Would Hillary Have Been Defeated By One Of The Other GOP Candidates?

[MovingPictures]

apathy on our part...voters simply expected other apathetics to get off their arses and vote.One sure way to lose any election,especially a tight one.Hopefully we learned our lesson. (collectively)

If we are unable to flip at least the House with everything on our side, my worst insults will not be aimed at the Republicans, but instead Democratic voters for not coming through.

There are no excuses this time around.

 

[Logician Man]

If we are unable to flip at least the House with everything on our side, my worst insults will not be aimed at the Republicans, but instead Democratic voters for not coming through.

There are no excuses this time around.

Ditto...been singing that song loud and clear ever since Agent Orange disgraced what used to be the most respected office on the planet.The Oval Office..

 

[Fiddytree]

1981-1993 Reagan, Reagan, HW Bush ring a bell?

Do you honestly think I forgot about that, or do you think I was addressing how rare it is in American history to accomplish that? Take your time.

 

[disneydude]

Some possibly yes....others no. Cruz would have lost by a landslide. Rubio probably would have won. Jeb....probably would have been very close.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

warning: There be word games afoot

No, he won't respond up here to me.

 

[HeroicLove]

Anyone can beat Hilary. She's unrelatable and entitled.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[jamesrage]

Did Trump tap into a vein of populism that won him WI, PA, OH, MI or would someone like Rubio or Cruz also have carried the same number of Electoral Votes?

Yes Clinton would have been defeated by Rubio,Cruz or any other republican candidate.The media was so sure of this they tried to prop up Trump in the primary with the hope he would lose big time and it blew up in their face. Clinton was such a lousy candidate that they had to have Bernie Sanders run in order to make Clinton look moderate.

 

[SDET]

Yes Clinton would have been defeated by Rubio,Cruz or any other republican candidate.The media was so sure of this they tried to prop up Trump in the primary with the hope he would lose big time and it blew up in their face. Clinton was such a lousy candidate that they had to have Bernie Sanders run in order to make Clinton look moderate.

You make a very important point. Trump was the media-chosen GOP nominee. Don't blame Republicans for Trump. Blame the leftist media for essentially selecting the nominees for both parties.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Did Trump tap into a vein of populism that won him WI, PA, OH, MI or would someone like Rubio or Cruz also have carried the same number of Electoral Votes?

Trump won those blue firewall states by campaigning hard for them while Hillary took them for granted. Trump convinced the coal and the steel workers for instance that he was going to go to bat for them, while Hillary was making statements like: "And yes, we will put alot of coal miners out of business".

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

My completely unprovable guess: Trump won some voters that wouldn't have been won by other Republican candidates, but there were more voters that held their nose for Clinton to stop Trump that would have been happy enough to sit out, vote third party, or even vote for a candidate like Rubio or Kasich had Trump not been the nominee. Clinton was pretty solidly despised, yet still managed to only lose by 0.7% or smaller margins in the decisive Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. So I have to think it's more likely another candidate would have done better.

Out of the 17 GOP primary candidates, there were some republicans who could have beat her, however not the establishment types like Jeb Bush or Kasich. And Rubio, who was once considered a rising star in the GOP destroyed his chances when he joined up with that "gang of eight" and attempted to push a "comprehensive immigration bill" without first securing the border. Border security was the biggest single issue that made trump successful.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

No, the other GOP candidates would not have had the assistance of a hostile foreign power.

Neither did Trump.

 

[haymarket]

I suspect Eisenhower could have beaten Hillary Clinton.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Yes. Trump was the worst of the lot but in your system he was enough. Any other Republican would have carried more votes.

Cruz, perhaps could have carried more votes. To suggest that just any and all other GOP candidates could have is political ignorance.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Hillary would have been defeated by pretty much whomever she faced for the same reason Obama beat her for the nomination in 2008 - because she didn't actually run for anything. She had her name and that was about it. Something - pretty much anything - will beat nothing every time. I would have figured someone as intelligent as her would have figured that out from 2008, but apparently she didn't. That was something Al Gore never got either. If you want to be President, you've got to take risks. You've got to put your neck out there and let the people know where you stand. You've got to risk alienating some people as a necessary price for standing by your guiding principles. If you try to be all things to all people, you're just going to end up as a big nothing to everyone.

Hillary lost for alot of reasons, most but not all were of her own doing. Her best chance would have been 2004, which was almost certainly her original plan. She lost her mind in the 2008 race when she stood at the primary debates and rattled off that fantasy story about dodging sniper fire with her daughter at a visit to Bosnia. In the 2016 race, any objective observer noticed she lacked the physical and mental health to run for president, much less serve as president. And yet, it appears that she is gearing up to run again in 2020. I wonder if she will even be able to stand up without assistance by then.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Maybe. Maybe not.

Hillary would have likely run her intensely crappy campaign no matter who she was running against, so it depends on if one of those other GOP guys/gal would have been able to lie their way to getting the votes of the Americans who are sick and tired of the GOP Elites running their Party.

I can tell you for sure that I wouldn't have voted.

I certainly was not going to vote for an establishment GOP candidate either. My first choice was ted Cruz. When he lost the nomination, I was prepared to sit the 2016 race out. However trump's performance in the debates with Hillary won me over.

 

[JC Callender]

Did Trump tap into a vein of populism that won him WI, PA, OH, MI or would someone like Rubio or Cruz also have carried the same number of Electoral Votes?

I think Hillary could've beaten some of the other candidates. I don't think she was the worst candidate in history, as some seem to believe. Just having Bill in her corner should've meant a lot. I think people were getting sick of establishment politicians, esp. with their pc bull**** and Trump is the opposite of that and that got people excited.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Hillary would not have made the "deplorables" mistake if she had been running against another opponent, but she might have repeated the mistake where she compared people to terrorists for wanting to pass a law restricting abortion to less than 20 weeks.

Trump sent a lot of Republicans to a third-party candidate. They might have come home for a different candidate, making the race harder for Hillary.

But the third-partiers on the left might have felt their votes were more important if Hillary were facing someone other than Trump and so many of them might have held their nose and voted for Hillary.

Hillary still had her self-made FBI cloud over her head.

Too many variables.



Biden would have stomped Trump.

But would Rubio or Cruz have beaten Hillary?

Can't guess.

Biden would have been a better choice then Hillary, however he would not have stomped Trump. Biden has his own problems, one of which he now shares with Nancy Pelosi.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Yes. Democrats weakened themselves over the last decade, were uninspired, and Republicans were energized. Then take a look at how incredibly difficult, and under what circumstances it takes for a party to hold onto the Presidency through more than 2 consecutive terms. U.S. politics generally runs on 8 years in, 8 years out cycle. In the Guilded Age you had a series of 4 years in, 4 years out. Sometimes you get lucky and you run into an 8 years in, 4 years out situation. But 8+4? That's damned, damned, damned hard to accomplish without incredible economic or political turmoil.

Running as an incumbent is a major advantage.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Actually, I think the victory over Clinton would have been by a bigger margin.

In my opinion, the American people weren't voting for Trump as much as they were voting against Hillary.

I don't agree. The Americans that voted for Trump were actually voting against establishment politicians in general. That is what Trump tapped into The Brits were similarly motivated when they approved Brexit.

 

[Fiddytree]

Running as an incumbent is a major advantage.

For an incumbent party, that is not the case after 8 years of leadership. More often than not, it's a liability. Americans tend to like change, for various reasons.

 

[Anagram]

Out of the 17 GOP primary candidates, there were some republicans who could have beat her, however not the establishment types like Jeb Bush or Kasich. And Rubio, who was once considered a rising star in the GOP destroyed his chances when he joined up with that "gang of eight" and attempted to push a "comprehensive immigration bill" without first securing the border. Border security was the biggest single issue that made trump successful.

I find it very unlikely Bush, Kasich, and Rubio wouldn’t have picked up the vast majority of those votes on the basis of not being Hillary. She was absolutely despised to the extent that I can’t see a heavy population of Trump voters sitting out because Rubio signed on to an immigration bill that went nowhere. And for the votes Rubio did lose for that I imagine he’d pick up more NeverTrump votes and the like.

Knowing the final outcome, how close Hillary came despite so many absolutely hating her, it seems unlikely to me that a nominee that wasn’t as disliked as Trump and Hillary like Rubio would really lose.

 

[Amelia]

I find it very unlikely Bush, Kasich, and Rubio wouldn’t have picked up the vast majority of those votes on the basis of not being Hillary. She was absolutely despised to the extent that I can’t see a heavy population of Trump voters sitting out because Rubio signed on to an immigration bill that went nowhere. And for the votes Rubio did lose for that I imagine he’d pick up more NeverTrump votes and the like.

Knowing the final outcome, how close Hillary came despite so many absolutely hating her, it seems unlikely to me that a nominee that wasn’t as disliked as Trump and Hillary like Rubio would really lose.

In the polls taken during the primaries every Republican candidate except Trump polled ahead of Hillary.

Sanders beat most of them, and he beat Trump by a lot. Hillary only beat Trump by a little.

But Democrats said she would be the most electable.

 

[cpwill]

Trump was probably the only GOP candidate who was likely to lose to her at all. That she managed to lose more than he did (I'm not sure I'd call that "winning") is a testament to how awful a candidate she was.

Biden would have stomped Trump.

Yup.

 

[cpwill]

I find it very unlikely Bush, Kasich, and Rubio wouldn’t have picked up the vast majority of those votes on the basis of not being Hillary. She was absolutely despised to the extent that I can’t see a heavy population of Trump voters sitting out because Rubio signed on to an immigration bill that went nowhere. And for the votes Rubio did lose for that I imagine he’d pick up more NeverTrump votes and the like.

Knowing the final outcome, how close Hillary came despite so many absolutely hating her, it seems unlikely to me that a nominee that wasn’t as disliked as Trump and Hillary like Rubio would really lose.

...I can see Bush running into a similar hold-your-nose a-pox-on-all-houses dynamic with the "not another Bush" / "not another Clinton".


But yeah. Generally, a GOP that looked like this:

Against Hillary? It would have been a bloodbath.

 

[Bullseye]

If we are unable to flip at least the House with everything on our side, my worst insults will not be aimed at the Republicans, but instead Democratic voters for not coming through.

There are no excuses this time around.

Oh, yes there is. While you guys bounce from one "look what HE did this time" issue to the next, the public is seeing a booming economy, becoming more secure and confident in their jobs and their financial status and, in general, more enthusiastic in the direction the country is moving. They're seeing raises, bonuses, friends getting jobs - or better jobs and they like it.