I don't think he'll cry, I'm actually not sure he is capable of that. But walk off stage? Now that would be something to see.
I think he'll do the first debate. Then after bail out because he's not being treated fairly or some other nonsense.
NYT: Republicans close to Trump say he's "exhausted, frustrated and bewildered"
- Thread starter giga
- Start date
- Status
I don't think he'll cry, I'm actually not sure he is capable of that. But walk off stage? Now that would be something to see.
I think he'll do the first debate. Then after bail out because he's not being treated fairly or some other nonsense.
Against any other republican Hillary would have been in a seriously tight race now.
Shao Kahn on the Lawn
Member
Actually, it's patently speculative just as your assertion of the opposite. You have no idea how well or how poorly an alternate campaign would have capitalized on these issues or how the public would have responded to that capitalization.
Again, the dramatic gap between Clinton and Trump didn't begin until after his idiotic fight with the Khan family despite all the other imbecility that preceded it. Despite the Trump campaign's incompetence, Clinton has historically high negatives: those negatives would be higher with an opposition campaign that wasn't operating like an after-school exercise orchestrated by 5th graders.
I don't think Hillary would have lost handily but it's pretty clear that the race would be MUCH tighter if her opponent wasn't so incompetent.
I think Hillary could beat Cruz. Rubio, though? I don't know. I think he would have had a very strong chance.
Rabid-Coot
Member
Mammoth Jones
Member
Not revisionist. History. She's a shitty candidate that got creamed by a relatively unknown jr senator.
She's synonymous with political corruption and not everyone likes that. There's a reason so many people don't like either candidate.
Hillary is a very beatable candidate.
Jack The Nipper
Banned
I believe all these stories are made up, so many republicans want him out, republicans are in dissray, distraiahxtnews stores.
They are just publicly of you ask me. These threads pop up like every four or five days and you see trump did or said this every three days. I bet we have more trump threads than anything else period.
They are just publicly of you ask me. These threads pop up like every four or five days and you see trump did or said this every three days. I bet we have more trump threads than anything else period.
Agreed. Rubio or Kasich would have made this race a complete toss-up.
Hillary is beatable, and so were all of the garbage-tier candidates the Republicans had going up against Trump. Kasich, I think, would have had the best chances out of all of them.
I think he's referring to the fact that the Dems didn't have another Obama-caliber candidate waiting in the wings for this election.
Hillary is experienced, but as others have said, she is also strongly disliked. Sanders is more liked but has less experience as a candidate and can't appeal to minorities to save his life. Biden understandably didn't run because he was still coping with the loss of his son, and even if he did there's no guarantee he'd go anywhere as he has a history of failed campaigns despite his charisma. O Malley and Webb were non-starters.
I was really hoping we'd see someone like Cory Booker step up to the plate but it seems like he's waiting for 2024.
Jack The Nipper
Banned
They lost to trump for a reason. One is a robot and the other is practically nonexistent
We have a natural tendency to say "hey, let's let the other team have the ball for a while". Especially with the Presidency.
Add to that hating the Clintons is something over half the country just seems drawn toward, the Democrats gift for self-sabotage, our national resistance to the idea of a woman in power...
There are a lot of things still working against Hillary. She's extraordinarily lucky that the GOPlosion is happening this year.
googleplex
Member
Everything in the post is bullshit of the highest order. She trounced Sander while treating him and his incompetent campaign with kid gloves.
While the vote would have been closer, Hilary would have beat anyone else from the Republican Primary. But that's irrelevant because the current state of th GOP would have produced nothing but clowns or a moderate Republican forced to go hard right jus to get the nomination. See Mitt Romney.
gutter_trash
Banned
Rubio is too Far-Right on social-conservationism, especially on marriage quality and women's reproductive rights
+ Rubio is flip-flopper on comprehensive immigration reform.
Even if h would have fared better among Latinos. His flopping on that issue wouldn't have guaranteed him to win back Bush 2004 levels of support
+ Rubio is flip-flopper on comprehensive immigration reform.
Even if h would have fared better among Latinos. His flopping on that issue wouldn't have guaranteed him to win back Bush 2004 levels of support
I think he was referring to Obama as the relatively unknown Jr. Senator that beat her.
Mammoth Jones
Member
No shit. But you're being contrarian when you understand the point I was making even if you disagree.
I agree Kasich was by far the strongest. I'm saying nearly all of the Republican field regardless of how batshit crazy stood a decent chance of beating Hillary. It wouldn't have been that hard. But Trump just fucking it up constantly. That's all I'm saying.
Correct. I don't give a shit about Sanders, lol. I'll hold my nose and vote for Clinton. Because there is no viable alternative.
Clinton led Trump by a huge margin before the FBI/e-mail scandal. After that, the lead narrowed, but even then she remained in the lead.
Rubot is a useless shill and he would have been exposed even more if he was the nominee.
Kasich is the one that would have won because he so perfectly encapsulates the compassionate conservatism bullshit that won Bush two terms.
She won her primary nearly 10-15 points ahead without going into negative opposition research directly against sanders.
And she got creamed?
So 400 pledge delegate lead is now creamed in election history?
KuwabaraTheMan
Banned
She would be winning comfortably against someone like Cruz or Walker.
The only danger of a really tight race for her would have been a somewhat rational seeming "moderate" (as far as the GOP goes), such as a Kasich or Romney.
It's not entirely fair to say that Obama "creamed" Clinton though. She actually won the popular vote in 2008.
Everyone on either camp and in Game Change state that the 2008 primary campagin was one of the most intense and close races they have taken part in.
googleplex
Member
Yes he did, but Obama BEARLY managed to do that. People forget how close Obama vs Hillary was. But Obama was a one a generational politician. And possibly the best orator on the political landscape in the last 50 years
Man Called Aerodynamics
Member
We're going to be listening to this for the next eight years, aren't we. "Hillary would have lost against Rubio or Cruz or anyone else. Her win doesn't count because the other team forfeited." Yeah okay.
Crimson-Death
Member
I just hope that after the election Trump gets deported back to his fucked up parallel universe.
Imperfected
Member
Surprise! The general electorate responds more favorably to robots than to clowns.
The fact that the Republican Primaries were a circus gave a very distorted view of the general public's clown-robot allegiances; people who hate clowns avoid the circus, making it a predictably poor place to poll for public opinion on clown-related sentiments.
(I don't think Rubio would have won, but I do think he would be much, much closer than Trump. I honestly think just a random name on the ballot belonging to a supposed Republican no one had ever seen before or knew anything about might have better long-term odds than Trump.)
Boombloxer
Member
Fixed.
rokkerkory
Member
9-26
Hillary's favorables definitely aren't great, but to call her a shitty candidate and using Obama's 08 victory as an example is...odd. Obama is on another level compared to every politician out there, and could probably beat any potential candidate now. And even then, the 08 primary was pretty close.
If you're standard for a quality poltican is Obama, you're gonna be waiting a very, very long time.
CarpeDeezNutz
Member
Meh, it's always people close to him and not the Trump, it's the same shit he does.
User 463088
Banned
Also, Obama's win was not decisive. Had Hillary planned a bit better, I think she could have ended up winning. Her campaign was not well managed, and Obama's team was smart, and learned how to eek out delegates from caucus states. Let's also not forget that two states weren't even eligible to send delegates until the compromise. In a race where Obama's biggest lead was 90 delegates, the fact that nearly 300 delegates were off the table definitely helped whichever candidate happened to be in the lead due to proportional allocation.
gutter_trash
Banned
Hillary's favorables were positive during her tenure as Senator into Secretary of State
she started to take a dive when she got subjected to constant hit pieces when it was a forgone conclusion that she would be running in 2016
she started to take a dive when she got subjected to constant hit pieces when it was a forgone conclusion that she would be running in 2016
She didn't get creamed. It was an extremely close and complicated primary.
Her popularity is very high when she's not running and very low when she is. It's not hard to figure.
No she didn't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008
17.5 million votes for Obama, 17.8 for Clinton.
User 463088
Banned
This even applied to Bill's campaign in 1992. The right did everything they could to make everyone hate her. They criticized her hair. The way she spoke. Her cookie recipes. Anything and everything she said was dissected six ways to Sunday.
Once she gets into office and starts doing the job, her approval ratings improve because she actually does a good job. I mean, the GOP admitted the Ben Ghazi!!!! committees purpose was to drag down her numbers. They didn't even try to hide it.
In the words of my dad, if people you don't trust try to tear someone down, that tells you all you need to know.
There's literally dozens of Republicans on record saying they love working with HRC, just don't want to see her elected because she's a democrat.
User 463088
Banned
Yup. Because she gets shit done.
John McCain even said in 2008 that if it ended up being between him and Hillary, it would be the nicest, most civil election ever because they genuinely like each other.
TheUntamedLegend
Member
Oh, so he wasn't "bought and sold"? He doesn't own Peter King because he contributed to his campaigns?
Trump consistently attacks Clinton for being essentially owned those who contribute to her campaign, yet he turns around and complains when the politicians he has donated to are not obeying him like loyal dogs?
I don't think this includes the caucuses though, does it?
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/
Q: Did Clinton win the popular vote?
A: Obama won more votes unless you count Michigan, where he wasn’t on the ballot.
Lord Frieza
Member
Either you weren't old enough to remember or aren't Ameican, because Obama was unstoppable in 08.
Gotta be honest. He came off deflated for the last couple of weeks. His desperate attempt at establishing "founder of Isis" as a thing similar to Crooked Hillary, Dishonest Media or Little Marco, clearly shows he is running out of ideas as to how to stop his free fall in the polls.
Chie Satonaka
Member
Obviously, you guys just don't know how big his crowds are.
Obama ran perhaps the best campaigns in modern American elections, and it took all of that to narrowly beat Clinton in 2008. While she has high negatives, there's nothing to suggest that she is a weak candidate. The most that you can say is that Clinton is a vulnerable candidate. And because she's been constantly attacked for decades, it'll take a very skillful opponent to be able to exploit that vulnerability.
Kasich is not that skillful candidate. The only reason why he seems strong is a combination of people not actually knowing anything about him and the sheer nuttiness of his Republican opponents. Once upon a time, Rubio was in that same position before everyone found out how bad he was at campaigning. And Jeb! before him for that matter. In a real election, Clinton would have had to deal with Kasich conventionally, but she would still have had a pretty good chance of trouncing him.
Orbis Tabula
Member
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/
Q: Did Clinton win the popular vote?
A: Obama won more votes unless you count Michigan, where he wasnt on the ballot.
Yeah. Me and Clinton actually tied in 2008, if you don't count the states where I wasn't on the ballots. Pretty weak candidate for sure.
You could read the whole article for the full context or you could maintain this Trumplike contempt for fact checkers either way is cool with me.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
no way...would have been a toss up or worse against anyone else imo
- Status