.^
.
.
In 2016 we screwed the pooch with an overly large field of people running for the nomination splitting the vote. The result was Trump won the nomination with a plurality of votes in the primaries (not a majority). That resulted in Trump losing the General Election (popular vote) and only won the Presidency because about 77,000 (out of about 130,000,000 votes or 0.592%) handing him the EC.
We ended up with two embarrassing candidates (and yes DEMs you should be embarrassed you nominated Clinton) and I’m embarrassed my party nominated Trump. As a result I voted for neither in the General Election (I voted for another GOP candidate as a write in). A man needs to be able to look at himself in the mirror in the morning - unless he goes with the wild beard look or his significant other shaves him.
Are we going to end up in 2020 with the moderate voice drowned out and the two major parties running to the extremes? Again.
.
.
.^^^^
The “extreme” Hilary Clinton won the nomination last time with very few primary candidates against her. How is the mistake that too many people are running this time?
I don’t see how it does. The contention is that Clinton was “extreme” and that the Dems are going to go “extreme” again because a ton of people are running in the current primary even though the “extreme” Clinton won a primary with very few primary contenders. It seems, given the the premise of the OP, that it doesn’t matter how many primary candidates there are on the Dem side.
It’s interesting question. I wondered if the new progressive Dems could end up like the Tea Party. Extremists who are incapable of compromise. So far doesn’t seem the case.
BUT, I wonder how that will translate to the POTUS. Trump just went further and further crazy and appealed to just his core base and still does. It’ll be interesting if Dems follow a race to the left.
I would like to challenge the idea that Trump won the Rep primary because there were a lot of candidates as well. He won because he was saying what Republican voters wanted to hear.
I’m saying the mistake on the GOP’s part in 2016 was the split in the primary resulting in Trump.
I think if the field had been 5 or 6 in the primary season Trump could have gone back to New York and grabbed him some more â– â– â– â– â– and fleeced more with the next enterprise using the Trump University model.
.
.
.
.^^^^
It’s a counterfactual so there is no way of knowing for sure what would happen, but I’m not exactly sure who Trump would likely lose to even with a smaller primary field.
Possibly. I’m still reasonably certain some will bow out early.
What I found extraordinary about GOP 2016 was that, with the exception of Scott “Loser” Walker, all 16 or whatever just stayed and stayed in the race. What was up with that?
We need a 2nd term for President Trump to keep Making America Great Again and to Keep America Great!! So I say “go for it” Dems make all the TDS mistakes possible! I want the country to survive and not go down the socialist green hole!!
The facts are that President Trump is governing more conservative then any self proclaimed GOP “never Trump” conservative Republican and he’s doing a great job, why do you think leftist Dems and RINO’s hate him so much?
I don’t know what GOP candidate got your write in vote but it only helped Hillary.
The other 16 candidates split the not-Trump vote. Too many hung in there for too long, all thinking they were the answer to not-Trump, until it was too late.
In my opinion it’s a common characteristic of national-level politicians. They are too proud to step aside and endorse someone else who is essentially just like them. They’re not team players. (Oh, no doubt they want their team (party) to win, but they want their name as the one that does the specific winning.)
We haven’t seen the end of the parade of new candidates, and they’ll all think they are the answer to the question.
