Was Donald Trump more or less electable than the generic Republican?

[justfollowingtheelections]

Definitely more.  He may have alienated many voters, but his message resonated in Rust Belt/Midwestern states that he needed to win, such as PA, OH, WI, MI and IA.

[Vosem]

Donald Trump had a small group of fanatical supporters.  These people carried him the nomination in a crowded field.  Outside of the diehard supporters, he was not at all popular.  Had the Democrats nominated Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, or any number of other qualified and competent figures, Trump would have been defeated in a landslide.

"The majority of Republicans" is hardly "a small group".

Trump never had the support of a majority of Republicans until after Cruz dropped out. Indeed, he did not cross 40% until a surge in late April, and the final total in contested states was 39% for Trump. Polls generally suggested that in a head-to-head Trump would've been defeated decisively (at least by high single digits; more likely by double digits) by anyone except Jeb Bush.

Was he more or less electable? Tough question, though I lean to less. A different Republican would've done significantly better in the popular vote, but a different Republican would've given up the strength of the Republican trend in the Midwest -- Michigan would've been impossible for any other candidate, and Pennsylvania very unlikely. On the other hand, Virginia would've voted for most of the Republican candidates, and Colorado would've been in play. So it's difficult to say; the Electoral College distorts things. In an EC-less world, clearly less electable.

-How come then, that in a head-to-head with Ted Cruz (Indiana primary), Trump won a solid majority of the vote, as he did in all the Acela primaries?

Trump was viewed favorably by the majority of Republicans and leaners since July 2015.

I make mention in my post to a surge in late April. Indiana was held in early May. After his decisive victory in Wisconsin, Cruz made a series of mistakes that led to a precipitous decline in support that resulted in exacerbated losses in the Northeastern states and a defeat in Indiana (which, had the primary been held a month earlier, he would certainly have won; likewise, if Wisconsin was a month later Cruz would certainly have been defeated there). Nevertheless, nationally (albeit not in Indiana itself), Cruz+Kasich>Trump until the absolute, very end.

Whether Trump was viewed favorably or unfavorably is besides the point; they were pretty much all viewed favorably at the beginning. Trump was never the choice of a majority of Republicans for Republican nominee (though he held the status of plurality choice fairly consistently; after he picked it up in late July there were only three very brief moments when he lost it, to Carson at the very peak of his surge in early November, to Rubio between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire debate, and to Cruz in the very immediate aftermath of the Wisconsin primary); he ended up still mostly getting Republican votes in the general due to the contrast with Hillary.

The schedule ended up working against Cruz, imo. If New York/Texas were switched, along with the five Northeastern primary states switched with five Southern ones, it's probably very likely that Cruz would've ended up winning the nomination. With the schedule the way it was in real life, Cruz's task was much harder.

[Pericles]

It's in almost everybody's interests to think Trump was most electable. For Trump supporters, it is so they can claim a mandate for their agenda. For Clinton supporters it lessens the blow and makes Hillary's loss more of a fluke and not a humiliating rejection. For Sanders supporters it allows them to declare populism is electable and so left-populism is what the Democrats need. And the rest of the Republicans don't want to antagonist their leader. Still, it's not necessarily true that Trump was more electable.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

More (against Hillary anyway).

Someone with Trump's platform (border security, fair trade, ending "nation-building" wars in the Middle East, not going to war with Russia over bits of territory that were Russian for centuries until 1990, rule of law, cutting taxes and regulation, restoring controls over big banks like Glass Steagall, permitting free speech whether or not it's politically correct, etc), but without his personal baggage (Access Hollywood tape, frequent gaffes, unsavory attack on Cruz's wife, etc) could have won big.

Those in the media attributing Trump's win to a cult of personality are dead wrong. His personality was his biggest drawback and lost him many votes, especially college educated white women.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

More (against Hillary anyway).

Someone with Trump's platform (border security, fair trade, ending "nation-building" wars in the Middle East, not going to war with Russia over bits of territory that were Russian for centuries until 1990, rule of law, cutting taxes and regulation, restoring controls over big banks like Glass Steagall, permitting free speech whether or not it's politically correct, etc), but without his personal baggage (Access Hollywood tape, frequent gaffes, unsavory attack on Cruz's wife, etc) could have won big.

Those in the media attributing Trump's win to a cult of personality are dead wrong. His personality was his biggest drawback and lost him many votes, especially college educated white women.

[🕴🏼Melior🕴🏼]

It depends

Donald Trump was obviously not the most electable GOP candidate.

Kasich would've beaten Clinton by a comfortable margin. He would've done better than Trump for sure. Kasich appeals to everyone. He appeals to working-class whites, educated whites, and minorities.

Rubio would've NARROWLY beaten Clinton. There is no way Rubio would've won Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (unlike Trump, he is absolutely hated by working-class whites), but he probably would've won Ohio, Iowa, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, and possibly NV and/or NH, and thus the election. He probably wins the PV by less than 1.5%. I think Rubio would've done better than Donald Trump in terms of PV but worse than him in terms in EV.

Cruz would've lost to Clinton in an historic landslide. Clinton might've even won by double-digits. Cruz would've done MUCH, MUCH worse than Donald Trump. Cruz was by far the least electable GOP candidate this year, and it's not even close. Cruz is the worst of both worlds. He is absolutely hated by both working-class whites and educated whites. One of the main reasons why so many people hate Clinton is because of her unlikeable, "fake" personality. People vote on personality, not on the issues. Cruz is MUCH more unlikeable than Clinton. Trump appeals to working-class whites but not college educated whites or minorities. Rubio appeals to college-educated whites and minorities but not working-class whites. Cruz is hated by working-class whites, college-educated whites, and minorities. He appeals to nobody except for far-right extremist who already vote GOP no matter what. One of the main reasons why Trump appealed to working-class whites so much is that he promised not to gut Social Security. Nominating someone who wants to gut SS would've been a disaster. In a Cruz vs Clinton election, Clinton would've won the PV by at least 6 points+, and she probably would've won MI, PA, WI, IA, OH, FL, NC, and maybe even GA and/or AZ. Even SC might be competitive.

I think Donald Trump, Kasich, and Rubio were the only candidates than would've defeated Hillary this year.

Jeb would've lost by a pretty large margin as well. First of all, Jeb is completely uncharismatic and awkward, and high-levels of charisma is essential to winning the presidency. Secondly, one of the main reasons why Hillary underperformed is because people hate political dynasties. Nominating someone part of one of the most unpopular political dynasties in American history (Jeb) would've been a terrible mistake. Jeb wouldn't have that outsider appeal that Trump had. 

In terms of EV, I think that Donald Trump was the second most electable GOP candidate this year.