How would Pence have done against Hillary?

[Mr. Smith]

Only trump, only Hillary, only one final straw push to decide whom...it just so happened Comeyghazi was the tipper, but it could've easily been P&^yghazi.

[Mr. Smith]

I don't know.

Pence was a grown-up, had integrity, experience, and maturity to go against Hillary.  He was NOT a protectionist, however, and I don't know that he'd have carried PA, MI, and WI.

Pennsylvania was very close to being the tipping-point state in 2012 so a normal Republican could still flip it, plus New Hampshire may be flipped with a different Republican. Pence is not that strong a candidate, and may be too far to the right, but he probably is a stronger candidate than Trump, especially since Hillary was also very weak.

Hillary would've used the regular populist tricks and made Pence look like Romney since she wouldn't have her guard down.

Pence would've likely lost NC, PA, and MI.

Truth of the matter is, Hillary is a strong candidate when push comes to shove, but her ego is an Achilles Heel which came back to bite her again after 2008.

To ask how Pence would've done, would be like asking what the fate of John Edwards in '08.

[Mr. Smith]

Lol@people saying Trump was the only Republican who could have beaten Clinton because MUH RUST BELT REVOLT. I can't think of a single reason why Pence or Kasich would have done worse in Wisconsin, for example.

Didn't even factor in the Rust Belt at all for the case for only Trump (and the inverse, only Hillary getting so close)...except for Wisconsin, which in turn could be stopped by NC or AZ going to Hillary.

With what I did factor, someone like Pence would've been destroyed for his religious right pandering and someone like Kasich would've gone down with the first bit of dirt.  In both cases Hillary would've been less willing to overreach.

If the debates are anything to go by, only those like Pence or Kasich were on the mainline against Trump.

[Mr. Smith]

Donald Trump was the strongest GOP candidate and still lost the national popular vote.

The idea that Donald Trump was a strong candidate is ridiculous, all the evidence shows he was not, and the implication that Hillary was also a strong candidate is even more laughable.

Neither were strong on paper, which is precisely why in the polarized electorate they were the strongest.

They were two glass cannons clearly nominated with the sheer purpose of the destroying the other, with no concept of defense in mind.

The final blow, no matter how actually small it was, was therefore was more critical.

[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.