(05-20-2017 07:21 AM)Crebman Wrote:  Honestly, there were several on the Republican side that I think may have been a better presidential choice than Trump.

With that said, it took a carnival barker to energize people enough to say "F the establishment" - I have doubts that any in the primaries other than Trump could have beat Hillary. All the rest of them would have cowered to some extent before the media (and the media was going to skewer any Republican) whereas Trump all but told the media to go screw themselves further endearing him to enough fed up people that he's now the president.

Time will tell during his term to see if he can get enacted what he wants to.

Republicans are wringing their hands that everything he campaigned on hasn't happened yet, but government is always slow as molasses. He has 4 years to see if he can goose Congress enough to enact his agenda, or at least parts of it. As we have seen (to Democrats teeth gnashing) - trying to legislate using a pen and phone can work for a short time........until the next guy reverses it.

I think almost all the rest would have won the popular vote and the electoral college. Some may not have done as well in the electoral college, but MI, PA and WI were the only states at risk with another candidate. And NH and NV (enough to win w/o the other 3) and possibly CO, NM, VA, MN and all of ME would have been won by most of the others. The polls showed all of the last 5 or 6 doing better than Trump; Rubio, Kasich and Carson significantly better, Jeb and Cruz a little better.

Maybe Paul and the social conservatives-Huckabee and Santorum would have lost. Maybe Carson would have fallen apart with more spotlight. But Trump turned a LOT of people off and fired up a lot of Democrats who were not enthused about HRC.

(05-20-2017 01:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 04:24 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  You must have been an Almost Never Trumper.

Not really. Those people were over the edge.

Or were they the ones who chose not going over the edge.

Most of the Trumpers here readily admit that's exactly what they were doing, going over the edge. That to turn the country around and save it it had to be done.

(05-19-2017 03:05 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  He told you.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/polit...-president

wait, so now you're FOR another Bush? lol...

(05-20-2017 07:21 AM)Crebman Wrote:  Honestly, there were several on the Republican side that I think may have been a better presidential choice than Trump.

With that said, it took a carnival barker to energize people enough to say "F the establishment" - I have doubts that any in the primaries other than Trump could have beat Hillary. All the rest of them would have cowered to some extent before the media (and the media was going to skewer any Republican) whereas Trump all but told the media to go screw themselves further endearing him to enough fed up people that he's now the president.

Time will tell during his term to see if he can get enacted what he wants to.

Republicans are wringing their hands that everything he campaigned on hasn't happened yet, but government is always slow as molasses. He has 4 years to see if he can goose Congress enough to enact his agenda, or at least parts of it. As we have seen (to Democrats teeth gnashing) - trying to legislate using a pen and phone can work for a short time........until the next guy reverses it.

It would be helpful if the loons would get out of the way...

Trump was the most likely for Hillary to beat. Thus why the left wanted him, but thought we weren't that stupid as to nominate him, and why we came so scarily close to a Hillary Presidency.

Hillary was the worst candidate in history and we did everything possible to give it to her anyway.

(05-20-2017 08:52 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 01:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 04:24 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  You must have been an Almost Never Trumper.

Not really. Those people were over the edge.

Or were they the ones who chose not going over the edge.

Most of the Trumpers here readily admit that's exactly what they were doing, going over the edge. That to turn the country around and save it it had to be done.

Running McMullin meant fewer straight ticket voters which undoubtedly hurt some of the Senate candidates. That's why I say they were over the edge. And reading some of them now, they make the Democrats look sane.

(05-20-2017 09:01 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Trump was the most likely for Hillary to beat. Thus why the left wanted him, but thought we weren't that stupid as to nominate him, and why we came so scarily close to a Hillary Presidency.
Hillary was the worst candidate in history and we did everything possible to give it to her anyway.

I go back to the way the republicans allowed their debates to be set up as a major problem. Having so many candidates on stage was, of course, a problem. But the bigger problem was the number of debates that were moderated by left-leaning commentators who 1) wanted Hillary to be anointed, and 2) believed that Trump was the easiest candidate to beat, if he was a serious candidate at all. So they steered the debates away from the issues and toward the kind of gotcha personal attacks where a) Trump was in his element, and b) everybody else was made to look bad. One more instance where republicans were the stupid party.

I used to cringe at the words "stupid party". I just shake my head in disgust of the truth now.

The GOP nominated the exact perfect candidate to beat Hillary despite all his flaws. All the others would have lost to her. Jeb would have lost in a landslide to Hillary.

(05-20-2017 09:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 09:01 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Trump was the most likely for Hillary to beat. Thus why the left wanted him, but thought we weren't that stupid as to nominate him, and why we came so scarily close to a Hillary Presidency.
Hillary was the worst candidate in history and we did everything possible to give it to her anyway.

I go back to the way the republicans allowed their debates to be set up as a major problem. Having so many candidates on stage was, of course, a problem. But the bigger problem was the number of debates that were moderated by left-leaning commentators who 1) wanted Hillary to be anointed, and 2) believed that Trump was the easiest candidate to beat, if he was a serious candidate at all. So they steered the debates away from the issues and toward the kind of gotcha personal attacks where a) Trump was in his element, and b) everybody else was made to look bad. One more instance where republicans were the stupid party.

Republicans should seriously consider not allowing anyone from ABC (2 straight times their moderators entered the debate for the Democrats, once misstating facts and the other stating opinion as fact), NBC (bragging to Podesta about how they got Trump and asking DNC for questions to ask Jeb) or CNN (proven to have cheated for HRC in primaries) to moderate in 2020, primary or general election.

I forgot which network it was (probably NBC), but one was communicating with the Democrats about promoting Cruz, Carson and Trump and trying to damage Rubio, Bush and Christie, who the Democrats feared.

Let it be Fox and CBS (PBS has turned really liberal and partisan with McNeil and Lehrer both retired). CBS is very partisan, but you can't just limit yourselves to a conservative network and I don't think they have been caught "red-handed" yet.

I certainly would refuse to participate in the current setup where each gets a debate.

He came extremely close to losing to her Fo.

Surprised you think everyone else loses to her.

(05-20-2017 09:30 AM)Paul M Wrote:  He came extremely close to losing to her Fo.

Surprised you think everyone else loses to her.

The rest were pretty much like her. They created zero excitement to the silent pissed off voters that put Trump in. I did not vote for this dummy..but..I understand why people did.

Seems like DJT isn't the only one in the White House who should have his twitter taken away. Trump could never let go of past battles and alienated a lot of Republicans while he was supposed to be battling HRC. Scavino tweets insults at Jeb.

Trump's campaign was like the Paula Abdul song, except not quite as successful, "We take two steps forward and take two steps back."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/t...spartanntp

(05-20-2017 09:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 09:30 AM)Paul M Wrote:  He came extremely close to losing to her Fo.

Surprised you think everyone else loses to her.

The rest were pretty much like her. They created zero excitement to the silent pissed off voters that put Trump in. I did not vote for this dummy..but..I understand why people did.

The right was going to vote for anyone because they were pissed and ready for a change. Only Trump gave the left a reason to vote. They weren't excited to vote for. More energized to vote against.

The Trumpers were going to vote period. Trump lost you, me and several others here. How many votes did the Republicans actually lose because of him.

(05-20-2017 09:38 AM)Paul M Wrote:  The right was going to vote for anyone because they were pissed and ready for a change. Only Trump gave the left a reason to vote.

Yes...Im talking about the pissed off democrat rust belt and union vote that jumped ship. It had a giant impact.

(05-20-2017 09:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 09:30 AM)Paul M Wrote:  He came extremely close to losing to her Fo.

Surprised you think everyone else loses to her.

The rest were pretty much like her. They created zero excitement to the silent pissed off voters that put Trump in. I did not vote for this dummy..but..I understand why people did.

A good portion of the people who "put Trump in" really disliked him. Outside of this board, I only know a couple people who actually like him. How many Republicans stayed home or voted for McMullin, Johnson or Hillary who would have voted for ANYBODY else against HRC? Trump eventually did pretty well with Republicans who did show up to vote, but it was because of HRC. He did his best to drive Republicans off. And he certainly had to spend resources in states like Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Florida that would have been routs of HRC for a lot of the other candidates. Do the additional Reagan Democrats offset that? Just don't think so, although some of them would have stayed home. But most of them would have been like the Republicans who held their nose and voted for Trump. HRC's attacks on them would have driven them to the Republican. And the Democrats would not have been as united against anyone else, not even Cruz.

What republicans needed was a sensible candidate who said the things that Trump said to energize the rust belt middle class, without all the extra baggage that comes with Trump. Unfortunately, none of the establishment front-runners understood that mid-America was fed up, or what it was fed up about--they were/are as out of touch as the democrats.

(05-20-2017 09:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What republicans needed was a sensible candidate who said the things that Trump said to energize the rust belt middle class, without all the extra baggage that comes with Trump. Unfortunately, none of the establishment front-runners understood that mid-America was fed up, or what it was fed up about--they were/are as out of touch as the democrats.

This.

(05-20-2017 09:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What republicans needed was a sensible candidate who said the things that Trump said to energize the rust belt middle class, without all the extra baggage that comes with Trump. Unfortunately, none of the establishment front-runners understood that mid-America was fed up, or what it was fed up about--they were/are as out of touch as the democrats.

Trump was necessary for the Republicans to figure it out and I think they all started to. The Democrats never figured it out.

Trump didn't need to win the nomination to change the Republicans understanding.

And if he didn't win the nomination, the left doesn't energize and turn out to vote against him. Easy win for the Republicans.

As it turns out, he got the nod and we have a squeaker that took a tremendous amount of luck and extremely bad days for Hillary to pull off.

The left weren't thrilled and weren't going to turn out the vote for a criminal. But Trump outweighed crimes in their minds.