Which GOP primary field was worse?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:27:34 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Which GOP primary field was worse?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which GOP primary field was worse?
#1
2012
 
#2
2016
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 56

Author Topic: Which GOP primary field was worse?  (Read 1886 times)
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 09, 2020, 11:09:56 PM »

This could be interesting.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2020, 12:58:05 AM »

It’s obviously 2012 , as while the nominee was way way better in 2012 the field was clearly better in 2016
Logged
TiltsAreUnderrated
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,771


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2020, 02:34:24 AM »

It’s obviously 2012 , as while the nominee was way way better in 2012 the field was clearly better in 2016

The field may have had better candidates, but was the average of the 2016 field better than that of the 2012 group? Huntsman seemed like a potentially strong GE candidate.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2020, 03:15:40 AM »

It’s obviously 2012 , as while the nominee was way way better in 2012 the field was clearly better in 2016

The field may have had better candidates, but was the average of the 2016 field better than that of the 2012 group? Huntsman seemed like a potentially strong GE candidate.

Well 2016 also had Kasich, and Rubio both who did better than Hunstman and both who very likely win in the general too.
 
Logged
I Will Not Be Wrong
outofbox6
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,346
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2020, 01:59:10 PM »

2016 had a ton of good candidates. 2012 was a joke in comparison.
Logged
Rat
Snickleton
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 553
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2020, 03:46:30 PM »

2012. Imo, Romney, Perry and Huntsman were the only serious candidates, and Huntsman got no traction while Perry gaffed his way to oblivion. Everyone else was part of the circus.

2016 had Bush, Kasich, Christie, Walker, Paul, and Rubio. It wasn't just a complete clown car like 2012 was.

Logged
South Dakota Democrat
jrk26
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,394


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2020, 04:00:02 PM »

2012, and it isn't close.
Logged
SevenEleven
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,588


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2020, 04:15:00 PM »

Is the 2012 Republican primary the worst non-incumbent candidate set of all time?
Logged
South Dakota Democrat
jrk26
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,394


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2020, 04:44:23 PM »

Is the 2012 Republican primary the worst non-incumbent candidate set of all time?

Not sure, but the joke candidates definitely stand out.
Logged
Orser67
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,947
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2020, 07:51:58 AM »

This is tough, because the average candidate in 2012 was imo worse, but 2016 was top-heavy in terms of terribleness. In 2012, Romney and Huntsman were pretty ok, but the rest of the field was miserable. At various times, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, and Michelle Bachmann were either first or second in national polling, according to RCP. Also Rick Perry, who is maybe not quite as bad as the last four, but still, ugh.

2016 had relatively non-terrible candidates like Jeb!, Rubio, and Kasich, but I'm not sure if there's ever been a worse top two than Trump and Cruz. Some of the lower-tier candidates were also pretty terrible, e.g. Ben Carson and Santorum. Ultimately I went with 2012.
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 12, 2020, 06:37:15 PM »
« Edited: June 12, 2020, 06:42:39 PM by dw93 »

2012 had better "credible" candidates (Romney, Huntsman, Pawlenty to a lesser extent) than 2016 (Bush, Kasich, Rubio). However, the fringe of 2012 (Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, Perry) were wackier than the fringe of 2016, but 2016 obviously had more wacky candidates quantity wise. That said, 2016 was worse as the credible candidates couldn't beat the wacky that year (Trump with Cruz in 2nd), whereas credible won the nomination in 2012.
Logged
anthonyjg
anty1691
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 686


Political Matrix
E: -8.52, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2020, 10:03:03 PM »

Honestly, they’re pretty comparable. The average vote was worse in 2016, but the fields themselves are really similar.
Logged
President Biden Democrat
mrappaport1220
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 569
United States


P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 13, 2020, 07:09:36 PM »

The field overall was better in 2016. There were more candidates and stronger candidates overall. The nominee, Romney was much better than the 2012, then Trump in 2016.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,801
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2020, 11:22:04 PM »

If you take out Trump, 2012 is worse by miles. But Trump is so bad he drags the group as a whole down
Logged
El Betico
Rookie
**
Posts: 69
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2020, 05:59:19 PM »

I think 2016 GOP field was the most talented ever...except for the ultimate winner. Really, 2016 was a big missed opportunity for the Republican party.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,281
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2020, 12:02:39 PM »

I understand why people keep saying that Trump was a much worse nominee than Romney, but like, the purpose of a presidential nominee is ultimately winning the general election, and Romney lost it while Trump won it.
Logged
President Biden Democrat
mrappaport1220
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 569
United States


P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2020, 11:49:32 PM »

2012, hands down. 2016 field overall was fairly strong and had voices from all over the party. There were many strong candidates including Trump, Rubio, and others. Anybody in 2012 would have had a tough time beating Obama, even if there was a better field of choices.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 14 queries.