kennebunkport, Maine.

 

Bush did not make a formal announcement during the meeting, and it's not clear everyone in the room heard him, although multiple sources did.

 

The bold seems kind of like an invasion of privacy to me. I know that's a naive stance, but it kind of feels like he's being outed when he didn't want that necessarily made public.

[NM11046]

This bums me out a little, the bold:

 

 

Sources: Bush 41 says he will vote for Clinton

 

(CNN)Former President George H.W. Bush said in a room of roughly 40 people Monday that he would vote for Hillary Clinton in November, according to sources close to Bush -- an extraordinary rebuke of his own party's nominee.

 

Representatives of the Bush family are declining to publicly acknowledge the former president's decision. But sources close to Bush tell CNN that he shared his plans with board members of the bipartisan Points of Light Foundation during what he believed was a private gathering Monday in Kennebunkport, Maine.

 

Bush did not make a formal announcement during the meeting, and it's not clear everyone in the room heard him, although multiple sources did.

 

The bold seems kind of like an invasion of privacy to me. I know that's a naive stance, but it kind of feels like he's being outed when he didn't want that necessarily made public.

 

Yes, rumbles here in the northeast are that he said someone to one of the Kennedy girls in that organization and she posted it on FB.

 

Honestly though I wonder if it's one of those "leaks" that was done intentionally so that he could deny it or act as if he wasn't proactively talking about it public. He's a good man, and it has to be breaking his heart to see his party go down like this, and to see the office of President be so degraded. He (like many in his party) has to want to make an impact on this election in as responsible way as possible. This "leak" kinda accomplishes that. Kennedy's aren't known for talking out of turn (or at least this branch of the Kennedy's isn't)

[zoogs]

Yeah, if HW is quietly voicing this opinion in a room of 40-some people, it's probably reasonable to suspect he intended to be heard.

 

The fact itself is a bit of a bombshell. There's no low-key way for him to get it out there himself. But at this point, it should hardly be surprising that a decent Republican would join the many others out there in using their one vote as best they can to defeat Trump.

[TGHusker]

Here is a surprise this morning. I did not expect this change in the Silver map.

(Sorry, I couldn't get the map to copy and paste on here - maybe someone can enlighten me on how to do so correctly. Knapp always does a good job of posting this map)

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nate-silver-trump-surges-from-3-to-48-chance-of-winning-in-1-month/article/2602386

 

Who would win the presidency today?

Chance of winning

Hillary Clinton

53.3%

Donald Trump

46.7%

Electoral:

Hillary Clinton

Clinton

275.0

Donald Trump

Trump

262.6

Gary Johnson

Johnson

0.4

Popular vote

Hillary Clinton

Clinton

45.4%

Donald Trump

Trump

44.1%

Gary Johnson

Johnson

9.2%

 

 

[knapplc]

It is terrifying that this country is even entertaining the idea of electing Donald Trump president. You people are not thinking with rational minds about this.