How strong of a presidential candidate would the previous poster be?

[GregTheGreat657]

Please start with me

[Progressive Pessimist]

You're a Trump supporter yet don't come off as completely deranged. That might actually be a winning combination in a general election for the GOP these days.

Your bigger problem would be the primary.

[West_Midlander]

About average

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

He'd lose the GOP nomination by virtue of "caving to the transgender lobby", and his support of Trump would disqualify him from the Democratic nomination. If he somehow managed to get past the primary, I could see him going someplace.

[Damocles]

Her candidacy could be interesting in the Democratic primaries. She could probably assemble a winning coalition of Berniecrats, woke MSNBC centrist types, and LGBT+ constituents. It wouldn't be easy, but it is doable.

Her main problem would be the general election.

[THG]

He’d fail as a libertarian. He’d perform around where an average partisan Democrat would.

[Stuart98]

Too terminally online to have broad appeal, would get creamed in a primary or general election.

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Depends if he actually is Stuart Little or not based off of his display name. If he is, well...

[THG]

Too terminally online to have broad appeal, would get creamed in a primary or general election.

I actually have a fair bit of experience in real life politics as a staffer and adviser in DC circles. However, I concede that I would be an awful candidate.

*SKIP*

[It’s so Joever]

Would definitely excite the base more than any other candidate since Obama 2008, but definitely could have trouble with the moderate wing. Overall depends on how they run their campaign and the messaging they choose. People don’t actually vote on policy these days anyways so it depends on how they played to different groups. On average probably would do as well as generic D (which would be a loss currently)

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

His reluctance to do events in red precincts would be the death of him.

[GregTheGreat657]

No offense Peebs, but I'm not quite sure the US is ready for a transgender candidate, so not very strong

[Vice President Christian Man]

No offense, but I don't think enough voters care about someone's gender or sexual orientation, at least enough to affect the outcome of an election and this is coming from an evangelical who's generally socially conservative. It's not like it's 2004 anymore or a scandal of any kind. Maybe some on The Christian Right might try to make it into a political issue, but most of the opponents of trans issues weren't going to vote for Peebs in the first place.

To answer your question, I'd say slightly above average. You'd probably keep much of Trump's base and win over some Trump-Biden voters but your support of Trump would hurt suburbanites, particularly women who left the party. If you manage to moderate enough on a few issues, you could even win some dissatisfied Dems who still voted for Clinton/Biden (such voters in places like Minnesota, Scranton PA, and Lake County CA come to mind).

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Definitely a lock for the WWC vote, but I suppose it's an open question as to whether his more genuine populism or social moderation would bring him down. Likely wins the nom similarly to Trump and by being less bombastic is a lock for election.

[WD]

I’d say he’s a bit too left wing for the electorate at large.

[GregTheGreat657]

Fairly strong. He would struggle to win the nomination due to his center-right beliefs on social issues, though he would easily win a general due to his strength with WWC voters, especially for a Democrat

[West_Midlander]

Pretty strong if he was nominated. I think he would stand a fair chance in an open race.

[Dr. MB]

pretty weak with his constantly changing opinions which would alienate all sides

[GregTheGreat657]

Pretty strong