GOP Insiders: Pence would beat Clinton

[uti2]

i give you kasich and rubio.

but cruz? come one.

he is the anti-christ after all.

cruz is not that different from the other republicans policy wise, so it's crazy to say that cruz would get 200 EVs, while Kasich would get 350. If you're going to estimate cruz that lowly, you also need to bring down the numbers for the other GOP candidates to more realistic levels.

I.E, something like Kasich 285, Jeb 260, Rubio 260, Cruz 235.

[heatcharger]

Of course Pence would be beating Clinton. So would Kasich, Rubio, Cruz, etc., etc. No reason to single Pence out.

This delusional thinking is why the party is screwed.

None of these guys were going to win. Trump is a lousy candidate , but the GOP's brand and policy platform is terrible.

They have lost 5/6 of the PV and there only two presidential wins have been fairly close electoral wins. Until they make really fundamental changes then they aren't going to win even against flawed candidates like Hillary.

This. I'll say Kasich would've been interesting, but I think both him and especially Rubio would've been exposed for the lightweights they are in the debates. Cruz would've scared off too many people to win.

I'm not even gonna mention Jeb!

[100% pro-life no matter what]

ANY of the other 16 GOP primary candidates would have crushed Hillary, as would have all 54 Republican Senators and all 31 Republican Governors.  Trump is literally the only person in the GOP who has ever considered running that Clinton could beat.

[Phony Moderate]

It's pretty obvious that Trump is Clinton's main asset.

[ApatheticAustrian]

ANY of the other 16 GOP primary candidates would have crushed Hillary, as would have all 54 Republican Senators and all 31 Republican Governors.  Trump is literally the only person in the GOP who has ever considered running that Clinton could beat.

i agree with you that most moderate/more talented and maybe even JEB-ish republicans could have won.

but .....people like cruz or carson or christie? not a chance in hell.

[uti2]

Rationally or irrationally, the country hates Hillary Clinton, and will look for any reasonable alternative.

I agree with this, and it's exactly why this election is so frustrating for Republicans who want to win and people who hate Hillary Clinton. This is 100x times worse than all the Senate seats they have thrown away because they nominated unelectable candidates.

It's irrational hatred due to Bernie, but without Trump in the race to begin with, and without the 'outsider' and 'contested convention' talk on the republican side, bernie would've had no justification to stay in, allowing him to drop out early in feb/march as was expected of him, and allowing Hillary to consolidate her base, slamming the republican 'koch puppet' nominee. The Berniebros saw Hillary as a 'republican-lite', and what does she do? She double down and courts republicans instead of reaching out to progressives combined with the dnc leaks, etc. that's a very strong anti-hillary narrative for progressives that's unique to this election cycle courtesy of Trump.

Hillary's real numbers were her early numbers back in early 2015, when she had the obama coalition under wraps, before she was weakened nader-style by bernie.

This. I'll say Kasich would've been interesting, but I think both him and especially Rubio would've been exposed for the lightweights they are in the debates. Cruz would've scared off too many people to win.

I'm not even gonna mention Jeb!

Everyone wants to forget Hillary's numbers back in early 2015 when she was crushing everyone. The republicans tried to cynically use Trump to attract eyeballs and win over 'Trump's voters', but that's an event that only happened uniquely due to Trump, in a normal circumstance the political map would go back to the way it was as in 2012. People are ignoring the unique circumstances that Trump has brought to the political field that wouldn't exist normally.

It's pretty obvious that Trump is Clinton's main asset.

It's more like Bernie and Nader were the GOP's main assets. The GOP willingly embraced Trump in the beginning for cynical reasons, that's on them.

[Yank2133]

Of course Pence would be beating Clinton. So would Kasich, Rubio, Cruz, etc., etc. No reason to single Pence out.

This delusional thinking is why the party is screwed.

None of these guys were going to win. Trump is a lousy candidate , but the GOP's brand and policy platform is terrible.

They have lost 5/6 of the PV and there only two presidential wins have been fairly close electoral wins. Until they make really fundamental changes then they aren't going to win even against flawed candidates like Hillary.

This. I'll say Kasich would've been interesting, but I think both him and especially Rubio would've been exposed for the lightweights they are in the debates. Cruz would've scared off too many people to win.

I'm not even gonna mention Jeb!

Kasich would of had the best shot, but I think a lot of his support was inflated. He was pretty much ignored through out the cycle, so he got by as being the "generic" Republican. But I don't think he holds up well when the focus is on him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, keep telling yourself this.

[uti2]

Of course the positive side of Trump losing is that if his campaign is any indication of what his presidency would have looked like, the GOP might have just prevented a disaster. I could see a Trump presidency hurting Republicans for years to come and turning states like Texas into swing or blue states.

But yeah, after Clinton wins this year, this forum will declare the Republican Party dead and it will be orgasming all over the mythical impenetrable blue wall, only to be shocked when Republicans win another 1994/2010-style victory in 2018 and lock the Democrats out of the Senate (and maybe even the House) for years to come. Republicans need something to run against in 2018 and 2020, and a Clinton presidency will come in handy in that regard. Clinton is a very beatable person, but even a beatable person has to be beaten - and Trump isn't the right candidate to accomplish that, obviously. The GOP desperately needs to get its act together at the presidential level and learn what it takes to win an election. Losing to Hillary Clinton of all people is very embarrassing and should be a wake-up call.

God, I wish a decent Democrat would have won the nomination this year.

Carter didn't hurt the democrats, Dukakis was leading Bush Sr. until the last couple of months, and George W. Bush didn't really hurt the republicans that much either, so why would Trump have hurt anyone?

No, it actually appears to be the opposite of 2012, everyone is claiming that 'clinton is so beatable', and that the republicans will do well in mid-terms, etc. but what if the opposite happens?

In 2012 everyone said that if he wins big, then 'obama is unbeatable' and that midterms were up in the air and that the next election looked like a longshot.

Let's not forget until late 2015, the GOP thought Hillary was unbeatable.

[uti2]

^Keep telling yourself that. Also lol@saying that Bush didn't hurt Republicans.

2010 Mid-Term wave.

That's what the GOP itself said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kevin-mccarthys-truthful-gaffe/2015/09/30/f12a9fac-67a8-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html

It's the exact opposite narrative as 2012. After 2012, everyone was saying Obama was unbeatable, to the extent that they thought of Hillary as unbeatable until late 2015. This time around, everyone is saying 'Hillary is so beatable'.

[rafta_rafta]

Jeb Bush was the perfect candidate. His major problem was his brother's term but other than that , he had a clean career, was mild mannered, likeable.

Pence, Cruz and Rubio could not have beaten Hillary. We don't know the kind of scrutiny they would be under had they been at the top of the ticket.

In 2020 or 2024, Paul Ryan will run and have a good chance.

[Maxwell]

Pence could win if the set of issues we are focused on are the same as they are in a Trump vs. Clinton election - which is a pretty stupid assumption. Pence would most definitely lose if the issues revolve around his record in Indiana.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The GOP did well in picking the weakest candidates they could to face the weakest democratic candidate.

Of course, I expect the party to just continue its drift off the deep end

[Shadows]

I would actually be enthusiastic about Clinton then as Pence is a lunatic & extremist - Pence & Cruz are piece of sh**. Pence had a law that meant women had to have a funeral for even early abortion cases even incase of accidental miscarriage & so on.

I am 100% sure Trump doesn't give a damn about Abortion, He probably supports Gay Marriage, He maybe decent of Trade Deals, He is less of a warmonger than Pence. He weaseled & got so many deferments to avoid Vietnam, he has some BUSINESS common sense, he will be less of a warhawk & won't get into stupid wars.

Pence would destroy the society like Cruz will. Trump is a monster but like a dog with a strong congress he can be kept on a leash in the worst case. Pence will take the GOP so far rightwards, it will destroy the society!

[Vosem]

Of course the positive side of Trump losing is that if his campaign is any indication of what his presidency would have looked like, the GOP might have just prevented a disaster. I could see a Trump presidency hurting Republicans for years to come and turning states like Texas into swing or blue states.

But yeah, after Clinton wins this year, this forum will declare the Republican Party dead and it will be orgasming all over the mythical impenetrable blue wall, only to be shocked when Republicans win another 1994/2010-style victory in 2018 and lock the Democrats out of the Senate (and maybe even the House) for years to come. Republicans need something to run against in 2018 and 2020, and a Clinton presidency will come in handy in that regard. Clinton is a very beatable person, but even a beatable person has to be beaten - and Trump isn't the right candidate to accomplish that, obviously. The GOP desperately needs to get its act together at the presidential level and learn what it takes to win an election. Losing to Hillary Clinton of all people is very embarrassing and should be a wake-up call.

God, I wish a decent Democrat would have won the nomination this year.

Carter didn't hurt the democrats

You've given me a lot of material to work with, but this is the biggest WHAT of everything you've written. Democrats did not fully recover from the damage done to them under the Carter Presidency until 2008.

[rafta_rafta]

I would actually be enthusiastic about Clinton then as Pence is a lunatic & extremist - Pence & Cruz are piece of sh**. Pence had a law that meant women had to have a funeral for even early abortion cases even incase of accidental miscarriage & so on.

I'm no fan of Pence but this isn't entirely true. The law that Pence signed did requir that fetuses be buried or cremated but it was not forced upon the woman. The abortion clinic carried it out

The mother  *could* decide how the fetus was disposed but it was not mandated upon her neither was her presence mandatory.

It's still sickening but slightly less creepier than forcing women who just had an abortion to participate in a bizarre funeral

[uti2]

Of course the positive side of Trump losing is that if his campaign is any indication of what his presidency would have looked like, the GOP might have just prevented a disaster. I could see a Trump presidency hurting Republicans for years to come and turning states like Texas into swing or blue states.

But yeah, after Clinton wins this year, this forum will declare the Republican Party dead and it will be orgasming all over the mythical impenetrable blue wall, only to be shocked when Republicans win another 1994/2010-style victory in 2018 and lock the Democrats out of the Senate (and maybe even the House) for years to come. Republicans need something to run against in 2018 and 2020, and a Clinton presidency will come in handy in that regard. Clinton is a very beatable person, but even a beatable person has to be beaten - and Trump isn't the right candidate to accomplish that, obviously. The GOP desperately needs to get its act together at the presidential level and learn what it takes to win an election. Losing to Hillary Clinton of all people is very embarrassing and should be a wake-up call.

God, I wish a decent Democrat would have won the nomination this year.

Carter didn't hurt the democrats

You've given me a lot of material to work with, but this is the biggest WHAT of everything you've written. Democrats did not fully recover from the damage done to them under the Carter Presidency until 2008.

Dukakis was leading Bush Sr. by double digits until Willie Horton. No one was thinking about carter in Bush v. Gore either.

Carter didn't hurt Gore, Nader did.

[uti2]

You've given me a lot of material to work with, but this is the biggest WHAT of everything you've written. Democrats did not fully recover from the damage done to them under the Carter Presidency until 2008.

Also I should remind you that Carter was originally leading Reagan in the polls, actually by large margins, the numbers fell when he failed to address the iranian hostage crisis, as was expected of him.

GWB in many ways was a lot like Carter, both barely won in a tight election, except GWB used the crisis presented to him to take up the mantle of the 'war on terror' as the war-time president, Carter should've done the same if he wanted to get re-elected, instead he was a pacifist.

I know many 'libertarians' love to bash Greenspan/Bernanke, but even the republicans were smart enough to confirm them to keep their economies functioning well, Carter damaged himself by appointing the 'true monetarist' Volcker who killed his economy by hiking interest rates, but even under that circumstance, he was still leading comfortably ahead until he failed to address the iranian situation.  Most democrats are Wilsonians, not pacifists, that's always been well-known.