I tend to agree with Michael Medved on this one: Trump is the only candidate that can’t beat Trump and Trump is the only candidate that can’t beat Hillary.
What he was basically saying was that pretty much any of the other R’s would have been able to beat Hillary and pretty much any other democrat could have beat Trump.
Generally speaking, I tend to agree.
I tend to not agree with the Cheap Labor Express mouthpiece Medved on anything.
No other candidate of those running would have beaten Hillary.
It’s possible that another Democrat might have beaten Trump, but the Democrats rigged their primary for Hillary, so we’ll never know.
100% disagree that any GOP candidate would have won. Trump took Wisconsin, PA, Ohio, Michigan. Who was going to win those, Jeb? Cruz? No way. They were won because there is a constituency in those states that was desperate for someone to say what they felt, that there was an entrenched establishment in DC that had abandoned them on BOTH sides of the aisle. Both parties are for unchecked illegal immigration, both are for big job killing trade agreements. Only one GOP candidate had a message that spoke to them and made them take a chance. Carly Fiorina or Rand Paul would never have made that case. Kasich might have gotten Ohio but his "hey I'm an adult and I know we have to capitulate to democrats to get things done, vote for me!" argument sure wouldn't have.
And if the path wasn't through PA, WI, MI, OH then where was "any GOP candidate" going to get their win?
Shouldn't it be "Trump is the only candidate that can (vice can't) beat Hillary?