Would Pussygate have been more damaging against another candidate?

[AtorBoltox]

Although he did take a hit in the polls for a time, Trump was able to recover from Pussygate by election day mainly by deflecting to the accusations against Bill Clinton. If Trump was facing another candidate who could not be attacked for this hypocrisy however, would the controversy over pussygate been more damaging, or are Republicans so far gone they would ignore and excuse his comments under all circumstances?

[bagelman]

Yes, Trump is a known playboy, people weren't surprised.

Mike Pence? He'd get rocked and lose Lean R states at least.

[Mr. Smith]

Yeah, his deflections to Bill allowed Indies to deflect as well, especially considering how disliked Hillary was over what was pretty much nothing anyway. And the media were gonna do everything they could to keep the race a tie like the whole affair was a game of Super Mario Kart or something.

A more likable candidate with less baggage wouldn't have ended up in such straits.

[AtorBoltox]

Yes, Trump is a known playboy, people weren't surprised.

Mike Pence? He'd get rocked and lose Lean R states at least.

You misunderstood the question. I'm asking if it would have been more damaging if trump was facing a different democratic opponent who didn't have to deal in any with their own unsavory history on sexual assault

[bagelman]

Yes, Trump is a known playboy, people weren't surprised.

Mike Pence? He'd get rocked and lose Lean R states at least.

You misunderstood the question. I'm asking if it would have been more damaging if trump was facing a different democratic opponent who didn't have to deal in any with their own unsavory history on sexual assault

Still yes.

[Xing]

It would've killed any Democrat's chances.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Of course. He'd likely to lose white women BIGLY.

[Adam Griffin]

I think had Trump been running against another male candidate, it would have been more effective. As f[inks]d as it sounds, the fact that Hillary was a woman (and the fact that so many disliked her) contributed to a climate of dismissal and reactionary response, leading to a more overtly sexist reaction to it. Basically, "well, she's a woman, so of course she's going to have a problem with it".

A better yet less stark contrast (a male sex predator versus a male who isn't a sex predator) could have addressed this in a way that wouldn't subconsciously seem like it was a personal reaction. People are generally more responsive to criticisms and policy changes in the political arena when the people who are advocating for it aren't directly affected by it (for better or worse).

[Bojack Horseman]

In any other year, yes. Sexual harassment allegations were what sunk Herman Cain when he was the frontrunner for a week. No other candidate was able to turn his supporters into the kind of cult that Trump lovers are.

[scooby]

It would've killed any Democrat's chances.

[Mr. Morden]

In any other year, yes. Sexual harassment allegations were what sunk Herman Cain when he was the frontrunner for a week. No other candidate was able to turn his supporters into the kind of cult that Trump lovers are.

That's not really an apples to apples comparison though, since Cain's sexual harassment problems came up in the primary while Trump's pussygate came up late in the GE campaign.

Voters' allegiances to any particular candidate tend to be tenuous during the primary campaign, since there are multiple candidates of the same party to choose from.  But in the GE?  Republican voters would have been unlikely to jump ship on their nominee in favor of Hillary Clinton over sexual harassment regardless of whether the nominee was Trump or someone else.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

So the question is, if Bernie, O'Malley, Webb, Chafee, or Lessig were the Democratic nominee, would Trump be hurt more?

I think so.

[Gass3268]

Pussygate would have sunk Trump's campaign if it wasn't for the Comey letter coming afterwards. You reverse the timing and the Democrats would have won everything in a landslide.

[The Mikado]

Any politician who didn't have it already factored into their persona would be damaged horribly. Donald Trump was just behaving the way everyone kind of assumed Donald Trump behaved.

For example, I really do think that that same story would be career-ending for Mike Pence, because it would destroy Pence's image and reputation.

[RINO Tom]

Yes.  People underestimate how unlikable Clinton was simply because she was the (de facto) alternative binary choice against Trump.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Yes.  People underestimate how unlikable Clinton was simply because she was the (de facto) alternative binary choice against Trump.

[Sumner 1868]

Yes, but mostly because of how they probably would have responded. Drumpf used a combination of whataboutism and defense of his comments as harmless "locker room" banter. Essentially, he managed to have it both ways; his whataboutism abut Bill Clinton kept Republican-leaning women on his side, while his defense of his comments in the face of calls to drop out energized male conservatives.

Now let's say that Kasich had been the GOP candidate caught on tape. He probably would have said something like "I didn't actually say that, but I'm really sorry anyway." This hurts him because he fails to benefit either way; his apology upsets conservatives who like that kind of rhetoric, while his denial is attacked for being an obviously lie. After a couple days of media attacks for lying, Kasich changes his story and acknowledges the recording is true while condemning his comments. So now Kasich is a hypocrite, liar, and a self-admitted sexual harasser. He loses easily.

[brucejoel99]

So the question is, if Bernie, O'Malley, Webb, Chafee, or Lessig were the Democratic nominee, would Trump be hurt more?

I think so.

Yes.  People underestimate how unlikable Clinton was simply because she was the (de facto) alternative binary choice against Trump.

[President Johnson]

So the question is, if Bernie, O'Malley, Webb, Chafee, or Lessig were the Democratic nominee, would Trump be hurt more?

I think so.

This. Imagine a tape came out Hillary saying she could touch men where ever she wants because she's famous. Just let that sink in. Sadly, it is still more accepted if men brag about such disgusting behavior.

[pbrower2a]

Maybe a man would have seen this as a means of establishing his adherence to traditional values as a contrast. A man with a more conventional sex life (let us say Obama or Nixon) might have shredded Trump on this.

What Donald Trump talked about was sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct, if not outright rape. I do not know what the statutes define as rape, but I understand that any unwelcome penetration,  even if 'only' a finger constitutes rape. 

[I Can Now Die Happy]

That type of slander would have sunk any other candidate. That's what made DONALD JOHN TRUMP truly strong, in contrast to Slick Mittens and the guy who got captured in Vietnam.

[Mr. Morden]

What if the tape had come out a few days before the South Carolina primary?  What impact (if any) would it have had on the primaries?

[Alben Barkley]

That type of slander would have sunk any other candidate. That's what made DONALD JOHN TRUMP truly strong, in contrast to Slick Mittens and the guy who got captured in Vietnam.

His own recorded words are slander?

And a guy who abused his privilege and made up a fake excuse about his feet hurting to avoid fighting in Vietnam is stronger than someone who voluntarily went and stayed while being tortured despite the opportunity to avoid both with his privilege?

[Alben Barkley]

Doubt it. The ambiguous wording of "they let you do it" makes for a pretty polarizing response. If you are inclined to believe Trump is a rapist, they you think he's a rapist. If you're not, then you don't.

“I don’t even wait” is not ambiguous, he clearly means he doesn’t wait for their consent. “They let you do it” is just his twisted narcissistic brain believing the women are “letting” him do it because they are too scared or uncomfortable to actively resist.

And then there’s the dozen plus women who confirmed just that.

What ridiculous mental gymnastics, what he said was clear and disgusting. Period. It’s utter insanity that anyone would defend it, and the fact that they wouldn’t for anyone but this man in particular boggles the mind.

Besides, he didn’t even use that line of defense. He never even tried to argue he was talking about consensual encounters. He just said it was “locker room talk.” Then after “apologizing” for it, a year later he was claiming he never said it all, Orwellian style.

The man is indefensible in everything he does.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I came back from Ohio (after fleeing from a major hurricane) to Florida and saw "Pussygate" on TV and thought Trump was finished.  And I was mega-disgusted with Trump . . . until I learned that the tape was from 2005 and was from the cutting room floor.

Of course people shouldn't do this, but people also resent being outed over situations when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  That this sort of "outing" happened to Trump mitigated the outrage people perhaps should have had over Julian Assange publicizing Hillary's e-mails (along with Podesta's, Palmeiri's, etc.).

I'm not really sure about how this scandal would have affected Trump if, say, Martin O'Malley were the Democratic nominee.  Sanders has his own somewhat controversial past writings on sex (or so I hear) that would have gotten more attention in that situation.  In truth, 2016 was such a weird year that I can't really say for sure whether or not it would have been better or worse for Trump if it were a typical bland Democrat.