- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 11/9/16 at 2:28 pm to griswold
Not at all. I think Rand would have done well. Marco too. Maybe Cruz.
Don't underestimate just how awful a candidate HRC was.
Don't underestimate just how awful a candidate HRC was.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 2:29 pm to Kingpenm3
YES
Posted on 11/9/16 at 2:30 pm to Drewbie
There's isn't a single GOP candidate outside of Donald J. Trump that would've won Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan together. Nor would have any of the others got the massive pan handle turnout to combat the Dem strong hold of South Florida. In short the narrative that any one of them could've beat her is retarded.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 2:33 pm to Kingpenm3
Yes, without a doubt.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 2:34 pm to Damone
quote:Obama got fewer primary votes than Hillary in 2008; he had a slim pledged delegate margin. Do you think he would have lost the election to McCain if he few delegates went the other way?
Can't win the primary, can't win the election.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 2:34 pm to Kingpenm3
I was saying just the opposite until yesterday.
Now, I think the ONLY way this thing would have been won against the machine that was against him (media, RINO's, etc.) was to not play the game everyone else did. Don't go after the traditional Republican G-spots of the last 3 decades (guns, abortion, "family values", etc.). He gave nods to these, but they were not central to his message. His message was the whole damn thing was broken and it was time for middle America to come out of the shadows.
Classic blue-water strategy, and may end up being a case study in political science.
Now, I think the ONLY way this thing would have been won against the machine that was against him (media, RINO's, etc.) was to not play the game everyone else did. Don't go after the traditional Republican G-spots of the last 3 decades (guns, abortion, "family values", etc.). He gave nods to these, but they were not central to his message. His message was the whole damn thing was broken and it was time for middle America to come out of the shadows.
Classic blue-water strategy, and may end up being a case study in political science.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 2:35 pm to Kingpenm3
I still don't
But I definitely think he's the only one who could have won with Trump's map
But I definitely think he's the only one who could have won with Trump's map
Posted on 11/9/16 at 2:41 pm to Kingpenm3
Yes. He was the only one with the balls enough to do it.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 2:52 pm to Kingpenm3
He is the only one who could have flipped Wisconsin, Pa, and Michigan.
shite he was 1 point from flipping Minnesota which hasn't gone red since Nixon in 72
shite he was 1 point from flipping Minnesota which hasn't gone red since Nixon in 72
Posted on 11/9/16 at 2:55 pm to ScoopAndScore
quote:
As a Cruz guy, I will say that I honestly think trump is the only one that wins.
Anyone who thinks the RINO thing would have worked while completely ignoring how the Rust Belt won the election is still tone deaf.
If there were no Trump, Cruz would have been the nominee. And he would have had no chance in WI, PA and MI in 2016, for starters.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 2:56 pm to Kingpenm3
Rand Paul would have won against Hillary.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 2:56 pm to Kingpenm3
Absolutely
Posted on 11/9/16 at 2:56 pm to Kingpenm3
yes...only one that could get some dems to vote for him
Posted on 11/9/16 at 3:08 pm to Kingpenm3
Looking back at it Trump was the only one. Maybe Cruz under the right circumstances. Trump did not use the old collection of Republican strategists and consultants. He used guys from the media world like Bannon. He plucked Lewandowski from obscurity . It also did not hurt that his son in law owned a media outlet.
He understood the media culture. He also understood how many of the Democrats thought. They counted on Republicans to fold when some dirt came up on them. Trump being somewhat shameless did not care. Most of his dirty laundry was already out there. He would get hit, he would hit back. He went about branding his opponents....Little Marco, Boring Jeb, Lyin Ted and Crooked Hillary and it worked. He kept them off balance. Hillary was not used to people engaging her. The DNC was not used to a Republican nominee that would hit back just as hard as he got hit.
He understood the media culture. He also understood how many of the Democrats thought. They counted on Republicans to fold when some dirt came up on them. Trump being somewhat shameless did not care. Most of his dirty laundry was already out there. He would get hit, he would hit back. He went about branding his opponents....Little Marco, Boring Jeb, Lyin Ted and Crooked Hillary and it worked. He kept them off balance. Hillary was not used to people engaging her. The DNC was not used to a Republican nominee that would hit back just as hard as he got hit.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 3:10 pm to Kingpenm3
Rubio or Kaisch would have been difficult for Hillary to beat
Posted on 11/9/16 at 3:12 pm to Kingpenm3
Yes. Without a doubt. The media would have made mincmeat out of anyone else.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 3:39 pm to Hugo Stiglitz
Going in to it, I really thought Rubio was the Republican's best hope. My how things changed.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 3:42 pm to Kingpenm3
Yep. He was the only one willing to fight as dirty as the Clintons.
Posted on 11/9/16 at 3:44 pm to Hugo Stiglitz
quote:
Kaisch
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News