Why do you guys assume Hillary would do worse against a better candidate?

[Avatar4321]

Remember, Republicans thought Obama would be crushed by Mitt Romney. But it was Romney who lost big.

Not only does Hillary have a great record, but after 30 years of smears by the GOP, she is still standing. No wonder people don't trust her. 30 years of smoke and no fire does that. All the so called "scandals" aren't scandals, they are conspiracies.

Look at the latest one. Look at the big picture. 111 emails the GOP FBI Director said were classified. Only they weren't marked classified. 111 emails through 51 chains that hundreds of people saw. People with decades of experience in the State Department and not a single email flagged by any of those more experienced. And Hillary was SOS for only a measly four years. And the media, just like the good dogs they are, go right along with the GOP.

Hillary's convention was nearly flawless. She has great ideas. She tears Trump apart daily. She stays on message. Every day she gets negative press and still rises above it.

rdean,

It all depends on the alternatives....

I think Ted Cruz would have been just not likeable enough to beat Clinton... He had some extreme views and showed that he was unwilling to compromise and actually deal to make the country better...

Carson : Get serious, He makes Trump look good.

Rubio: Young, possible threat but quite lightweight as shown in the GOP Debates..

Christie: Sorry but while having some good qualities, he had a bad closet... He would have had to go dark and negative to win possibly... Possible threat but just lacked something...

Jeb Bush: While on policy it would be a fair match... Their would be none of the shenanigans like Trump, I would expect a disciplined message where he would point to his record as Governor of Florida... But he would have an achilles kneel, a straight comparison between a Clinton and a Bush Presidency... Which was better... Clinton Winner...

John Kasich: This was by far the largest threat... Good track record, disciplined and policy driven... He doesn't hold many extreme views... His main skeleton in the closet was the Lemans Brothers... Interesting, would had definite appeal to the middle ground... But remember Kasich and Clinton fight would not be dirty, it would be policy driven rather than focusing on personal histories... America would get a clear choice of a moderate Right versus a moderate Left... Interesting fight...


Now I know the nutbag Right here are going to have kittens but this would have been the choice and I think Clinton would have won it by a squeak but very tight..

What a sad day when keeping your word to uphold the constitution is an extreme position

 

[CowboyTed]

Remember, Republicans thought Obama would be crushed by Mitt Romney. But it was Romney who lost big.

Not only does Hillary have a great record, but after 30 years of smears by the GOP, she is still standing. No wonder people don't trust her. 30 years of smoke and no fire does that. All the so called "scandals" aren't scandals, they are conspiracies.

Look at the latest one. Look at the big picture. 111 emails the GOP FBI Director said were classified. Only they weren't marked classified. 111 emails through 51 chains that hundreds of people saw. People with decades of experience in the State Department and not a single email flagged by any of those more experienced. And Hillary was SOS for only a measly four years. And the media, just like the good dogs they are, go right along with the GOP.

Hillary's convention was nearly flawless. She has great ideas. She tears Trump apart daily. She stays on message. Every day she gets negative press and still rises above it.

rdean,

It all depends on the alternatives....

I think Ted Cruz would have been just not likeable enough to beat Clinton... He had some extreme views and showed that he was unwilling to compromise and actually deal to make the country better...

Carson : Get serious, He makes Trump look good.

Rubio: Young, possible threat but quite lightweight as shown in the GOP Debates..

Christie: Sorry but while having some good qualities, he had a bad closet... He would have had to go dark and negative to win possibly... Possible threat but just lacked something...

Jeb Bush: While on policy it would be a fair match... Their would be none of the shenanigans like Trump, I would expect a disciplined message where he would point to his record as Governor of Florida... But he would have an achilles kneel, a straight comparison between a Clinton and a Bush Presidency... Which was better... Clinton Winner...

John Kasich: This was by far the largest threat... Good track record, disciplined and policy driven... He doesn't hold many extreme views... His main skeleton in the closet was the Lemans Brothers... Interesting, would had definite appeal to the middle ground... But remember Kasich and Clinton fight would not be dirty, it would be policy driven rather than focusing on personal histories... America would get a clear choice of a moderate Right versus a moderate Left... Interesting fight...


Now I know the nutbag Right here are going to have kittens but this would have been the choice and I think Clinton would have won it by a squeak but very tight..

What a sad day when keeping your word to uphold the constitution is an extreme position

Sorry Avatar,

Your view of the constitution is from a hard right wing view... You have convinced yourself this as a new normal...

The hard right would see Americans die in the street and say well it doesn't say in the constitution to help them.

The constitution was written by some very well meaning men over 200 years ago... It was a compromise by all of them and some of the framers of that document stated it should be thrown out and rewritten periodically...

 

[Silhouette]

Why do you guys assume Hillary would do worse against a better candidate?

Remember, Republicans thought Obama would be crushed by Mitt Romney. But it was Romney who lost big.

Yes, if they get Trump to stand down and insert a Mitt Romney type, they will lose still. It has to be a Kasich-type...one who is scrappy like Trump, but without the insanity. Someone like Kasich who routinely, better than any other primary candidate, polled beating Hillary by a decent margin, time and time again.

Someone like that.

 

[rdean]

Why do you guys assume Hillary would do worse against a better candidate?

Remember, Republicans thought Obama would be crushed by Mitt Romney. But it was Romney who lost big.

Yes, if they get Trump to stand down and insert a Mitt Romney type, they will lose still. It has to be a Kasich-type...one who is scrappy like Trump, but without the insanity. Someone like Kasich who routinely, better than any other primary candidate, polled beating Hillary by a decent margin, time and time again.

Someone like that.

Quitting is for losers. When Trump loses, he can blame the Republicans for sabotaging him. Then, he's a winner who was unfairly cheated. You can see it coming from a mile away.

 

[yiostheoy]

From this O/P it sounds like the GOP does not believe any of their candidates can beat Hillary.

In that case you guys (the GOP) have 4 years to develop a new candidate for 2020.

Keep Cruz in the closet if you can.

Keep Rubio in the closet too. Rubio might make a great VP candidate because he is young and pretty. But not POTUS.

No more vetoes shutting down the government by Cruz or Rand Paul anymore either.

Clean up your GOP act.

 

[hadit]

Remember, Republicans thought Obama would be crushed by Mitt Romney. But it was Romney who lost big.

Not only does Hillary have a great record, but after 30 years of smears by the GOP, she is still standing. No wonder people don't trust her. 30 years of smoke and no fire does that. All the so called "scandals" aren't scandals, they are conspiracies.

Look at the latest one. Look at the big picture. 111 emails the GOP FBI Director said were classified. Only they weren't marked classified. 111 emails through 51 chains that hundreds of people saw. People with decades of experience in the State Department and not a single email flagged by any of those more experienced. And Hillary was SOS for only a measly four years. And the media, just like the good dogs they are, go right along with the GOP.

Hillary's convention was nearly flawless. She has great ideas. She tears Trump apart daily. She stays on message. Every day she gets negative press and still rises above it.

JUST LEAVE HILLARY ALONE!!!

Oh, brudda. "It wasn't marked classified" must be the last line of defense, because it is so weak. It admits that Hillary was incompetent because she was Sec State, with the training, authority and RESPONSIBILITY to correctly mark information classified and handle it properly. She did not.

She doesn't "mark information". And it's supposed to be handled for her.

You don't know what the job does, do you?

I know that the Sec State is trained in how to handle classified information. Are we REALLY supposed to believe that she is not expected to understand how sensitive some of that information is?

 

[Andylusion]

Remember, Republicans thought Obama would be crushed by Mitt Romney. But it was Romney who lost big.

Not only does Hillary have a great record, but after 30 years of smears by the GOP, she is still standing. No wonder people don't trust her. 30 years of smoke and no fire does that. All the so called "scandals" aren't scandals, they are conspiracies.

Look at the latest one. Look at the big picture. 111 emails the GOP FBI Director said were classified. Only they weren't marked classified. 111 emails through 51 chains that hundreds of people saw. People with decades of experience in the State Department and not a single email flagged by any of those more experienced. And Hillary was SOS for only a measly four years. And the media, just like the good dogs they are, go right along with the GOP.

Hillary's convention was nearly flawless. She has great ideas. She tears Trump apart daily. She stays on message. Every day she gets negative press and still rises above it.

First off, when Mitt Romney was running, I don't remember ever hearing anyone anywhere claim that Romney would crush Obama.

For my part, I personally predicted he would lose. How could he possibly win? It was his own Romney Care program in Mass. that was the template used by Obama for Obama Care.

You can't claim you are the person to set things right, when it was your program that Obama used to create his massive screw up. Romney never had a chance.

But why Hillary wouldn't stand a chance against a better candidate than Trump?

First from personal discussions, I know people right now who are only voting for Hillary because of Trump. They hate Hillary, but are voting for her because of Trump. If that is not enough, Sky News just did a program on Hillary, and found the exact same reaction. People said that if it's Trump vs Hillary, they will "hold their nose" and vote for Hillary.

Even those who are voting for Hillary, because of Trump, hate her. And it's easy to see why.

Here's a women who claims to stand up against abuse of women.....

View attachment 84278

Well, except for all those abused women. Not the ones that might harm her politically. She doesn't give a crap about them.

Here's a lady who stands against undue influence in government.....

View attachment 84279

Well except for those influences that gave MILLIONS to the Clintons. Only other influences that haven't influenced yet. She's against those. Until they donate, and then not so much against them.

But here is a women that is completely against corruption....

View attachment 84281

Corruption other than Travelgate, E-mailgate, Filegate, Watergate, Cattle Futures-gate, Chinagate, Billing Records..... but other than all that corruption, she's completely against corruption, until the next corruption, and then she'll be against every type of corruption but that one too.

And trust worthy? Sniper fire? Some obscure video no one knew existed? Sir Edmond Hillary?

Yeah, if Hillary was running against anyone better than Trump, this would be a land slide, and Hillary would end up buried.

And she was found innocent of every one of those GOP conspiracies.

Meanwhile:

Trump University trial set for November 28
for Fraud and Racketeering. What do you think about that?

She was found innocent? Really. Which one? Where is the court verdict?


Let me give you just one example. Whitewater. We know.... for a fact, that Hillary was involved in the Rose Law Firm, where she was paid a massive $24,000 a year. But.... oddly, Hillary started trading in Cattle Futures, where a $1,000 investment, magically turned into $100,000, in just 9 months.

Due tell sparky.... how many others are trading Cattle Futures, and making a 10,000% returns?

Nothing shady there. Was she acquitted? No, not that I can find. Because everyone refused to cooperate with law enforcement, is not the same as being acquitted.

Then you have the 15 people convicted in relation to Whitewater, all of which refused to cooperate with the independent investigators.

And then shockingly Bill Clinton pardoned a bunch of them. Likely the ones that could have led to his own conviction.

And you think that's an acquittal? Convince all the felons to refuse to aid the investigators, and then pardon them all before leaving office, and call that "she was acquitted"?

No, sorry sir. You may convince all your felon loving democrap political hacks... but honest decent people, better than you, will not buy your trash. You are liar, and you vote for liars, and you are as deceitful as Hillary's lying scum soaked mouth.

 

[rdean]

Remember, Republicans thought Obama would be crushed by Mitt Romney. But it was Romney who lost big.

Not only does Hillary have a great record, but after 30 years of smears by the GOP, she is still standing. No wonder people don't trust her. 30 years of smoke and no fire does that. All the so called "scandals" aren't scandals, they are conspiracies.

Look at the latest one. Look at the big picture. 111 emails the GOP FBI Director said were classified. Only they weren't marked classified. 111 emails through 51 chains that hundreds of people saw. People with decades of experience in the State Department and not a single email flagged by any of those more experienced. And Hillary was SOS for only a measly four years. And the media, just like the good dogs they are, go right along with the GOP.

Hillary's convention was nearly flawless. She has great ideas. She tears Trump apart daily. She stays on message. Every day she gets negative press and still rises above it.

First off, when Mitt Romney was running, I don't remember ever hearing anyone anywhere claim that Romney would crush Obama.

For my part, I personally predicted he would lose. How could he possibly win? It was his own Romney Care program in Mass. that was the template used by Obama for Obama Care.

You can't claim you are the person to set things right, when it was your program that Obama used to create his massive screw up. Romney never had a chance.

But why Hillary wouldn't stand a chance against a better candidate than Trump?

First from personal discussions, I know people right now who are only voting for Hillary because of Trump. They hate Hillary, but are voting for her because of Trump. If that is not enough, Sky News just did a program on Hillary, and found the exact same reaction. People said that if it's Trump vs Hillary, they will "hold their nose" and vote for Hillary.

Even those who are voting for Hillary, because of Trump, hate her. And it's easy to see why.

Here's a women who claims to stand up against abuse of women.....

View attachment 84278

Well, except for all those abused women. Not the ones that might harm her politically. She doesn't give a crap about them.

Here's a lady who stands against undue influence in government.....

View attachment 84279

Well except for those influences that gave MILLIONS to the Clintons. Only other influences that haven't influenced yet. She's against those. Until they donate, and then not so much against them.

But here is a women that is completely against corruption....

View attachment 84281

Corruption other than Travelgate, E-mailgate, Filegate, Watergate, Cattle Futures-gate, Chinagate, Billing Records..... but other than all that corruption, she's completely against corruption, until the next corruption, and then she'll be against every type of corruption but that one too.

And trust worthy? Sniper fire? Some obscure video no one knew existed? Sir Edmond Hillary?

Yeah, if Hillary was running against anyone better than Trump, this would be a land slide, and Hillary would end up buried.

And she was found innocent of every one of those GOP conspiracies.

Meanwhile:

Trump University trial set for November 28
for Fraud and Racketeering. What do you think about that?

She was found innocent? Really. Which one? Where is the court verdict?


Let me give you just one example. Whitewater. We know.... for a fact, that Hillary was involved in the Rose Law Firm, where she was paid a massive $24,000 a year. But.... oddly, Hillary started trading in Cattle Futures, where a $1,000 investment, magically turned into $100,000, in just 9 months.

Due tell sparky.... how many others are trading Cattle Futures, and making a 10,000% returns?

Nothing shady there. Was she acquitted? No, not that I can find. Because everyone refused to cooperate with law enforcement, is not the same as being acquitted.

Then you have the 15 people convicted in relation to Whitewater, all of which refused to cooperate with the independent investigators.

And then shockingly Bill Clinton pardoned a bunch of them. Likely the ones that could have led to his own conviction.

And you think that's an acquittal? Convince all the felons to refuse to aid the investigators, and then pardon them all before leaving office, and call that "she was acquitted"?

No, sorry sir. You may convince all your felon loving democrap political hacks... but honest decent people, better than you, will not buy your trash. You are liar, and you vote for liars, and you are as deceitful as Hillary's lying scum soaked mouth.

I missed the part where she was charged with something and convicted of something. Care to point that out?

 

[Andylusion]

Remember, Republicans thought Obama would be crushed by Mitt Romney. But it was Romney who lost big.

Not only does Hillary have a great record, but after 30 years of smears by the GOP, she is still standing. No wonder people don't trust her. 30 years of smoke and no fire does that. All the so called "scandals" aren't scandals, they are conspiracies.

Look at the latest one. Look at the big picture. 111 emails the GOP FBI Director said were classified. Only they weren't marked classified. 111 emails through 51 chains that hundreds of people saw. People with decades of experience in the State Department and not a single email flagged by any of those more experienced. And Hillary was SOS for only a measly four years. And the media, just like the good dogs they are, go right along with the GOP.

Hillary's convention was nearly flawless. She has great ideas. She tears Trump apart daily. She stays on message. Every day she gets negative press and still rises above it.

First off, when Mitt Romney was running, I don't remember ever hearing anyone anywhere claim that Romney would crush Obama.

For my part, I personally predicted he would lose. How could he possibly win? It was his own Romney Care program in Mass. that was the template used by Obama for Obama Care.

You can't claim you are the person to set things right, when it was your program that Obama used to create his massive screw up. Romney never had a chance.

But why Hillary wouldn't stand a chance against a better candidate than Trump?

First from personal discussions, I know people right now who are only voting for Hillary because of Trump. They hate Hillary, but are voting for her because of Trump. If that is not enough, Sky News just did a program on Hillary, and found the exact same reaction. People said that if it's Trump vs Hillary, they will "hold their nose" and vote for Hillary.

Even those who are voting for Hillary, because of Trump, hate her. And it's easy to see why.

Here's a women who claims to stand up against abuse of women.....

View attachment 84278

Well, except for all those abused women. Not the ones that might harm her politically. She doesn't give a crap about them.

Here's a lady who stands against undue influence in government.....

View attachment 84279

Well except for those influences that gave MILLIONS to the Clintons. Only other influences that haven't influenced yet. She's against those. Until they donate, and then not so much against them.

But here is a women that is completely against corruption....

View attachment 84281

Corruption other than Travelgate, E-mailgate, Filegate, Watergate, Cattle Futures-gate, Chinagate, Billing Records..... but other than all that corruption, she's completely against corruption, until the next corruption, and then she'll be against every type of corruption but that one too.

And trust worthy? Sniper fire? Some obscure video no one knew existed? Sir Edmond Hillary?

Yeah, if Hillary was running against anyone better than Trump, this would be a land slide, and Hillary would end up buried.

And she was found innocent of every one of those GOP conspiracies.

Meanwhile:

Trump University trial set for November 28
for Fraud and Racketeering. What do you think about that?

She was found innocent? Really. Which one? Where is the court verdict?


Let me give you just one example. Whitewater. We know.... for a fact, that Hillary was involved in the Rose Law Firm, where she was paid a massive $24,000 a year. But.... oddly, Hillary started trading in Cattle Futures, where a $1,000 investment, magically turned into $100,000, in just 9 months.

Due tell sparky.... how many others are trading Cattle Futures, and making a 10,000% returns?

Nothing shady there. Was she acquitted? No, not that I can find. Because everyone refused to cooperate with law enforcement, is not the same as being acquitted.

Then you have the 15 people convicted in relation to Whitewater, all of which refused to cooperate with the independent investigators.

And then shockingly Bill Clinton pardoned a bunch of them. Likely the ones that could have led to his own conviction.

And you think that's an acquittal? Convince all the felons to refuse to aid the investigators, and then pardon them all before leaving office, and call that "she was acquitted"?

No, sorry sir. You may convince all your felon loving democrap political hacks... but honest decent people, better than you, will not buy your trash. You are liar, and you vote for liars, and you are as deceitful as Hillary's lying scum soaked mouth.

I missed the part where she was charged with something and convicted of something. Care to point that out?

Yeah, sorry, I was posting for people who can think for themselves, without having to be spoon fed by the elite. I forgot this was rdean I was talking to. My mistake.

See I posted something called "evidence" for independent thinkers to consider. Not mindless robots, whose existence isn't worth anyone's notice.

OJ Simpson never killed anyone in your world, right? Just put your left-wing blinders back on. It's safer when you can't see anything outside your partisan shades.

Hopefully they'll block out all my posts, since the evidence they contain, is of no value to people like..... well... like you. So it will save both of us a ton of time.

 

[Oldstyle]

Remember, Republicans thought Obama would be crushed by Mitt Romney. But it was Romney who lost big.

Not only does Hillary have a great record, but after 30 years of smears by the GOP, she is still standing. No wonder people don't trust her. 30 years of smoke and no fire does that. All the so called "scandals" aren't scandals, they are conspiracies.

Look at the latest one. Look at the big picture. 111 emails the GOP FBI Director said were classified. Only they weren't marked classified. 111 emails through 51 chains that hundreds of people saw. People with decades of experience in the State Department and not a single email flagged by any of those more experienced. And Hillary was SOS for only a measly four years. And the media, just like the good dogs they are, go right along with the GOP.

Hillary's convention was nearly flawless. She has great ideas. She tears Trump apart daily. She stays on message. Every day she gets negative press and still rises above it.

Ah, R-Derp? Hillary just "short-circuited"! Huma Abedin is trying to rewire her but it's not looking good. You guys may have to go with her VP pick? What's his name...from Virginia? Or is it Maryland? I never heard of the guy before a few weeks ago so it's hard to remember! Oh, well...he can't be any worse than Hillary...right?

 

[Silhouette]

Remember, Republicans thought Obama would be crushed by Mitt Romney. But it was Romney who lost big.

Agreed, if the RNC ran someone else, it would have to be 1. One of the guys left at the end of the primaries (so voters wouldn't feel like they were hand-picking favorites from their own private pool.) 2. The candidate probably with the most delegate votes second to Trump. 3. Someone who wasn't born in Canada; and who remained a Canadian citizen until 2014 &. 4. Someone in no way, shape or form like a puppet, like Romney.

It probably would be best too if the candidate they ran was also a sitting governor; well liked and who did things like balance his state's budget and who is generally considered on the outside by the old republican guard. ie: someone they dicked around in the debates. Someone who acts autonomously like Trump, but minus the insanity.

If they ran someone like that, Hillary wouldn't stand a chance. Especially if he polled ahead of her continuously throughout the primaries as winning in the Fall.

 

[Mac1958]

Hillary is a very vulnerable candidate and a sane ticket like Kasich/Rubio would have fared much better.

However, as I understand it, both Kasich and Rubio are currently considered pinko commie socialist Marxist transgender baby-killing RINO gun grabbers by much of the GOP.
.

 

[Andylusion]

Why do you guys assume Hillary would do worse against a better candidate?

Remember, Republicans thought Obama would be crushed by Mitt Romney. But it was Romney who lost big.

Yes, if they get Trump to stand down and insert a Mitt Romney type, they will lose still. It has to be a Kasich-type...one who is scrappy like Trump, but without the insanity. Someone like Kasich who routinely, better than any other primary candidate, polled beating Hillary by a decent margin, time and time again.

Someone like that.

Quitting is for losers. When Trump loses, he can blame the Republicans for sabotaging him. Then, he's a winner who was unfairly cheated. You can see it coming from a mile away.

Ironic statement given what happened with Bernie Sander, and the Convention.

I guess a good 1/3rd of the entire Democrap party, are all a bunch of sorry losers.

 

[Syriusly]

Remember, Republicans thought Obama would be crushed by Mitt Romney. But it was Romney who lost big.

Not only does Hillary have a great record, but after 30 years of smears by the GOP, she is still standing. No wonder people don't trust her. 30 years of smoke and no fire does that. All the so called "scandals" aren't scandals, they are conspiracies.

Look at the latest one. Look at the big picture. 111 emails the GOP FBI Director said were classified. Only they weren't marked classified. 111 emails through 51 chains that hundreds of people saw. People with decades of experience in the State Department and not a single email flagged by any of those more experienced. And Hillary was SOS for only a measly four years. And the media, just like the good dogs they are, go right along with the GOP.

Hillary's convention was nearly flawless. She has great ideas. She tears Trump apart daily. She stays on message. Every day she gets negative press and still rises above it.

I am a Hillary voter. She has a great resume. She has devoted her life to helping Americans.

BUT- after the FBI announcement about her emails- I would have considered a sane GOP candidate. I am very disappointed in Hillary's judgement regarding the emails.

But- compared to Trump's history of failed judgements in one business after another, and his lying about everything, and his total lack of knowledge regarding foreign affairs- and his disastrous proposals for taxation(45% tax on imports?)- Hillary is the sane choice.

The emails would have knocked out a DNC candidate in any race with a sane GOP candidate.

But the GOP decided to go for the 'not-sane' candidate this year.

I agree with Micheal Bloomberg- and Warren Buffet- and Meg Whitman- and Michelle Obama- Hillary is the better choice- and she will be a good President.

 

[Syriusly]

Hillary is a very vulnerable candidate and a sane ticket like Kasich/Rubio would have fared much better.

However, as I understand it, both Kasich and Rubio are currently considered pinko commie socialist Marxist transgender baby-killing RINO gun grabbers by much of the GOP.
.

Yep- the GOP decided to go for the 'not-sane' candidate.

And this is what they get.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember, Republicans thought Obama would be crushed by Mitt Romney. But it was Romney who lost big.

Not only does Hillary have a great record, but after 30 years of smears by the GOP, she is still standing. No wonder people don't trust her. 30 years of smoke and no fire does that. All the so called "scandals" aren't scandals, they are conspiracies.

Look at the latest one. Look at the big picture. 111 emails the GOP FBI Director said were classified. Only they weren't marked classified. 111 emails through 51 chains that hundreds of people saw. People with decades of experience in the State Department and not a single email flagged by any of those more experienced. And Hillary was SOS for only a measly four years. And the media, just like the good dogs they are, go right along with the GOP.

Hillary's convention was nearly flawless. She has great ideas. She tears Trump apart daily. She stays on message. Every day she gets negative press and still rises above it.

The nuthouse wing of the Right nominated the candidate least likely to beat Clinton. Among the contenders anyway.
Jeb, Rubio, and Kasich would probably be beating her right now. Cruz, maybe, but Cruz was the normal bad choice that the nuts would have probably pushed had Trump not gotten in.

 

[Andylusion]

Hillary is a very vulnerable candidate and a sane ticket like Kasich/Rubio would have fared much better.

However, as I understand it, both Kasich and Rubio are currently considered pinko commie socialist Marxist transgender baby-killing RINO gun grabbers by much of the GOP.
.

I'm largely in favor of Kasich. He's tried some stuff, and learned some things along the way.

For example, Kasich was in favor of assault weapons ban. But now he admits openly that it didn't work, solved nothing, and he is no longer in favor of any weapons control laws. Rather, just more law enforcement.

Which is the position I agree with.

Kasich was also in favor of immigration Amnesty, but now admits that we need to control who comes into our country. Granted it required more terrorist attacks to convince him of this.... but I now largely agree with him.

Beyond that, the only area that I have a real problem with Kasich, is that he expanded medicaid in Ohio. We now have the highest percentage of our population on Medicaid, and the results have been devastating for the budget, and at the same time local reports are showing up that Ohio is one of the worst states for Heroin addiction, and they are now finding links to Medicaid.

People are using Medicaid to get Opiates, and after getting hooked, turn to Heroin when supplies run out.

So that's my only major complaint against Kasich. Other than that, he's pro-life, anti-tax, and largely free-market. Alright in my book.

 

[Mac1958]

Hillary is a very vulnerable candidate and a sane ticket like Kasich/Rubio would have fared much better.

However, as I understand it, both Kasich and Rubio are currently considered pinko commie socialist Marxist transgender baby-killing RINO gun grabbers by much of the GOP.
.

I'm largely in favor of Kasich. He's tried some stuff, and learned some things along the way.

For example, Kasich was in favor of assault weapons ban. But now he admits openly that it didn't work, solved nothing, and he is no longer in favor of any weapons control laws. Rather, just more law enforcement.

Which is the position I agree with.

Kasich was also in favor of immigration Amnesty, but now admits that we need to control who comes into our country. Granted it required more terrorist attacks to convince him of this.... but I now largely agree with him.

Beyond that, the only area that I have a real problem with Kasich, is that he expanded medicaid in Ohio. We now have the highest percentage of our population on Medicaid, and the results have been devastating for the budget, and at the same time local reports are showing up that Ohio is one of the worst states for Heroin addiction, and they are now finding links to Medicaid.

People are using Medicaid to get Opiates, and after getting hooked, turn to Heroin when supplies run out.

So that's my only major complaint against Kasich. Other than that, he's pro-life, anti-tax, and largely free-market. Alright in my book.

The way it looks to me is:

1. Many Republicans completely forgot Reagan's 80% rule and absolutists took control
   
2. They couldn't find anyone who was pure enough and become extremely frustrated and angry
3. In a fit of pique, they threw a temper tantrum and nominated Trump, because if they can't have it their way, they're gonna burn it down

It looks to me like you haven't forgotten Reagan's 80% rule. Kasich would have been their best pick.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Remember, Republicans thought Obama would be crushed by Mitt Romney. But it was Romney who lost big.

Not only does Hillary have a great record, but after 30 years of smears by the GOP, she is still standing. No wonder people don't trust her. 30 years of smoke and no fire does that. All the so called "scandals" aren't scandals, they are conspiracies.

Uh, guy, Hillary would lose to any halfway decent Republican.

If Kasich were the nominee, I'd vote for him.
If Scott Walker were the nominee, I'd vote for him.
Heck, I'd even consider voting for Jeb Bush. i probably wouldn't because he was a Bush, but I wouldn't be worried if he won, anyway.

Hillary is an awful candidate, who is probably only going to win because the Republicans nominated someone who was even more awful.

She will probably take a shellacking in the mid-terms in 2018 and lose badly in 2020 if she even bothers to run for a second term.

So count your blessings the GOP had a collective brain fart.

 

[Andylusion]

Why do you guys assume Hillary would do worse against a better candidate?

Remember, Republicans thought Obama would be crushed by Mitt Romney. But it was Romney who lost big.

Yes, if they get Trump to stand down and insert a Mitt Romney type, they will lose still. It has to be a Kasich-type...one who is scrappy like Trump, but without the insanity. Someone like Kasich who routinely, better than any other primary candidate, polled beating Hillary by a decent margin, time and time again.

Someone like that.

Quitting is for losers. When Trump loses, he can blame the Republicans for sabotaging him. Then, he's a winner who was unfairly cheated. You can see it coming from a mile away.

I have noticed that people tend to accuse everyone else, of doing what they themselves do. For example, the entire left-wing of America has been blaming Bush for pretty much everything that has happened since Obama got into office....

and here you are saying Trump will blame someone else if he loses.

Whether or not you are right, I don't know. But it isn't surprising that you would accuse Trump of doing what you have mastered for the last 8 years. Of course, doesn't that place Trump in your camp, if he does what you people do?