[quote=“zeb1, post:221, topic:215570, full:true”]
You really don’t understand that Hillary Clinton is damaged goods. Yeah, I know Trump is a very poor choice but even he would beat Hillary. [/quote]
Poll after poll has shown Trump to be even more damaged. He is absolutely despised by the general public. His negative favorability and never-vote-for actually makes Hillary look well-liked.
Hillary is the next President, vs. Trump. MAYBE Cruz can pull it off with this debate skills, I don’t know. I doubt it. Only Kasich is ‘liked.’ And he’s not exactly beating Hillary by much in poll averages. And his positive favorable are most likely tied to the fact that public has yet to really hear much at all about him with Trump, and to a lesser extent Cruz, sucking up all the oxygen. If he were to become the nominee through a brokered convention the attention turns to him, and I would bet his negatives begin to rise and his lead in the polling data begin to reverse. Hell, he can’t even suggest female college students skip drinking parties as a self-protective measure against sexual assault without the media framing him as a blaming the victim. Oh, and never-mind the GoP voter stay-homes due to a double-leap from over the first two delegate leaders going into the convention.
Hillary, a badly damaged candidate wins. Why? Because she’s a progressive-liberal. Social and Fiscal conservatism are non-winners. So, if the republicans want to win, they should draft a progressive-democrat into the party.
Sloth, completely agree on your analysis of Hillary vs. Trump or Cruz. Also agree on the issues Kasich would have troubles because the leap frog over the two leaders.
I disagree. A recent poll from Rasmussen shows that 44% are conservative and 41% are moderate when it comes to fiscal issues. That is far from dead. Social issues are where it changes, “35 percent describe themselves as conservative, 32 percent say they’re liberal and 30 percent say they’re moderates”.
Don’t agree with any of your points. But since you didn’t take the time to address my clearly stated points to back up my argument I will return the favor.
Ok, now ask yourself what they actually mean by being "fiscally conservative. To a good majority of these “fiscal conservatives” that means opposing universal health-care (for now…). It means cutting “waste, fraud, and abuse.” It most definitely doesn’t mean cutting a single cent from entitlements. See my post on polling of conservatives and self-described tea-party folks. Even the tea party says “keep your damn hands off my entitlements.”
By the way, I hope no one actually puts too much stock in any cross party polls taken in April. History demonstrates that this is a very poor indicator of who will win in November. There is a long list of people who did not become President who were ahead in various polls several months before the actual election.
So true, they attack him for being unwilling to compromise and the next breath attack him for not being a true conservative and sticking to his principals.
I’ll bet my posting on it. If Hillary loses, I will retire in disgrace from posting here. I’m calling it right now, a negatively-viewed progressive Democrat is absolutely going to beat the Republican nominee. Trump, because he actually is a misogynistic, sadistic, ass who’ll lie even in the face of video evidence about positions he’s taken. They hate him. They don’t just oppose him, he is flat out hated by too many people. Cruz, because he won’t or can’t explain that while he is a constitutional conservative he understands his potential election wouldn’t be a go-ahead to remake the country in his image. And Kashich, because getting to know him will bring up his negatives (the media will make sure), and because a severely pissed off GoP voter base, who’ll feel like their votes didn’t matter for squat, will stay home in protest.
You have a bet my friend. But let’s not be too hasty. I think leaving for one year is enough.
I am claiming that Hillary Clinton will not become the President of the United States. You are saying that she will win by defeating whomever the republicans put up.
As I have said too many people put too much faith in polls at an early date.
Here are a few examples of candidates who were ahead early and then lost the election. And also keep in mind that the following is a head to head match up which should make it even more clear.
April 1948
Dewey 47%
Truman 39%
Winner Truman
Jan 1960
Nixon 48%
Kennedy 43%
Winner Kennedy
May 1968
Humphrey 42%
Nixon 36%
Wallace 14%
Winner Nixon
April 1980
Carter 41%
Carter 34%
Anderson 18%
Winner Reagan
April 1988
Dukakis 54%
Bush HW 38%
Winner Bush HW
April 1992
Bush HW 54%
Clinton 38%
Winner Clinton
March 2004
Kerry 50%
Bush W 44%
Winner Bush W
April 2008
McCain 47%
Obama 44%
Winner Obama
April 2012
Romney 47%
Obama 44%
Winner Obama
Many of the other Presidential elections had an incumbents who were ahead from the beginning and kept the lead Reagan’s second run Clinton’s second run Roosevelt etc.
Trump being hated more than any candidate running isn’t changing. He’s a meme. Cruz, if he is to have any chance, had best start reassuring the public at large that he’s not going to turn everything on it’s head. I think he’s incapable of doing this. If Hillary was to lose in the general election it wouldn’t be to promises of a constitutional conservative revolution. The public as a whole isn’t remotely “constitutional conservative.”
And that is why our friend Sloth is going to be wrong. He is head over heels emotionally invested in this election. I saw this when he didn’t even address my multiple points as to why Hillary will lose. This is not his usual style.
Because you say so? Trump has some negatives that can vanish overnight. His nastiness etc. Hillary’s negatives are true gifts that just keep on giving and won’t ever go away.
So…
Aside from my other points above this is a year for the outsider have you noticed? Sure you have. Who is the consummate insider? Hillary. Who is the consummate outsider? Trump.
Think it over before you gamble away your T Nation posting life.