[circlecity]

What this doesn’t point out is that Hillary’s negatives are almost as high as Trumps. I think Republicans who don’t like their candidate are much more likely to hold their nose, show up to the polls, and vote for the candidate.

[Wallace T.]

In 2008 and 2012, McCain and Romney, respectively, lost in part due to several million conservative voters unwilling to vote for the lesser of two evils. Moderate and liberal Republicans play this game too, as happened with Ken Cucinelli in Virginia. Unless Trump is the nominee or pledges to support whomever the convention chooses, a large chunk of his voters go away, perhaps for an independent run by the New York real estate developer.

Where Buchanan, Perot, and Wallace failed, Trump and possibly Sanders may succeed in ending the two party duopoly that has dominated American politics since the beginning of the republic.

[catnipman]

“I think Republicans who don’t like their candidate are much more likely to hold their nose, show up to the polls, and vote for the candidate.”

i’m going to vote for the gop candidate with the most delegates going into the convention, no matter whose name is on the ballot.

[taildragger]

"What this doesn’t point out is that Hillary’s negatives are almost as high as Trumps."

I posted here months ago that Negatives in this cycle won't matter. I am waiting for one of the sultans of smart to steal that line and use it on their 6 pm political show.

I think they all lerk here and the sad part of it is they are stealing my stuff and won't even buy me a freakin' cold beer ;-).

[MichaelCorleone]

“What this doesn’t point out is that Hillary’s negatives are almost as high as Trumps.”

Let’s look under the hood here: Hillary enjoys 24/7 protection and fawning by big media. The Donald endures 24/7 of the most intense negative vitriol ever seen.

And their ‘negatives’ are roughly the same.

Looks to me like there’s another story to tell.