Serious question...will Trump secure the election for Hillary (or Bern)

[martybegan]

Had Perot not dropped out in the middle of his campaign, only to jump back in at the last minute, he may have won.

Yes, that is damned scary. there was no way someone that nutty ever should have been put in charge of the nukes.

That said, the 12th amendment has a solution to that. If no one gets a majority in the electoral college, Congress decides the election.

While the EC has it's flaws, it does have a guard against a plurality losing its mind.

A better system would be to have what the French have- You have an election where everyone can run a party, but if no one gets 50%, you have a run-off between the top two.

You would have to change the constitution via amendment to make a multi-party run for president viable.

 

[Bonzi]

Better question: What Republican can beat Clinton or Sanders?

 

[Iceweasel]

Better question: What Republican can beat Clinton or Sanders?

Any of them can. I think Rubio has the best shot at it. The Donald is a wild card and could blow up the campaign. Cruz is too hard core to pull in middle road voters but they may be turned of to all the Clinton sleaze by now. Bernie doesn't have a prayer, the decision was made long ago.

 

[martybegan]

Better question: What Republican can beat Clinton or Sanders?

Any of them can. I think Rubio has the best shot at it. The Donald is a wild card and could blow up the campaign. Cruz is too hard core to pull in middle road voters but they may be turned of to all the Clinton sleaze by now. Bernie doesn't have a prayer, the decision was made long ago.

It's also a question of turnout. If Bernie loses due to superdelegate votes, a large portion of the democratic base would be pretty pissed off. Even if a 1/4 of them decided to sit this election out, it would have a big impact in swing states.

 

[Bonzi]

To answer the OP, under the right circumstances and if things break right for Trump (a few changes will need to be made...) he can beat Clinton (or Sanders)

His biggest problem is his wife.

 

[Iceweasel]

Better question: What Republican can beat Clinton or Sanders?

Any of them can. I think Rubio has the best shot at it. The Donald is a wild card and could blow up the campaign. Cruz is too hard core to pull in middle road voters but they may be turned of to all the Clinton sleaze by now. Bernie doesn't have a prayer, the decision was made long ago.

It's also a question of turnout. If Bernie loses due to superdelegate votes, a large portion of the democratic base would be pretty pissed off. Even if a 1/4 of them decided to sit this election out, it would have a big impact in swing states.

Well, that's true. There's always the pissed off factor. If they realize the fix was in they will definitely feel the burn.

 

[Bonzi]

She needs to cut her hair and polish it up. More professional and conservative.

 

[Iceweasel]

To answer the OP, under the right circumstances and if things break right for Trump (a few changes will need to be made...) he can beat Clinton (or Sanders)

His biggest problem is his wife.

Wait, what? Trump's wife?

 

[davecmarino]

A lot of Trump bashers on here today. You guys don't seem to understand the game. It is about psychology not about politics. During the primaries he will continue to be the anti-establishment candidate by pointing out what is wrong and paint all the other candidates as establishment cronies who bear some responsibility for what is wrong. He won't give much substance so as to not give the others much meat to chew on.

Once he gets the nomination, he will be able to set the table against Hillary or Bernie and serve the right meal for the occasion. Neither one stands a chance once he starts rolling out the meat because while the other Republicans can serve a similar meal no Democrat can.

The angry righties are not going to vote for Hillary or Bernie no matter what so he just needs to pay homage to the left to draw voters away from Bernie should he beat Hillary. He just needs to be there with the meal to beat Hillary.

The man is a loudmouth but he is a brilliant loudmouth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[martybegan]

Better question: What Republican can beat Clinton or Sanders?

Any of them can. I think Rubio has the best shot at it. The Donald is a wild card and could blow up the campaign. Cruz is too hard core to pull in middle road voters but they may be turned of to all the Clinton sleaze by now. Bernie doesn't have a prayer, the decision was made long ago.

It's also a question of turnout. If Bernie loses due to superdelegate votes, a large portion of the democratic base would be pretty pissed off. Even if a 1/4 of them decided to sit this election out, it would have a big impact in swing states.

Well, that's true. There's always the pissed off factor. If they realize the fix was in they will definitely feel the burn.

Unfortunately it could work both ways. Evangelicals may not be the force they used to be, but they still have that block vote thing going for them.

 

[Bonzi]

I don't have a problem with Trump because our country is already going down the tubes.
Everything seems fine on the outside, but, it's eggshell.....

People are visualists, they want not only a president that will make a difference but present well.
Trump's wife looks trashy. Not polished like other 1st wives.

 

[JoeMoma]

Had Perot not dropped out in the middle of his campaign, only to jump back in at the last minute, he may have won.

Yes, that is damned scary. there was no way someone that nutty ever should have been put in charge of the nukes.

That said, the 12th amendment has a solution to that. If no one gets a majority in the electoral college, Congress decides the election.

While the EC has it's flaws, it does have a guard against a plurality losing its mind.

A better system would be to have what the French have- You have an election where everyone can run a party, but if no one gets 50%, you have a run-off between the top two.

We already have the parties. However, few pay attention to any other that the Dems and Pubs.

 

[JoeMoma]

W

Had Perot not dropped out in the middle of his campaign, only to jump back in at the last minute, he may have won.

Yes, that is damned scary. there was no way someone that nutty ever should have been put in charge of the nukes.

That said, the 12th amendment has a solution to that. If no one gets a majority in the electoral college, Congress decides the election.

While the EC has it's flaws, it does have a guard against a plurality losing its mind.

A better system would be to have what the French have- You have an election where everyone can run a party, but if no one gets 50%, you have a run-off between the top two.

You would have to change the constitution via amendment to make a multi-party run for president viable.

Why is that. Does the constitution even mention parties? If you mean to make the run off if no one gets 50%, I agree.

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Better question: What Republican can beat Clinton or Sanders?

Rubio or maybe Cruz if Cruz tones down his Christian rhetoric which will be a big turn off to the majority of voters in a general election.

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Had Perot not dropped out in the middle of his campaign, only to jump back in at the last minute, he may have won.

Yes, that is damned scary. there was no way someone that nutty ever should have been put in charge of the nukes.

That said, the 12th amendment has a solution to that. If no one gets a majority in the electoral college, Congress decides the election.

While the EC has it's flaws, it does have a guard against a plurality losing its mind.

A better system would be to have what the French have- You have an election where everyone can run a party, but if no one gets 50%, you have a run-off between the top two.

We already have the parties. However, few pay attention to any other that the Dems and Pubs.

Worse that people don't even pay much attention to their congressional representatives.

 

[martybegan]

W

Had Perot not dropped out in the middle of his campaign, only to jump back in at the last minute, he may have won.

Yes, that is damned scary. there was no way someone that nutty ever should have been put in charge of the nukes.

That said, the 12th amendment has a solution to that. If no one gets a majority in the electoral college, Congress decides the election.

While the EC has it's flaws, it does have a guard against a plurality losing its mind.

A better system would be to have what the French have- You have an election where everyone can run a party, but if no one gets 50%, you have a run-off between the top two.

You would have to change the constitution via amendment to make a multi-party run for president viable.

Why is that. Does the constitution even mention parties? If you mean to make the run off if no one gets 50%, I agree.

The whole electoral college system is biased towards favoring two candidates only. While most of it comes from the winner take all rules in the States, the tie breaks and other rules favor the major parties.

 

[Bonzi]

The people of the USA have spoken, and, they want more liberal policy and less Christian values

 

[Bonzi]

Had Perot not dropped out in the middle of his campaign, only to jump back in at the last minute, he may have won.

Yes, that is damned scary. there was no way someone that nutty ever should have been put in charge of the nukes.

That said, the 12th amendment has a solution to that. If no one gets a majority in the electoral college, Congress decides the election.

While the EC has it's flaws, it does have a guard against a plurality losing its mind.

A better system would be to have what the French have- You have an election where everyone can run a party, but if no one gets 50%, you have a run-off between the top two.

We already have the parties. However, few pay attention to any other that the Dems and Pubs.

Worse that people don't even pay much attention to their congressional representatives.

They won't care until it starts hitting them at home..........

 

[Disgruntled_American]

I don't have a problem with Trump because our country is already going down the tubes.
Everything seems fine on the outside, but, it's eggshell.....

People are visualists, they want not only a president that will make a difference but present well.
Trump's wife looks trashy. Not polished like other 1st wives.

I could care less about first wives, but in Trumps case I think he is dangerous. He is too much of a hot head to be in charge of a military and weapon arsenal that could level another country. He doesn't even listen to his own advisors when he becomes a hot head and takes to twitter to throw little mantrums when he doesn't get his way. My comments also are no endorsement of any Dem nominee as I think Bernie is not a good fit to be president and Hillary is just a plain crook IMO.

 

[JoeMoma]

I don't have a problem with Trump because our country is already going down the tubes.
Everything seems fine on the outside, but, it's eggshell.....

People are visualists, they want not only a president that will make a difference but present well.
Trump's wife looks trashy. Not polished like other 1st wives.

I could care less about first wives, but in Trumps case I think he is dangerous. He is too much of a hot head to be in charge of a military and weapon arsenal that could level another country. He doesn't even listen to his own advisors when he becomes a hot head and takes to twitter to throw little mantrums when he doesn't get his way. My comments also are no endorsement of any Dem nominee as I think Bernie is not a good fit to be president and Hillary is just a plain crook IMO.

Why are you disgruntled?