Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 485272523643158528
"Depends on if Stein can get more than 5% of the vote or not "
"These are the following % Kasich would need to win by nationally to win the following states:
PA/FL/WI: He wins even if he loses the popular vote by 1-2 points
New Hampshire/ Colorado: Tied Popular Vote
Michigan: 1 Points
Nevada: 2 points
Maine: 3 points
Virginia: 4 points
Oregon: 7 points
New Mexico: 9 points
New Jersey: 12 points
Connecticut/Washington: 14 points
I think Kasich wins by around 8 points nationally"
"Oregon is a pretty anti war state so the fact that Bush only lost by 4 points in 2004 was pretty impressive. Kasich is going to be significantly stronger than Bush in Oregon .
Also Kasich doesnt need 50% of the vote in Oregon to win the state
As long as he gets 47% he probably wins the state as if Kasich was the nominee Stein likely gets at least 5 % of the vote and Kasich wins. Kasich is more than capable of getting 47% of the vote in Oregon so I believe he wins the state"
"
Trump was also terrible for the suburbs, Kasich is the exact opposite
And Kasich if he was the nominee probably would be the least hawkish gop nominee since ironically Bush in 2000(not counting trump ) and Kasich favorable were way better than Hillary .
Lastly Oregon has been a +7-8 dem State since like 2004 so if Kasich wins nationally by 7-8 he likely wins the state . I think the main difference comes to how large we think Kasich national win would be by (I think it would be 8-9 points). Even if it’s a 6-7 point national win I still think Kasich wins Oregon due to Stein getting over 5 percent of the vote in Oregon
"
----
"Why would Stein get 5% of voters in Oregon against Kasich vs Clinton and not Trump vs Clinton, lol. There's no way she would somehow double her support."
"Cause Kasich is no where near as divisive or as bad of a person as Trump is and Trump being that is why Stein didnt get much of the votes in the first places.
In Oregon I believe Kasich would have gotten 47.5%, Hillary 46.9% , Stein 5% "
"Unless Hillary changed her campaign strategy, she wouldn't have beaten Barry Goldwater. She went into the race assuming she would win, and did nothing to insure that she would. The urban throngs voted for her, but the suburban and rural people didn't."
"Clinton was going to lose no matter who she ran against. “Basket of deplorables” explains why she was so hated that she would have lost to Satan. Her arrogance that she actually desired the votes of people who did not want her was that extreme.
No matter how bad a candidate the Republicans fielded, she was going to lose. So they fielded the worst they could find. And sure enough she lost to the worst."
"It would have been much more civil. Nazis and the KKK wouldn't be as emboldened as they are now, nor would random white people suddenly think their opinions needed to be shouted at various people of color.
Jeb Bush would have come out on top, as many voters would've heard the word “socialist” and stopped listening immediately. Competence would have reigned supreme in the Executive branch. Policies would've been crafted with a consideration of how government is supposed to work and what was realistic to accomplish. There wouldn't be the need for legions of aides to scramble to explain what the President actually said/meant on Twitter or in a sound bite, and the message from the CiC would remain consistent for longer than a paragraph.
My kids would still not know what a porn star was and their respect for the office of the Presidency wouldn't have been damaged so much. Their parents wouldn't be so worried about the world we're leaving them.
Oh, and Robert Mueller would have a good bit more free time."
"The country wins. Whichever man takes office, we’re better off than we would have been with either of the two actual contenders in 2016."
I miss the good days of the GOP
Back when we had men like McCain and flake. True heroes who stood up for conservative ideals like putting business first and defending our interests all over the world - especially our allies.
I'm afraid that our party has been hijacked by charlatans and has given into tribalism and ethnophobia. We have embraced the worst of our evolutionary mindset while shirking the best.
I'm sad to see it end like this. Since when did we stand for racism? We never gave a wit about your color or creed, it was what you believed that defined you in the party of Lincoln. Wasn't it our party's greatest president who tore down walls in the USSR? Yet now we want to build them to keep out our neighbors.
We were the party of patriotism, now we are the party that attacks the patriots in our FBI.
We were the party of virtue, now we are the party that supports a foul-mouthed chauvinist.
We were the party of law and order, and now we tolerate our politicians using foreign influence to harm our democracy.
We were the party of state's rights and small government, now we are the party that sues California for trying to govern themselves as see see fit with immigration.
We were the party of doing things by the book, and now were the party that broke centuries of tradition by ramming through a supreme court justice in the Senate.
We were the party that embraced the tired, the poor, the huddled masses, and now were the party of nighttime terrorism by federal soldiers in minority communities.
And we were the party that I was proud to be a part of. Not any more. Today, I changed my registration to "unaffiliated".
I hope that we will be forgiven for betraying our principles.
"Kasich 357 52%
Hillary 181 45%
Stein 2.1%
Johnson 0.9%"
People who lean to the right inside the GOP need to point out that Trump won because he energized the white vote.
'Kasich may have won but he’s terribly overrated on here. There is 0 evidence to suggest that he is some super unbeatable candidate. In fact everything suggests otherwise '
^It doesn’t take ANYWHERE near a “super unbeatable” candidate to achieve that map vs. Hillary Clinton, LMAO.
"Okay, then agree to disagree. Hillary did a perfectly fine job at alienating "WWC" voters on her own, and Republicans that didn't rely on registered Democrats and former Obama voters have won elections in all three states you just named. Trump's populism is but one form of populism. After all, any successful candidate HAS to be at least somewhat of a populist in style, no? For God's sake, just because she was comically terrible at it doesn't mean Hillary Clinton didn't campaign as a "populist" (to predetermined demographics, of course); she absolutely did. Kasich would have been a "populist" as well, he just wouldn't have been a classless bafoon. I think Kasich picks up *enough* WWC voters in the Midwest (his home region) to win all of those states you mentioned and also holds on to a lot more traditional Republican support in suburban areas and among college educated Whites. His performance among "WWC" voters in those states wouldn't have been QUITE as "impressive" as Trump's, because he wouldn't have been an offensive enough candidate to begin with to NEED that impressive of a "flip" of those voters."
oh my god
time to murder judges in the street
fuck the judiciary
Finally a Maverick rose up
@Deleted User SO MUCH THIS
"Jack Kemp is a Congressman from New York who has served since the early 1970s. Before that, he was a well-known professional football quarterback. He was one of the main architects and proponents of Reagan's supply-side tax cuts, and is known to be a staunch fiscal conservative. This could cut both ways in a general election. He would be a good choice for most Republicans, and is consistently mentioned as a possible running-mate."
"Bob Dole was Bush's primary rival for the Republican nomination. He has served as a Senator from Kansas since 1969. He is the preferred choice of many in the party, and has a loyal following on Capitol Hill. Many believe he would help immensely in the farm states. On the other hand, Dole served as Gerald Ford's running mate in 1976, and made some over-the-top attacks on Jimmy Carter which served as a distraction. He and Bush also have lukewarm feelings for each other."
"Dan Quayle has served as a Senator from Indiana for the past seven years. He would be an unexpected choice, and the first baby boomer to run on a national ticket. He does not have a long record of achievement at the highest stage, but he could have some appeal to social conservatives, Midwesterners, and younger voters. There is some skepticism about his intellect, and his campaigning and debating ability."
"Reagan is popular, but people also want to see you distinguish yourself. There is an undertone of criticism that you lack influence, and that you don't stack up to Reagan."
I'm a true defender of the second amendment but it's the current year and we need to abolish the second amendment.
Imagine being so courageous as to betray your country, race and party to get good boy points from your supposed enemy?
"Reagan is popular, but people also want to see you distinguish yourself. There is an undertone of criticism that you lack influence, and that you don't stack up to Reagan."
*worm digs into the eye of McCain as we type this*
based
"Unfortunately, Dukakis performed pretty well in these debates, and you seemed to miss a beat on a couple occassions."
