but what you're saying is that charismatic people who perform well are unelectable?
but "strong" is contextual. vileness is a weakness in the general in a way that it isn't in the Republican primary.
-
-
he's a blowhard and a buffoon. The candidates could have buried him with his own past.
-
his past wasn't a liability in the primary. his past is *aspirational* for the people who carried him in the primary.
-
and are still carrying him now, to the (really still rather significant) extent that he's being carried at all.
-
he's absolutely the apotheosis of the Red Tribe's idea of a winner -- so the hard core will forgive him anything.
-
but the overlap between the Red Tribe's idea of a winner and the Blue Tribe's idea of a monster is, uh, extensive.
-
yeah, but I'm not sure red/blue is what's going on. Ppl are basically throwing shit at the political establishment
-
it's certainly not all that's going on, but you have to have *some* kind of broad appeal in the general
-
having half the people love you ten times as much just doesn't cut it
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
'course, they didn't take him seriously, but again that points to a strategic inability on their part
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
someone without the chops to trade bon mots with Trump could maybe beat Hlilary just by having lower negatives.
-
maybe, but if Trump can undermine them as he did, Hilary's campaign team are going to do the same.
-
true, and i'm not saying i would've bet on any of those jokers up against Hillary, quite frankly.
-
but i don't think it's ridiculous to assign a few of them better chances, and also causing less damage to the party.
-
oh, 100% they'll cause less damage to the party, that's a different issue
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.