Well Cruz' biggest handicap is that everyone who interacts with him for more than a few minutes feels an inexplicable compulsion to stab him in the eye.
Rubio's biggest problem is that he looks like someone running for class president, not actual President.
It's hard to say what would have happened, as Hillary would likely have an entire different gameplan if she was running against anyone else. Right now she can kind stay back and let Trump take all the negative spotlight. If Jeb or Cruz were the nominee, she'd probably have to be a bit more aggressive.
I think the real question is whether this means the Republican party takes an extra four years to either get it's back broken or learn it's lesson or probably both
It is really hard to unseat a President from getting a second term. Oftentimes it's just more advantageous for the losing party to just sit out the second election beyond a token effort while grooming for the next go.
Getting an incumbent out is hard, but so is getting a fourth consecutive term as a party. I don't know, she'll have to work for it but the GOP is in such disarray...
Honestly, I kind of hope that Rubio's out after November.
He wasn't very well liked down here in the first place, and now that he took a bunch of money from Floridians to campaign while not actually doing his job in the Senate, I'm hoping that he'll either get primaried out or get his ass kicked by the Democratic candidate.
There was a time when it seemed like Trump was actually somewhat of a slick manipulator of American anxieties instead of an idiot who stumbled into success, and I think the next guy is going to be the smart version
I'm sure the GOP establishment would love to dump the Southern strategy and stop concentrating on social issues and coded racism but they don't have the base for it any more.
+3
Options
MachwingIt looks like a harmless old computer, doesn't it?Left in this cave to rot ... or to flower!Registered Userregular
I see a lot of talking about how the next big Republican push, if they lose this election, will be in 2024 rather than 2020
Are people just assuming Hillary would get a second term?
At this point I think it might be assuming a lot to believe the Republican party is going to be relevant in 2024. The under 21 set has been called "terrifyingly liberal" and right now Fox News' viewers are on average so old that they're not buying green bananas. The average age of Bill O'reily's show is 71 years old. Now, you might think you've seen some heinous Trump supporters on reddit and 4chan and there's no way those people are 68 years old like Fox News' average viewer. Those are indeed young people with Minecraft LPs and anime avatars and an irrational hatred of people from cultures they've never met but those are a small vocal minority. In fact...
A new poll has Trump in fourth — behind Gary Johnson AND Jill Stein — with young people
A couple of weeks back, I asked whether it was possible that Donald Trump might lose millennial voters to a third-party candidate, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson.
Well, a new poll shows him losing young voters not just to Johnson, but also to Green Party nominee Jill Stein.
The McClatchy poll shows Trump pulling just 1 in 10 votes — 9 percent — among Americans under 30 years old. Hillary Clinton is at 41 percent, while Johnson is at 23 percent and Stein is at 16 percent. Trump is basically tied with "undecided," which is at 8 percent.
It's important to note here that, as with other subsamples of young voters, the poll did not test a large number of them — only 15 percent of the 983 registered voters that Marist College polled for McClatchy, or about 150. That means there is a very high margin of error.
But it comes on the heels of plenty of other evidence that Trump is struggling — mightily — with the youngest American voters.
A Fox News poll this week didn't include Stein, but it showed Trump and Johnson close among voters under 35 — the generally accepted definition of the millennial generation. Trump was at 23 percent, while Johnson was at 19 percent.
In early July, a Pew study that included a larger sample — and larger subsample of voters under 30 — also showed Trump and Johnson virtually tied among teens and 20-somethings.
So the complete picture that's taking shape is: Young people really don't like Trump. His favorable rating among voters under 30 in the McClatchy poll is just 13 percent, with 82 percent unfavorable (!). He does worse with them than he does among Latinos (25 percent favorable, 73 percent unfavorable) and nearly as poorly as he does among liberals (10 favorable, 88 percent unfavorable).
But that also doesn't necessarily mean he'll get just 9 percent or even just 20 percent of their votes. Third-party candidates tend to poll better before Election Day than they actually perform on Election Day. As The Washington Post's Stu Rothenberg wrote Thursday:
If history is any guide (and it has not always been one this election cycle), support for Johnson and Stein will ebb over the next three months.
Supposedly serious Independent or third party nominees like John Anderson (1980) and Ross Perot (1992) saw their poll numbers slide in the final months of those campaigns as voters decided to cast their votes for someone who could win the White House. That same dynamic could well occur again (Perot’s numbers in 1996 and Nader’s in 2000 remained more stable.)
The Greens probably will attract a handful of Bernie Sanders supporters, but Stein’s (and her party’s) agenda is way too far to the left to attract mainstream supporters who otherwise would support Clinton.
And while Johnson’s decision to add Weld to his ticket surely reflects his effort to move the Libertarians to the political mainstream, that party spends as much time arguing internally about what it stands for as it does wooing general election voters.
As long as the Libertarians and Greens seem irrelevant and outside the political mainstream to the average voter, they will not be in the electoral conversation.
Young voters have long been one of the very best demographics for third-party candidates, and Johnson and Stein will spend plenty of time appealing to them.
They might not beat Trump with this demographic, but they can surely do some real damage to his prospects of winning. And for that, Trump has himself to blame.
If Romney had run and gotten through a primary I bet he could have taken it from Clinton. Jeb would have given her a run for her money too.
Eh Mitt Romney is a tremendous asshole who lied constantly. I think four years and the Trump comparison makes him look like a better candidate than he ever actually was.
I see a lot of talking about how the next big Republican push, if they lose this election, will be in 2024 rather than 2020
Are people just assuming Hillary would get a second term?
Historically a president has to really screw up to not get that second term.
historically its also really hard for a party to keep the presidency more than two terms in a row
Honestly, I'm kinda worried about 2020. We really need to get the downticket races locked down, or we're going to have another decade of the catastrophic districting we had after the 2010 wave
Hillary Rodham Clinton, knowing the Republicans were fascists, deliberately reenacted the Dreyfus Affair and they fucking took a swing because a loyal jewish muslim soldier is an identitarian threat to these traitor fucks who think they're FranceAmerica.
I think the "any one of these clowns could beat Hillary" argument loses some effectiveness when none of them could beat Donald Trump. They wouldn't necessarily be blowing up their own campaigns the way Trump is, but like, the only reason Cruz looks palatable is that Trump is more openly awful, and everyone still hates that fucker. Jeb didn't ever look like he wanted to be there. Kasich is a moderate only by the most generous fucking terms imaginable. Rubio is...somehow sadder than Jeb? And then there are all the other idiots who ran, like...I know Hillary is divisive, and I know the right hates the shit out of her, but...these guys? Really?
I see a lot of talking about how the next big Republican push, if they lose this election, will be in 2024 rather than 2020
Are people just assuming Hillary would get a second term?
Historically a president has to really screw up to not get that second term.
historically its also really hard for a party to keep the presidency more than two terms in a row
Honestly, I'm kinda worried about 2020. We really need to get the downticket races locked down, or we're going to have another decade of the catastrophic districting we had after the 2010 wave
But seriously, even if Trump manages to trump it up, and we get a wave election, how likely are we going to be to be able to leverage those gains towards laying the groundwork for the 2020 fight? Because we're liable to lose a lot of those seats again in 2018, right? And the districts will still be gerrymandered to hell then.
I think the "any one of these clowns could beat Hillary" argument loses some effectiveness when none of them could beat Donald Trump. They wouldn't necessarily be blowing up their own campaigns the way Trump is, but like, the only reason Cruz looks palatable is that Trump is more openly awful, and everyone still hates that fucker. Jeb didn't ever look like he wanted to be there. Kasich is a moderate only by the most generous fucking terms imaginable. Rubio is...somehow sadder than Jeb? And then there are all the other idiots who ran, like...I know Hillary is divisive, and I know the right hates the shit out of her, but...these guys? Really?
I think bluntly that some of the establishment candidates were loaded to fight Hilary but weren't able to overcome the very different problem of Trump. Any candidate capable of keeping his shit together and keeping the party mostly unified would be doing much, much better than Trump right now. Then again, I don't think anyone anticipated just how well the DNC would go. Maybe Hilary is going to play a blinder.
I think they might have been able to run a more competent, conventional campaign, with better backing from wealthy donors, but Hillary is a really good politician, who has been under fire for...a while, and she's still running around, getting nominated for President. Maybe Jeb or Cruz would be running a tighter race than Trump is, currently, but I don't know if there's a candidate on the GOP side this election that really could stand up to a general election campaign. Like...even if Trump wasn't there, nobody was really excited about Jeb Bush. Nobody was excited for Marco Rubio. Everybody hates Ted Cruz.
+17
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
HW Bush was the third Republican term, people wanted a change. Also Clinton was a hell of a candidate.
I think a lot of people forget, or downplay, the role H. Ross Perot had in splitting the conservative in both the elections Clinton won. I distinctly remember thinking at the time that the first Bush would have won if not for Perot.
HW Bush was the third Republican term, people wanted a change. Also Clinton was a hell of a candidate.
I think a lot of people forget, or downplay, the role H. Ross Perot had in splitting the conservative in both the elections Clinton won. I distinctly remember thinking at the time that the first Bush would have won if not for Perot.
I mean, he was certainly more influential than Nader, and look what happened there.
Posts
jeb's primary campaign was so incompetent that I don't think he would have done well at all
Nooo, he has a chance of winning.
Nearly any of them could have, except this one
That's what makes it so funny!
Rubio's biggest problem is that he looks like someone running for class president, not actual President.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Are people just assuming Hillary would get a second term?
Historically a president has to really screw up to not get that second term.
fuck no
He wasn't very well liked down here in the first place, and now that he took a bunch of money from Floridians to campaign while not actually doing his job in the Senate, I'm hoping that he'll either get primaried out or get his ass kicked by the Democratic candidate.
What'd Bush the First do?
Invade Iraq. Second time's the charm, it turns out
At this point I think it might be assuming a lot to believe the Republican party is going to be relevant in 2024. The under 21 set has been called "terrifyingly liberal" and right now Fox News' viewers are on average so old that they're not buying green bananas. The average age of Bill O'reily's show is 71 years old. Now, you might think you've seen some heinous Trump supporters on reddit and 4chan and there's no way those people are 68 years old like Fox News' average viewer. Those are indeed young people with Minecraft LPs and anime avatars and an irrational hatred of people from cultures they've never met but those are a small vocal minority. In fact...
Eh Mitt Romney is a tremendous asshole who lied constantly. I think four years and the Trump comparison makes him look like a better candidate than he ever actually was.
historically its also really hard for a party to keep the presidency more than two terms in a row
1994 and 1995 are exceptions between 1993 and 2013. I'd be interested in seeing even further back.
Honestly, I'm kinda worried about 2020. We really need to get the downticket races locked down, or we're going to have another decade of the catastrophic districting we had after the 2010 wave
Hillary Rodham Clinton, knowing the Republicans were fascists, deliberately reenacted the Dreyfus Affair and they fucking took a swing because a loyal jewish muslim soldier is an identitarian threat to these traitor fucks who think they're FranceAmerica.
But seriously, even if Trump manages to trump it up, and we get a wave election, how likely are we going to be to be able to leverage those gains towards laying the groundwork for the 2020 fight? Because we're liable to lose a lot of those seats again in 2018, right? And the districts will still be gerrymandered to hell then.
The Khan thing. Wait, shit, wrong forum. Of course you know this. agh
http://www.theonion.com/article/low-energy-jeb-whispers-jeb-bush-sitting-alone-dar-53298
I think bluntly that some of the establishment candidates were loaded to fight Hilary but weren't able to overcome the very different problem of Trump. Any candidate capable of keeping his shit together and keeping the party mostly unified would be doing much, much better than Trump right now. Then again, I don't think anyone anticipated just how well the DNC would go. Maybe Hilary is going to play a blinder.
I think a lot of people forget, or downplay, the role H. Ross Perot had in splitting the conservative in both the elections Clinton won. I distinctly remember thinking at the time that the first Bush would have won if not for Perot.
I mean, he was certainly more influential than Nader, and look what happened there.