How would Pence have done against Hillary?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Stop with the revisionist history that Trump was actually a strong candidate.

[Figueira]

Stop with the revisionist history that Trump was actually a strong candidate.

I don't see how it's "revisionist history." It may not be true, but calling it "revisionist" is a bit extreme.

[ApatheticAustrian]

trump was not "strong", trump was transformational.

maybe pence would even have got MORE votes, but he would have won LESS states.

[Mr. Smith]

Stop with the revisionist history that Trump was actually a strong candidate.

Strong enough.

That's all anyone wanted, a candidate strong enough to destroy the other side, even at the cost of defense.

That's why it went down to the wire, that's why any of those cleaner, but policy-wonk Republicans would've been dead in the water, and that's why it became a battle of an obscure videotape and the ineptness of a campaign aide to flip things.

[uti2]

Stop with the revisionist history that Trump was actually a strong candidate.

Strong enough.

That's all anyone wanted, a candidate strong enough to destroy the other side, even at the cost of defense.

That's why it went down to the wire, that's why any of those cleaner, but policy-wonk Republicans would've been dead in the water, and that's why it became a battle of an obscure videotape and the ineptness of a campaign aide to flip things.

Hillary campaigning differently, running as a populist and as a non-war hawk (relative to her opponent of course) + additional turnout with no russian interference, etc. many variables here, put them together it's a traditional race with different variables like you've said in your posts.

[uti2]

Basically this. Kasich and Rubio would have won against Clinton, and the popular vote along with it, though their Electoral College paths would've been different (ME-2 and Michigan swapped with Colorado/Nevada/New Mexico/Virginia.

I really doubt Kasich would have lost ME-02, not sure about Rubio. I also don't see him winning NM, NV and VA, but agreed on CO.

Well, we'll never really know, but polls in the late winter/early spring showed Rubio and Kasich tied or leading Clinton in those states while Trump and Cruz were behind. You may be right on ME-2, but Trump was a great vehicle for feeding white resentment that Rubio and Kasich never would've been able to tap into (at least to a comparable degree). Kasich may have been able to carry Michigan by making inroads in places like Oakland and suburban Wayne, but I don't think he would've been able to get the Stalingrad-ian numbers that Trump was able to do outstate.

Actually this is revisionism and not true. Cruz was basically doing similar as Rubio in the polls in the contemporary time frame, only 1-2 points behind him. He only collapsed in Apr. with more media attention. This would've happened to any candidate, prior to that Trump was taking 99% of all the media attention.

[Ljube]

Pence would have lost miserably to Clinton.

Pennsylvania and Michigan would have stayed Democratic. ME-2 too.

Pence would have probably lost Florida and Ohio too. Possibly even Wisconsin. He would have won Iowa.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

I think turnout would've been maybe a record low for that election. I think under 50% at least.

Also Hillary would've won, but it would've been close. WI and MI wouldn't have flipped.

Then again, Gary Johnson may have received his 7-8% he was polling at earlier on.