nope, they still would've lost, cruz especially would've lost. Only Kasich had a good chance in winning. Jeb/Rubio would be a tossup, but an edge for Hillary.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31091440)

Kasich/Jeb would've had a fair chance since nobody HAAAAAATES them like Trump and Cruz

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31091461)

Jeb and Kasich were clearly the most knowledgeable of the group regarding policy when you look back at the Iowa debate (no Trump).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31091494)

No Trump = Different race.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31091722)

this election is like the WCF game where Tim Duncan hit a big shot with like 3 seconds left and then Derek Fisher hit a big shot with like .2 sections left. The announcer: "Duncan's shot is the most clutch shot we've seen in a decade but not the most clutch shot we've seen in the last 90 seconds."

Hillary is Duncan's shot.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31091485)

But those far-left greens aren't going to vote for a right-wing candidate, lol. Only Kasich might have been moderate enough for them to say, 'whatever'.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31091510)

Bush

Obama

Obama

Hillary

I would have voted for McCain in 08 if Hillary was dem nominee and Palin wasn't on the ticket.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31091558)

Also, the reason why Gore lost and obama's margin of victory in '08 was so large was precisely due to the berniebros/nader voters.

True swing-voters are statistically irrelevant at this stage, most of them already went for romney in 2012, and yet he still lost, due to enough berniebros coming out to ensure obama's reelection bid. The vast majority of the centrists in the dem coalition will never vote for an anti-gay/anti-social liberal, etc. candidate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31091585)

Your point about an anti-gay/anti-social liberal is right. That's why you run a candidate who isn't defined by those issues. Romney would be beating Hillary right now. McCain would be beating Hillary. Kasich would be destroying her.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31091619)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2014/02/romney-same-sex-marriages-not-ideal-for-raising-kids-183423

Huntsman, and Kasich were the only ones who tried to behave more towards the middle, and look at where it got them with the base.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31091654)

When the base understands it is outnumbered on the social stuff, the GOP can get back to competing and winning

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31091679)

that's actually not true, exit polls showed the Ds who voted for bush were WAY more than nader voters, and they also showed in NH nader voters broke 2:1 favoring Bush over Gore and in FL nader voters broke evenly split Bush v Gore

so no, in absence of Nader, Bush would have beaten Gore even worse

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31091668)

Republican governors nationwide seem to be able to attract enough centrists to win. Granted these governors tend to be elected during off years, but they aren't seen as bigoted racists and can get stuff done. Why can't the GOP replicate this nationally?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31091671)

right?

that's the theme of facebook, anyway

no, the reason people fucking hate hillary is because

they know her

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31510414)

remember, amerika2016 is totally & irretrievably cucked. even if GOP used the nuclear option & only needed 50 votes to confirm a nominee, there would not be 50 votes to confirm some1 like edith jones

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31091409)

except for brief periods during Bush II, the republicans haven't had both houses of congress and the white house at the same time in forever. a lot could get done in that circumstance.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31091502)

only thomas would say that it's a state's rights issue

he'd be right, as he almost always is, but he'd be the only one who'd vote to overturn it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31510428)

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/07/4_2-1.png

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31705361)

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/27/5-facts-about-abortion/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31091662)

dipshit pumo, here's the idea

a lot of republicans are religious and have positions that are consistent with their principles.

guess what, sanctioning the killing unborn babies ain't one of their principles

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31510437)

i'm kidding

you dumb

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31510447)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3309898&forum_id=2\u0026show=today",#31583895)