I don't recall this ever being answered by any of the #notrump people. Let's say the GOP figures out a way to prevent Trump from getting the nomination. SO, who is the replacement that will get it done against Hillary?

(04-29-2016 10:23 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't recall this ever being answered by any of the #notrump people. Let's say the GOP figures out a way to prevent Trump from getting the nomination. SO, who is the replacement that will get it done against Hillary?

Other than a few flaky inside the beltway people, everybody is saying its Cruz.

Nobody.

If Trump doesn't get the GOP nomination after dominating the primary process, then you'll see millions of Trump voters "boycott" the general election, and the answer to your question of "IF not Trump, then who?" would be Hillary Clinton.

Check the head-to-head general election polls. Kasich polls even with Hillary, while Trump versus Hillary shows a historic shellacking.

The real question in my mind is why vote for Trump? Just angering the elites in both parties does not make him qualified. If that's all that matters why not just nominate Sarah Palin.

(04-29-2016 10:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 10:23 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't recall this ever being answered by any of the #notrump people. Let's say the GOP figures out a way to prevent Trump from getting the nomination. SO, who is the replacement that will get it done against Hillary?

Other than a few flaky inside the beltway people, everybody is saying its Cruz.

Cruz gets clocked by Hillary. He's very regional in his appeal. He couldn't win evangelicals in the southeast, and they were supposed to be THE group that would most fervently support him. How does he play with more moderate people or those who put an emphasis on civil liberties? He doesn't do good at all. Cruz gets destroyed worse than Romney.

(04-29-2016 10:32 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Check the head-to-head general election polls. Kasich polls even with Hillary, while Trump versus Hillary shows a historic shellacking.

The real question in my mind is why vote for Trump? Just angering the elites in both parties does not make him qualified. If that's all that matters why not just nominate Sarah Palin.

Seriously... who gives a shite about the polls?

Polls can be an effective tool to manipulate voters into thinking "Well, if he's already that far behind, my vote won't matter."

See you in November.

(04-29-2016 10:32 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Check the head-to-head general election polls. Kasich polls even with Hillary, while Trump versus Hillary shows a historic shellacking.

The real question in my mind is why vote for Trump? Just angering the elites in both parties does not make him qualified. If that's all that matters why not just nominate Sarah Palin.

Those polls are flawed, because logic would say that if Kasich had such strong numbers against Hillary compared to the rest of the GOP field then he would have one a lot more than just his home state. If Kasich was within 100 delegates of Trump, then I could buy that Kasich has significantly greater appeal to the general electorate but is suffering from a case of bad luck with a polarized GOP electorate. But in reality, Kasich was objectively destroyed in almost every primary state election so far. It simply doesn't compute.

(04-29-2016 10:33 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 10:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 10:23 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't recall this ever being answered by any of the #notrump people. Let's say the GOP figures out a way to prevent Trump from getting the nomination. SO, who is the replacement that will get it done against Hillary?

Other than a few flaky inside the beltway people, everybody is saying its Cruz.

Cruz gets clocked by Hillary. He's very regional in his appeal. He couldn't win evangelicals in the southeast, and they were supposed to be THE group that would most fervently support him. How does he play with more moderate people or those who put an emphasis on civil liberties? He doesn't do good at all. Cruz gets destroyed worse than Romney.

All the polls show a Cruz/Clinton race very close with Cruz winning some and Clinton winning some. Clinton and Trump are very regional in their appeal. Both have a really hard time west of the Mississippi and struggle in the Midwest.

(04-29-2016 10:36 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 10:32 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Check the head-to-head general election polls. Kasich polls even with Hillary, while Trump versus Hillary shows a historic shellacking.

The real question in my mind is why vote for Trump? Just angering the elites in both parties does not make him qualified. If that's all that matters why not just nominate Sarah Palin.

Those polls are flawed, because logic would say that if Kasich had such strong numbers against Hillary compared to the rest of the GOP field then he would have one a lot more than just his home state. If Kasich was within 100 delegates of Trump, then I could buy that Kasich has significantly greater appeal to the general electorate but is suffering from a case of bad luck with a polarized GOP electorate. But in reality, Kasich was objectively destroyed in almost every primary state election so far. It simply doesn't compute.

Remember, most people are not Republicans or Democrats.

(04-29-2016 10:32 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Just angering the elites in both parties does not make him qualified.

au contraire mon frère

(04-29-2016 10:36 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 10:32 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Check the head-to-head general election polls. Kasich polls even with Hillary, while Trump versus Hillary shows a historic shellacking.

The real question in my mind is why vote for Trump? Just angering the elites in both parties does not make him qualified. If that's all that matters why not just nominate Sarah Palin.

Those polls are flawed, because logic would say that if Kasich had such strong numbers against Hillary compared to the rest of the GOP field then he would have one a lot more than just his home state. If Kasich was within 100 delegates of Trump, then I could buy that Kasich has significantly greater appeal to the general electorate but is suffering from a case of bad luck with a polarized GOP electorate. But in reality, Kasich was objectively destroyed in almost every primary state election so far. It simply doesn't compute.

So you're basically saying that someone has to do well in the Republican primaries in order to win the general election?

And Trump has high unfavorable opinion even among republicans, so what makes you think GOP turnout will be high with him as the nominee?

(04-29-2016 10:45 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 10:36 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 10:32 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Check the head-to-head general election polls. Kasich polls even with Hillary, while Trump versus Hillary shows a historic shellacking.

The real question in my mind is why vote for Trump? Just angering the elites in both parties does not make him qualified. If that's all that matters why not just nominate Sarah Palin.

Those polls are flawed, because logic would say that if Kasich had such strong numbers against Hillary compared to the rest of the GOP field then he would have one a lot more than just his home state. If Kasich was within 100 delegates of Trump, then I could buy that Kasich has significantly greater appeal to the general electorate but is suffering from a case of bad luck with a polarized GOP electorate. But in reality, Kasich was objectively destroyed in almost every primary state election so far. It simply doesn't compute.

So you're basically saying that someone has to do well in the Republican primaries in order to win the general election?

And Trump has high unfavorable opinion even among republicans, so what makes you think GOP turnout will be high with him as the nominee?

In the past elections the voting pretty much gone down party lines and the national vote is split up fairly close to 50/50. Obama beat Romney 51/47 and that was considered a landslide. I honestly don't think Trump can even draw 60% of his own party in the general much less 50% of the national vote. Maybe Trump can make that up with independents and new voters..but..if not? Hillary will win easily.

Im calling this early for Clinton.

(04-29-2016 11:08 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Hillary will win easily.

Im calling this early for Clinton.

Remarkable that Hilary's unerring ability to choose poorly in politics will lead her directly to the Oval Office.

False question. #alwaystrump

(04-29-2016 11:08 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 10:45 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 10:36 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 10:32 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Check the head-to-head general election polls. Kasich polls even with Hillary, while Trump versus Hillary shows a historic shellacking.

The real question in my mind is why vote for Trump? Just angering the elites in both parties does not make him qualified. If that's all that matters why not just nominate Sarah Palin.

Those polls are flawed, because logic would say that if Kasich had such strong numbers against Hillary compared to the rest of the GOP field then he would have one a lot more than just his home state. If Kasich was within 100 delegates of Trump, then I could buy that Kasich has significantly greater appeal to the general electorate but is suffering from a case of bad luck with a polarized GOP electorate. But in reality, Kasich was objectively destroyed in almost every primary state election so far. It simply doesn't compute.

So you're basically saying that someone has to do well in the Republican primaries in order to win the general election?

And Trump has high unfavorable opinion even among republicans, so what makes you think GOP turnout will be high with him as the nominee?

In the past elections the voting pretty much gone down party lines and the national vote is split up fairly close to 50/50. Obama beat Romney 51/47 and that was considered a landslide. I honestly don't think Trump can even draw 60% of his own party in the general much less 50% of the national vote. Maybe Trump can make that up with independents and new voters..but..if not? Hillary will win easily.

Im calling this early for Clinton.

This is why it's so curious to me that people think that Cruz or Kasich would fair any better than Trump. Cruz is objectively capturing more of the hearts of the GOP voters than Kasich has, and we KNOW that Cruz will leave a hell of a lot of votes on the table due to people not wanting to vote for someone that is contrary to their values. And for how much Kasich "kills it" in the head to head early polls against Clinton, he's lucky to draw flies in the primaries. Seriously, if people think Trump will be lucky to get 60% turnout in the general given that he's the significant front runner today, imagine how much less the GOP turnout is with Cruz or Kasich as the nominee. We don't need projections to figure this out, we're seeing it in the primaries already.

This is a "throw the bums out" election year - at least wrt the GOP. Maybe there is no hope for the GOP this election cycle, IDK.

Write in...

Nick Saban

(04-29-2016 10:23 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't recall this ever being answered by any of the #notrump people. Let's say the GOP figures out a way to prevent Trump from getting the nomination. SO, who is the replacement that will get it done against Hillary?

We'll have to wait and see who is on the ballot.

(04-29-2016 12:34 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 11:08 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 10:45 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 10:36 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 10:32 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Check the head-to-head general election polls. Kasich polls even with Hillary, while Trump versus Hillary shows a historic shellacking.

The real question in my mind is why vote for Trump? Just angering the elites in both parties does not make him qualified. If that's all that matters why not just nominate Sarah Palin.

Those polls are flawed, because logic would say that if Kasich had such strong numbers against Hillary compared to the rest of the GOP field then he would have one a lot more than just his home state. If Kasich was within 100 delegates of Trump, then I could buy that Kasich has significantly greater appeal to the general electorate but is suffering from a case of bad luck with a polarized GOP electorate. But in reality, Kasich was objectively destroyed in almost every primary state election so far. It simply doesn't compute.

So you're basically saying that someone has to do well in the Republican primaries in order to win the general election?

And Trump has high unfavorable opinion even among republicans, so what makes you think GOP turnout will be high with him as the nominee?

In the past elections the voting pretty much gone down party lines and the national vote is split up fairly close to 50/50. Obama beat Romney 51/47 and that was considered a landslide. I honestly don't think Trump can even draw 60% of his own party in the general much less 50% of the national vote. Maybe Trump can make that up with independents and new voters..but..if not? Hillary will win easily.

Im calling this early for Clinton.

This is why it's so curious to me that people think that Cruz or Kasich would fair any better than Trump. Cruz is objectively capturing more of the hearts of the GOP voters than Kasich has, and we KNOW that Cruz will leave a hell of a lot of votes on the table due to people not wanting to vote for someone that is contrary to their values. And for how much Kasich "kills it" in the head to head early polls against Clinton, he's lucky to draw flies in the primaries. Seriously, if people think Trump will be lucky to get 60% turnout in the general given that he's the significant front runner today, imagine how much less the GOP turnout is with Cruz or Kasich as the nominee. We don't need projections to figure this out, we're seeing it in the primaries already.

This is a "throw the bums out" election year - at least wrt the GOP. Maybe there is no hope for the GOP this election cycle, IDK.

I think it is "irrational retaliation" year following the last 8 year debacle. Trump is pushing the correct buttons to incite that fervor. His campaign is the polar opposite of Obama..but..this time the CHANGE message is targeted at neocons, middle aged white blue collar men and malcontents. It may well work...but...not with me. Im a rational malcontent.

1-in-47 John is a non-starter. He has no broad support among the people, period.

(04-29-2016 03:01 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 12:34 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 11:08 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 10:45 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 10:36 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Those polls are flawed, because logic would say that if Kasich had such strong numbers against Hillary compared to the rest of the GOP field then he would have one a lot more than just his home state. If Kasich was within 100 delegates of Trump, then I could buy that Kasich has significantly greater appeal to the general electorate but is suffering from a case of bad luck with a polarized GOP electorate. But in reality, Kasich was objectively destroyed in almost every primary state election so far. It simply doesn't compute.

So you're basically saying that someone has to do well in the Republican primaries in order to win the general election?

And Trump has high unfavorable opinion even among republicans, so what makes you think GOP turnout will be high with him as the nominee?

In the past elections the voting pretty much gone down party lines and the national vote is split up fairly close to 50/50. Obama beat Romney 51/47 and that was considered a landslide. I honestly don't think Trump can even draw 60% of his own party in the general much less 50% of the national vote. Maybe Trump can make that up with independents and new voters..but..if not? Hillary will win easily.

Im calling this early for Clinton.

This is why it's so curious to me that people think that Cruz or Kasich would fair any better than Trump. Cruz is objectively capturing more of the hearts of the GOP voters than Kasich has, and we KNOW that Cruz will leave a hell of a lot of votes on the table due to people not wanting to vote for someone that is contrary to their values. And for how much Kasich "kills it" in the head to head early polls against Clinton, he's lucky to draw flies in the primaries. Seriously, if people think Trump will be lucky to get 60% turnout in the general given that he's the significant front runner today, imagine how much less the GOP turnout is with Cruz or Kasich as the nominee. We don't need projections to figure this out, we're seeing it in the primaries already.

This is a "throw the bums out" election year - at least wrt the GOP. Maybe there is no hope for the GOP this election cycle, IDK.

I think it is "irrational retaliation" year following the last 8 year debacle. Trump is pushing the correct buttons to incite that fervor. His campaign is the polar opposite of Obama..but..this time the CHANGE message is targeted at neocons, middle aged white blue collar men and malcontents. It may well work...but...not with me. Im a rational malcontent.

What we need and where the GOP has failed is for power to move away from the central federal government. I see a Trump presidency moving in the opposite direction.