>>332979
>Donald Trump is completely unelectable because he's essentially won the republican nomination because of overwhelming conservative support
>But Ted Cruz which has billed himself as the Hyperconservative, anti-gay, anti-abortion candidate hasn't been able to rally conservative support around himself
'Conservative' doesn't mean the same thing as 'fascist' or 'nazi', only idiot /pol/acks and women's studies majors think they are in any way comparable. Now don't get me wrong, the anti-abortion stance along with all the Jesus shit which have helped him in the primary would have most certainly hurt Cruz in the general election. So would the 'anti-gay' thing although that might have been balanced out with the fact that I believe he refused to stand by Texas' sodomy laws. The Kaitlyn Jenner endorsement probably hurt him in the primary, but it would have helped in a general election. Do you see how it works, retard?
Crucially, Cruz hasn't been enduring nonstop news media and supposedly neutral talkshow fusillades claiming he's a fascist, nor has he been offering Hillary ammo to stockpile by shitting on war heroes, claiming he could shoot someone and his numbers wouldn't go down or saying Hitler was an interesting fucking guy.
You know what, just for fun I'm going to tell you exactly how this election would have gone with each candidate.
Cruz would have been able to squeak by Hillary. The dem campaign against him would have centered around him being a 'religious extremist' that wants to turn America into a Christian theocracy, much would have been made of his faith and I imagine the biggest soundbite or lefty meme would have been to claim he's a member of the Spanish Inquisition running for president (the democrats would have especially enjoyed this since it also works on the 'who, us?' racialist level they love so much, like when they say Clarence Thomas or Ben Carson is an Uncle Tom.) Nevertheless he's a hardcore small government conservative that would have been able to energize the Tea Party crowd, some of the libertarian crowd, all of the religious conservative crowd and moderate republicans would have held their nose and voted for him if the alternative was Hillary.
Marco would have beat Hillary almost as badly as Hillary is going to beat Trump. He's young, fairly good looking, most millennials consider him hip for a politician since he listens to electronica and quoted some rapper when he chipped in during Rand Paul's drone filibuster. He's got an endearing Homer Simpson sort of thing going for him as well. He's a solid B conservative, which sounds like faint praise until you remember that almost every republican in the senate is a hard F. His record is enough that he probably could have gotten a lot of the Tea Party crowd, a few libertarians, all moderate republican voters and probably some young democrats that hate Hillary. The democrat campaign against him would have focused on his youth and inexperience. They might have tried to make some hay about his personal fiscal irresponsibility too but that would have just endeared him to the millennial crowd.
Chris Christie would have lost to Hillary, though probably not by too much. He's like a Hunter S Thompson caricature of what a conservative is except he's for real. His ridiculous anti-weed crusade has earned him the undying enmity of all young voters, he's intensely physically repellent, he has zero charisma, he's a failure, he's a massive RINO and overall he's just a giant piece of shit. The Tea Party wouldn't have left their houses for him, neither would the libertarians or the anti-Hillary people. He would have gotten the mossback vote and the moderate republicans but that's all. The only thing he has going for him among the alternative politics scene is that Chris Dorner said he's a good man in his suicide by cop note, but Hillary would have brought that up in a debate and Christie would have instantly decried Dorner and said cops are all heroes or whatever and that would have been that.