Not Even Obama Could Have Defeated Trump in 2016

[Pericles]

Obama's favorability ratings were so much higher than Clinton's that it is very difficult to believe that he wouldn't have done at least 1 percent better in PA, MI, and WI.

Obama's favorability ratings only became high once the focus of partisanship shifted away from Obama towards Clinton. Prior to that, her favorability ratings (69% in early 2013) were higher than his (41% in 2013). If he were running for office this shift would never have happened.

I think we're confusing personal favorability ratings and approval ratings.

[Shadows]

A ham sandwich could have beaten Trump!

[Blair]

Well Obama would have done much better- the left challenger (I doubt Bernie would run) would not of done as well (I always thought that Bernies success was making himself the anti-Hillary choice, and thus allowing people to project their dislike of HRC onto him; him being anti-war, anti-wall street, anti-1994 crime bill etc)

Without the challenge to drive down his numbers among those types, combined with his ability as a better campaigner, higher AA turnout and the fact that he was an incumbent mean he was very likely to win. Sure he may not have had token republicans come out and support him (like David Frum) but Obama was simply a much better retail politician   

[Fuzzy Bear]

Obama's favorability ratings were so much higher than Clinton's that it is very difficult to believe that he wouldn't have done at least 1 percent better in PA, MI, and WI.

This. Stop with the excuses already, she was just a godawful candidate. And Trump was not some unbeatable titan.

First, Trump was a terrible candidate who was an embarrassment to American politics and would lose to Hillary in a landslide ... now he's a juggernaut who mastered fake populism in a way no good-hearted Democrat could ever muster.  Common theme?  Protecting Hillary.

I always thought Trump was the best candidate the Republican Party had to offer this year.

Yes.  Yes, he was.

Trump was the best candidate because Trump, and only Trump recognized that a huge part of the GOP involved folks who were NOT "small government conservatives" and that a goodly number of Republicans suffered from the same amount of war fatigue as Democrats do.  Trump, and only Trump, filled that void.  That formula was what expanded the map for the GOP into MI, WI, PA, and (arguably) IA.  I cannot imagine any of the other candidates, including Kasich, carrying PA, WI, and MI, and I think Kasich would have struggled to win IA.

[Shadows]

Kasich would have won NH, MN, NE, CO etc in addition because unlike Trump he is not despised & hated by most people. Trump is a modern Hitler.

Kasich with all of Hillary's baggage would have won in a landslide with a PV win of 6-7% atleast. Kasich 2024 won't be as good as these restrictive abortion laws & minimum wage stuff will hurt him among Dems.

Millions of people voted for Hillary only to stop Trump, a person they considered a monster!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A ham sandwich could have beaten Trump!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/20/team-bernie-hillary-ing-ignored-us-in-swing-states.html

[Shadows]

A ham sandwich could have beaten Trump!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/20/team-bernie-hillary-ing-ignored-us-in-swing-states.html

Loved the line & borrowed it!

[Adam Griffin]

Obama's popularity at the time of the election wouldn't have been the same.

The notion of Trump (and Clinton, for that matter) being President certainly helped, yes, but Obama's approval being on a steady climb during the final year was likely due to the fact that he wasn't running again and he would soon be leaving office.

[hopper]

The idea that Trump was the only Republican who would have been able to crack the BIG BAD BLUE WALL is pretty amusing. I don't see someone like Kasich (or even Rubio or Cruz, for that matter) losing Wisconsin either. His victory map probably would have resembled Ron Johnson's victory in the Senate race (with Kasich doing a lot better in the suburbs but maybe slightly worse in the traditionally Democratic rural areas).

People really underestimate how many Republicans and Independents only reluctantly voted for Trump because of the Supreme Court and issues like abortion and gun rights and because they despise Clinton.

Cruz wouldn't have won MI, PA, and WI. He is too conservative for those states in a General Election. Yes Kasich could have carried MI, PA, and WI because he is a good fit in a General Election in those states.

[hopper]

Obama's favorability ratings were so much higher than Clinton's that it is very difficult to believe that he wouldn't have done at least 1 percent better in PA, MI, and WI.

This. Stop with the excuses already, she was just a godawful candidate. And Trump was not some unbeatable titan.

First, Trump was a terrible candidate who was an embarrassment to American politics and would lose to Hillary in a landslide ... now he's a juggernaut who mastered fake populism in a way no good-hearted Democrat could ever muster.  Common theme?  Protecting Hillary.

I always thought Trump was the best candidate the Republican Party had to offer this year.

Yes.  Yes, he was.

Trump was the best candidate because Trump, and only Trump recognized that a huge part of the GOP involved folks who were NOT "small government conservatives" and that a goodly number of Republicans suffered from the same amount of war fatigue as Democrats do.  Trump, and only Trump, filled that void.  That formula was what expanded the map for the GOP into MI, WI, PA, and (arguably) IA.  I cannot imagine any of the other candidates, including Kasich, carrying PA, WI, and MI, and I think Kasich would have struggled to win IA.

Why do you think Kasich would have struggled to win Iowa?

[uti2]

Democrats are making excuses for Hillary. Even f***ing Martin O'Malley, who gathers approximately -3 people per rally, isn't covered in baggage and would have beaten Trump by a fair amount (probably 4 points or so nationally).

Keep in mind that there's a fairly large difference between Obama running as an incumbent for a third term and Senator Obama running in 2016.

If the Russians sabotage the senator obama of '16 (a very different candidate from obama of '08) who runs on a more hawkish platform, + pro-nafta, pro-romneycare (instead of single payer), he would have similar turnout problems with progressives as Hillary. Minority turnout would be offset by additional republican support for Trump (this is jeremiah wright obama we're talking about, hence how mccain was leading him before lehman brothers). Something like 'republicans for obama' and Obama actually winning over GOP donors would never happen.

Possible he wins WI and MI, but still loses PA to Trump in this scenario.