[–] Moonbat 3 points -1 points 2 points (+2|-3) ago
It's an unfortunate fact that the candidate you like and the candidate who can win aren't always the same person. As a libertarian I'm more painfully aware of that than most. But Trumpsters are a different breed - they refuse to look at the math, absolutely refuse to consider his electability based on the actual facts. When he gets crushed in November I'm really looking forward to the mental gymnastics they go through to rationalize away why he lost. The hysterics are going to be beyond epic.
[–] schwanstucker 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Well, the alternative is then Hillary, so what WaPo is saying is that "no Republican can win." Where have we heard that before? As to other candidates: Cruz can't win. His support isn't going to magically increase, and he's 'way below Trump, except in Romneyland. He's totally ineffective as a speaker, and his whole manner says, "Lightweight." Sanders can't win, unless the zombies vote for him as the Cryptkeeper. Kasich can't win, despite his assertions to the contrary on the media. Bush can't win. Nobody would admit voting for him. Romney? Against Obama II? Please. I like / liked Rand Paul, but he was never a real factor.
On the other hand, if Hillary is indicted, she'll win for sure. She has to, to pardon herself.
[–] BoiseNTheHood 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
The Washington Post also said that Reagan wouldn't beat Mondale in his home state in '84.
http://spectator.org/articles/34732/how-carter-beat-reagan
If they're saying Trump can't get elected... well, get used to saying President Trump.
[–] BoiseNTheHood 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
Oh wait, there's more! The WaPo was also shitting on Reagan in the 1980 election:
http://jpupdates.com/2015/10/20/love-him-or-hate-him-trumps-campaign-mimics-reagans-run/
https://www.creators.com/read/erick-erickson/12/15/the-goldwater-talking-point