LogFAQs > #889771368

shadestreet posted...

To be clear, we are talking about the hypothetical - "how would Trump have fared against another Democrat / How would Hilary have fared against any other Republican". I thought that was clear, but based on your responses you don't seem to be on the same discussion point.

I'm not sure why you think I haven't addressed that point. The fact remains though that Trump would have beat Bernie or any other Democrat, while Hillary would have crushed any Republican.

Are you rejecting the fact that fewer people came out to vote on both sides of the aisle this election?

No, but I am telling you that Trump's win came largely due to energizing a base that typically would not go out and vote for a Republican, if they would even vote at all. Are you going to sit here and try to push the idea that Kasich, Cruz or Rubio would have been able to swing Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin? They literally haven't been won by a Republican in my lifetime and more of the same Republican rhetoric would have done nothing to these states that decided the election.

There was no "mass injection" of voters clamoring for Trump that rushed to the polls.

Your wording is poor. It's not a mass injection of voters clamoring for Trump, it's that people who typically wouldn't vote Republican or vote at all voted for him that swung the election. Standard voter enthusiasm was extremely low, but enthusiasm among fringe voters was very high.

But Hillary lost worse than even Trump

This is true. Ironically, her handling of Bernie is likely what cost her the election. It alienated a shitload of young voters who would have likely voted for her if she handled that situation better or even made him her VP.

I don't think you get it. The American people did not like Hillary. No one wanted her to be president.

It's apparent that you are the one who "doesn't get it". The American people didn't like Hillary, sure, but they would hate a run-of-the-mill Republican, which is what Cruz/Kasich/Rubio were. Trump was essentially a lightning bolt to a dormant demographic that a traditional Republican would never have awoken.

If it was Kasich, et al, there would not have been any "lesser of two evils" talk. It would have been all that Hillary is evil.

And this is where you really miss the mark. You are genuinely delusional if you believe the media wouldn't have painted any Republican to be the bad guy compared to her. Mainstream media has been portraying Republicans as either bumbling dipshits, racist biblethumpers, or megalomaniacal warmongers(or a combination of the three) for over a decade now. They certainly wouldn't change their tune when the Democrat candidate is someone as widely known as Hillary who had the added bonus of being the first female president, especially considering any of the other Republican candidates did literally nothing to separate themselves from the pack. That's why there were like 12 Republican candidates to start with and that's why each and every one fell before Trump.
---

Miami Dolphins | Portland Trailblazers | San Francisco Giants
I won't say a thing, because the one who knows best is you.