What if Trump had won as a democrat?

[mvd10]

Democrats have Super Depegates and don't have winner take all primaries . If the dem rules were in place for the GOP, Hillary would be president right now

FTFY. All those Obama voters in the Great Lakes states wouldn't have switched over to Rubio like they did for Trump.

And all those white college-educated and/or wealthy voters who switched to Clinton probably would have remained Republican. Rubio wouldn't have channeled the hate towards Clinton in the way Trump did, but in the end someone with Clinton's baggage wouldn't have defeated a serious GOP candidate. The EC might have been closer (Trump really was tailormade for the EC...) but Rubio would have won the PV.

Anyway, no way someone as racist as Trump would have won the Democratic primary. I guess an "eat the rich" far-left conspiracy nutter might win the Democratic primaries under perfect circumstances (still not likely). The Democratic base probably still would like him, in the end muh medicare and muh social security probably are more important for them than having someone competent in the white house (I know that the GOP is no different here). The Republicans probably would go much harder after the whole Russia thing, which is a good thing.

[uti2]

Democrats have Super Depegates and don't have winner take all primaries . If the dem rules were in place for the GOP, Hillary would be president right now

FTFY. All those Obama voters in the Great Lakes states wouldn't have switched over to Rubio like they did for Trump.

And all those white college-educated and/or wealthy voters who switched to Clinton probably would have remained Republican. Rubio wouldn't have channeled the hate towards Clinton in the way Trump did, but in the end someone with Clinton's baggage wouldn't have defeated a serious GOP candidate. The EC might have been closer (Trump really was tailormade for the EC...) but Rubio would have won the PV.

How did Bush Sr. win with his baggage?

By the way, Rubio ran to the right of Romney (and Trump) on both economic and social issues. He wanted to let billionaires pay no income taxes (abolish capital gains + dividends taxes). So, if you're a moderate Obama supporter who couldn't support Romney due to his stances on social or economic issues, you would support someone even more to his right (with Hillary being even more to the center than Obama)?

Democrats have Super Depegates and don't have winner take all primaries . If the dem rules were in place for the GOP, Hillary would be president right now

FTFY. All those Obama voters in the Great Lakes states wouldn't have switched over to Rubio like they did for Trump.

Rubio may not have won MI or PA but he keeps OH , FL , IA , and maybe  WI . Also he  adds NV , CO , NH and maybe VA to the GOP .

WI is not a populist state ever since Scott Walker moved the state significantly to the right and Rubio would capitalize on it .


2nd this is Rubio vs trump and Rubio basically wins all the bush 04 states against trump with the exception
of New Mexico while adding Wisconsin to his column .

Rubio lost non-Cuban Latinos in his senate race by the standard GOP margin. He could only get one-third (and lost latinos overall), so if you're expecting him to make in-roads in those states with Latinos, where is the evidence?

Hillary's strategy was based on courting anti-Trump republicans, she thought she didn't have to worry about WI, so she spent time in states like AZ. Consider that her AZ strategy did actually pay off in helping the Dem margin there. She wouldn't have done that normally. Consider that Walker won his recall election election in the same year that Obama easily carried the state.

[mvd10]

Democrats have Super Depegates and don't have winner take all primaries . If the dem rules were in place for the GOP, Hillary would be president right now

FTFY. All those Obama voters in the Great Lakes states wouldn't have switched over to Rubio like they did for Trump.

And all those white college-educated and/or wealthy voters who switched to Clinton probably would have remained Republican. Rubio wouldn't have channeled the hate towards Clinton in the way Trump did, but in the end someone with Clinton's baggage wouldn't have defeated a serious GOP candidate. The EC might have been closer (Trump really was tailormade for the EC...) but Rubio would have won the PV.

How did Bush Sr. win with his baggage?

By the way, Rubio ran to the right of Romney (and Trump) on both economic and social issues. He wanted to let billionaires pay no income taxes (abolish capital gains + dividends taxes). So, if you're a moderate Obama supporter who couldn't support Romney due to his stances on social or economic issues, you would support someone even more to his right (with Hillary being even more to the center than Obama)?

Democrats have Super Depegates and don't have winner take all primaries . If the dem rules were in place for the GOP, Hillary would be president right now

FTFY. All those Obama voters in the Great Lakes states wouldn't have switched over to Rubio like they did for Trump.

Rubio may not have won MI or PA but he keeps OH , FL , IA , and maybe  WI . Also he  adds NV , CO , NH and maybe VA to the GOP .

WI is not a populist state ever since Scott Walker moved the state significantly to the right and Rubio would capitalize on it .


2nd this is Rubio vs trump and Rubio basically wins all the bush 04 states against trump with the exception
of New Mexico while adding Wisconsin to his column .

Rubio lost non-Cuban Latinos in his senate race by the standard GOP margin. He could only get one-third (and lost latinos overall), so if you're expecting him to make in-roads in those states with Latinos, where is the evidence?

Hillary's strategy was based on courting anti-Trump republicans, she thought she didn't have to worry about WI, so she spent time in states like AZ. Consider that her AZ strategy did actually pay off in helping the Dem margin there. She wouldn't have done that normally. Consider that Walker won his recall election election in the same year that Obama easily carried the state.

Lee Atwater and Willie Horton.
Romney (a rather cold candidate) still got 47% against Obama (an amazing campaigner). In 2016 the roles were reversed, Rubio is relatively young and charismatic while Clinton is cold and awkward on the campaign trail. And if anything, Romney's tax plan was worse electorally than Rubio's. The only way Romney's tax plan would have worked was if he raised taxes on the bottom 90%. Most people didn't care.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-marco-rubios-tax-plan/full
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-revised-tax-plan/full

Trump's tax plan would give the top 0.1% a 1 million dollar tax cut on average, Rubio's tax plan would give them a 900k tax cut on average. Rubio's tax plan wasn't more regressive than Trump's plan, and voters didn't care that much about the specifics of Trump's plan. Trump got only 49% of white college-educated voters, Romney got 56%. Romney also got 61% of non college-educated whites, Rubio probably wouldn't do much worse than Romney with them. And Rubio would do better with minorities (it's not hard to see Rubio doing better with minorities than Mr "Self-Deportation" and Mr "Build-That-Wall"). I just don't see how Clinton with her email scandal and the 9/11 memorial collapse could beat a young and relatively charismatic candidate after 8 years of Democratic rule. The electoral appeal of populism is overstated.

[uti2]

Democrats have Super Depegates and don't have winner take all primaries . If the dem rules were in place for the GOP, Hillary would be president right now

FTFY. All those Obama voters in the Great Lakes states wouldn't have switched over to Rubio like they did for Trump.

And all those white college-educated and/or wealthy voters who switched to Clinton probably would have remained Republican. Rubio wouldn't have channeled the hate towards Clinton in the way Trump did, but in the end someone with Clinton's baggage wouldn't have defeated a serious GOP candidate. The EC might have been closer (Trump really was tailormade for the EC...) but Rubio would have won the PV.

How did Bush Sr. win with his baggage?

By the way, Rubio ran to the right of Romney (and Trump) on both economic and social issues. He wanted to let billionaires pay no income taxes (abolish capital gains + dividends taxes). So, if you're a moderate Obama supporter who couldn't support Romney due to his stances on social or economic issues, you would support someone even more to his right (with Hillary being even more to the center than Obama)?

Democrats have Super Depegates and don't have winner take all primaries . If the dem rules were in place for the GOP, Hillary would be president right now

FTFY. All those Obama voters in the Great Lakes states wouldn't have switched over to Rubio like they did for Trump.

Rubio may not have won MI or PA but he keeps OH , FL , IA , and maybe  WI . Also he  adds NV , CO , NH and maybe VA to the GOP .

WI is not a populist state ever since Scott Walker moved the state significantly to the right and Rubio would capitalize on it .


2nd this is Rubio vs trump and Rubio basically wins all the bush 04 states against trump with the exception
of New Mexico while adding Wisconsin to his column .

Rubio lost non-Cuban Latinos in his senate race by the standard GOP margin. He could only get one-third (and lost latinos overall), so if you're expecting him to make in-roads in those states with Latinos, where is the evidence?

Hillary's strategy was based on courting anti-Trump republicans, she thought she didn't have to worry about WI, so she spent time in states like AZ. Consider that her AZ strategy did actually pay off in helping the Dem margin there. She wouldn't have done that normally. Consider that Walker won his recall election election in the same year that Obama easily carried the state.

Lee Atwater and Willy Horton.
Romney (a rather cold candidate) still got 47% against Obama (an amazing campaigner). In 2016 the roles were reversed, Rubio is relatively young and charismatic while Clinton is cold and awkward on the campaign trail. And if anything, Romney's tax plan was worse electorally than Rubio's. The only way Romney's tax plan would have worked was if he raised taxes on the bottom 90%. Most people didn't care.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-marco-rubios-tax-plan/full
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-revised-tax-plan/full

Trump's tax plan would give the top 0.1% a 1 million dollar tax cut on average, Rubio's tax plan would give them a 900k tax cut on average. Rubio's tax plan wasn't more regressive than Trump's plan, and voters didn't care that much about the specifics of Trump's plan. Trump got only 49% of white college-educated voters, Romney got 56%. Romney also got 61% of non college-educated whites, Rubio probably wouldn't do much worse than Romney with them. And Rubio would do better with minorities (it's not hard to see Rubio doing better with minorities than Mr "Self-Deportation" and Mr "Build-That-Wall"). I just don't see how Clinton with her email scandal and the 9/11 memorial collapse could beat a young and relatively charismatic candidate after 8 years of Democratic rule. The electoral appeal of populism is overstated.

Bush Sr. was cold and stiff, while Dewey and Dukakis were young and supposedly 'charming'. By the way, you're conflating the term 'charismatic', charismatic suggests a person who has a strong and loyal following, rubio was the exact opposite of that, his followers were the least loyal, he did not have a base. Going by that definition, Hillary was more charismatic. She had a loyal following with her diehard supporters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority#Characteristics

You're also forgetting that Clinton and Obama virtually tied in the '08 primary.

I know you want to make comparisons with Obama, but Obama ran a brutal ideological campaign on the back of grassroots support, the nature of rubio's campaign was something more along the lines of John Edwards, Dukakis or Dewey.

https://medium.com/soapbox-dc/marco-rubio-is-not-barack-obama-c98fda217e86

Ironically, the closest parallel to Obama on the GOP side was actually Cruz. If you want to talk about early polling, in early swing state polling Hillary actually outdid Obama in '08.


You're talking about the ordinary income tax and ignoring the elephant in the room. Rubio wanted no taxes at all for capital gains and dividend taxes, this is where most investors/businessmen earn their income from, not the marginal tax rates. His tax plan would result in people like Romney paying no taxes. Imagine the Dem ads (his senate race also proves his more limited appeal with Hispanics).

Comey's decision to go public was based on a Forged Russian intelligence document. Without Russian interference for the purposes of helping Trump, the DOJ would have simply closed the email probe quietly in the summer of 2016, and that situation would've ended there. Hillary would've been cleared. So, as you can see, even that scenario was nowhere near as bad as Iran-Contra where Reagan-Bush people were waiting to be sentenced to jail.

[Shadows]

The only problem with all that is Rubio is a little boy who was humiliated & destroyed by Christie in the debate in a manner not seen in many years (to a Top 2/3 contender).

Rubio also doesn't have much of a charisma or appeal, he is over-rated & is not as good a debater as Lyin' Ted. But yes if Trump won, then Rubio would do better with minorities & with his sort of boyish appeal & fake decency would beat Clinton (considering Clinton's multiple scandals & Wikileaks & what not).

[uti2]

The only problem with all that is Rubio is a little boy who was humiliated & destroyed by Christie in the debate in a manner not seen in many years (to a Top 2/3 contender).

Rubio also doesn't have much of a charisma or appeal, he is over-rated & is not as good a debater as Lyin' Ted. But yes if Trump won, then Rubio would do better with minorities & with his sort of boyish appeal & fake decency would beat Clinton (considering Clinton's multiple scandals & Wikileaks & what not).

Wikileaks/Russia would not have gotten involved, or if anything, they would've tried to help Clinton and released documents showing that the GOP primary was 'rigged'.

Clinton would've won if not for the Comey announcement, and the only reason Comey went public was due to acting on a forged Russian intelligence document since the Russians were trying to help Trump.

[Shadows]

The only problem with all that is Rubio is a little boy who was humiliated & destroyed by Christie in the debate in a manner not seen in many years (to a Top 2/3 contender).

Rubio also doesn't have much of a charisma or appeal, he is over-rated & is not as good a debater as Lyin' Ted. But yes if Trump won, then Rubio would do better with minorities & with his sort of boyish appeal & fake decency would beat Clinton (considering Clinton's multiple scandals & Wikileaks & what not).

Wikileaks/Russia would not have gotten involved, or if anything, they would've tried to help Clinton and released documents showing that the GOP primary was 'rigged'.

Who knows? Putin is as much anti-Clinton as he is pro-Trump. Actually, he is probably more anti-Clinton who was poking him about his re-election. Even without Wikileaks Clinton has plenty of baggage against the boy wonder fresh face hispanic Rubio (who was attacked for voting for immigration reform). Rubio will certainly win Nevada & Colorado will be Lean Clinton but a lot closer for sure.

[uti2]

The only problem with all that is Rubio is a little boy who was humiliated & destroyed by Christie in the debate in a manner not seen in many years (to a Top 2/3 contender).

Rubio also doesn't have much of a charisma or appeal, he is over-rated & is not as good a debater as Lyin' Ted. But yes if Trump won, then Rubio would do better with minorities & with his sort of boyish appeal & fake decency would beat Clinton (considering Clinton's multiple scandals & Wikileaks & what not).

Wikileaks/Russia would not have gotten involved, or if anything, they would've tried to help Clinton and released documents showing that the GOP primary was 'rigged'.

Who knows? Putin is as much anti-Clinton as he is pro-Trump. Actually, he is probably more anti-Clinton who was poking him about his re-election. Even without Wikileaks Clinton has plenty of baggage against the boy wonder fresh face hispanic Rubio (who was attacked for voting for immigration reform). Rubio will certainly win Nevada & Colorado will be Lean Clinton but a lot closer for sure.

Why did Putin also attack Macron? Did Macron ever insult Putin? Because Hillary insulted Putin he should be angry? So? Rubio & the other republicans insulted Putin much harder than Hillary ever did, logically, Putin would hate them more than Clinton.

What would Rubio's immigration argument be? He would say something like - 'I would like an immigration bill to pass, but I don't believe if it's feasible without the support of the Congress'. Hillary would just run against the GOP Congress like Truman did. She would tell Hispanics, the GOP cannot be trusted to deliver, vote Democratic.

[7,052,770]

Democrats have Super Depegates and don't have winner take all primaries . If the dem rules were in place for the GOP, Hillary would be president right now

FTFY. All those Obama voters in the Great Lakes states wouldn't have switched over to Rubio like they did for Trump.

And all those white college-educated and/or wealthy voters who switched to Clinton probably would have remained Republican.

Probably, but all those Texans, Californians, and Georgians made no impact on the Electoral College. Rubio (a guy who believes abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest, as he made explicitly clear in one of the debates) would not have flipped all those Great Lakes Obama voters.

I agree that the PV would have been closer, and it's not implausible that Rubio could have won the PV, but I think Hillary pretty clearly wins the Electoral College by taking MI, WI, and PA, and holding on to NH and VA.

[mvd10]

Democrats have Super Depegates and don't have winner take all primaries . If the dem rules were in place for the GOP, Hillary would be president right now

FTFY. All those Obama voters in the Great Lakes states wouldn't have switched over to Rubio like they did for Trump.

And all those white college-educated and/or wealthy voters who switched to Clinton probably would have remained Republican. Rubio wouldn't have channeled the hate towards Clinton in the way Trump did, but in the end someone with Clinton's baggage wouldn't have defeated a serious GOP candidate. The EC might have been closer (Trump really was tailormade for the EC...) but Rubio would have won the PV.

How did Bush Sr. win with his baggage?

By the way, Rubio ran to the right of Romney (and Trump) on both economic and social issues. He wanted to let billionaires pay no income taxes (abolish capital gains + dividends taxes). So, if you're a moderate Obama supporter who couldn't support Romney due to his stances on social or economic issues, you would support someone even more to his right (with Hillary being even more to the center than Obama)?

Democrats have Super Depegates and don't have winner take all primaries . If the dem rules were in place for the GOP, Hillary would be president right now

FTFY. All those Obama voters in the Great Lakes states wouldn't have switched over to Rubio like they did for Trump.

Rubio may not have won MI or PA but he keeps OH , FL , IA , and maybe  WI . Also he  adds NV , CO , NH and maybe VA to the GOP .

WI is not a populist state ever since Scott Walker moved the state significantly to the right and Rubio would capitalize on it .


2nd this is Rubio vs trump and Rubio basically wins all the bush 04 states against trump with the exception
of New Mexico while adding Wisconsin to his column .

Rubio lost non-Cuban Latinos in his senate race by the standard GOP margin. He could only get one-third (and lost latinos overall), so if you're expecting him to make in-roads in those states with Latinos, where is the evidence?

Hillary's strategy was based on courting anti-Trump republicans, she thought she didn't have to worry about WI, so she spent time in states like AZ. Consider that her AZ strategy did actually pay off in helping the Dem margin there. She wouldn't have done that normally. Consider that Walker won his recall election election in the same year that Obama easily carried the state.

Lee Atwater and Willy Horton.
Romney (a rather cold candidate) still got 47% against Obama (an amazing campaigner). In 2016 the roles were reversed, Rubio is relatively young and charismatic while Clinton is cold and awkward on the campaign trail. And if anything, Romney's tax plan was worse electorally than Rubio's. The only way Romney's tax plan would have worked was if he raised taxes on the bottom 90%. Most people didn't care.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-marco-rubios-tax-plan/full
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-revised-tax-plan/full

Trump's tax plan would give the top 0.1% a 1 million dollar tax cut on average, Rubio's tax plan would give them a 900k tax cut on average. Rubio's tax plan wasn't more regressive than Trump's plan, and voters didn't care that much about the specifics of Trump's plan. Trump got only 49% of white college-educated voters, Romney got 56%. Romney also got 61% of non college-educated whites, Rubio probably wouldn't do much worse than Romney with them. And Rubio would do better with minorities (it's not hard to see Rubio doing better with minorities than Mr "Self-Deportation" and Mr "Build-That-Wall"). I just don't see how Clinton with her email scandal and the 9/11 memorial collapse could beat a young and relatively charismatic candidate after 8 years of Democratic rule. The electoral appeal of populism is overstated.

Bush Sr. was cold and stiff, while Dewey and Dukakis were young and supposedly 'charming'. By the way, you're conflating the term 'charismatic', charismatic suggests a person who has a strong and loyal following, rubio was the exact opposite of that, his followers were the least loyal, he did not have a base. Going by that definition, Hillary was more charismatic. She had a loyal following with her diehard supporters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority#Characteristics

You're also forgetting that Clinton and Obama virtually tied in the '08 primary.

I know you want to make comparisons with Obama, but Obama ran a brutal ideological campaign on the back of grassroots support, the nature of rubio's campaign was something more along the lines of John Edwards, Dukakis or Dewey.

https://medium.com/soapbox-dc/marco-rubio-is-not-barack-obama-c98fda217e86

Ironically, the closest parallel to Obama on the GOP side was actually Cruz. If you want to talk about early polling, in early swing state polling Hillary actually outdid Obama in '08.


You're talking about the ordinary income tax and ignoring the elephant in the room. Rubio wanted no taxes at all for capital gains and dividend taxes, this is where most investors/businessmen earn their income from, not the marginal tax rates. His tax plan would result in people like Romney paying no taxes. Imagine the Dem ads (his senate race also proves his more limited appeal with Hispanics).

Comey's decision to go public was based on a Forged Russian intelligence document. Without Russian interference for the purposes of helping Trump, the DOJ would have simply closed the email probe quietly in the summer of 2016, and that situation would've ended there. Hillary would've been cleared. So, as you can see, even that scenario was nowhere near as bad as Iran-Contra where Reagan-Bush people were waiting to be sentenced to jail.

Both of their analyses included all taxes, and Trump's tax plan would have cut taxes for the top 0.1% slightly more than Rubio. Trump's plan included a 15 percent top rate on pass-through income which would have caused a lot of wealthy people to recategorize their income as pass-through income. If you're a hedge fund guy you'd be better off under Rubio's plan, if you're an extremely wealthy lawyer you'd be better off under Trump's plan. Bottom line is that both tax plans were roughly as regressive (just look at the analyses). And I'm not sure whether people really care about these things anymore. Trump's plan was regressive and completely unrealistic and Romney's plan only would have worked if he raised taxes on the middle class. They both lost the PV, but I don't think their tax plans played huge roles in it.

I agree that the comparison with Obama isn't perfect, but the main point was that Rubio is more personable than Clinton (like Obama was much more personable than Romney). Ultimately that's what most people care about.

As for Bush, Lee Atwater basically slaughtered Dukakis. Like he said: "By the time we're finished, they're going to wonder whether Willie Horton is Dukakis' running mate". I don't think someone in the Clinton campaign could have done the same to Rubio.

If a Rubio nomination would have butterflied part of emailgate away that would have helped Clinton. But Republicans would have continued the witch hunt anyway. And the collapse at the 9/11 memorial likely wouldn't have been butterflied away.

Republicans almost always fall in line. Remember how 40% of Republicans considered Romney as an evil Taxachusetts liberal in late 2011 only to see him as a Reaganesque conservative savior in 2012? They would be treating Rubio as the second coming of JFK after the primaries, and as far as I know the media quite liked Rubio.

The main problem is that Rubio might have cracked under pressure like he did in the NH debate (like Shadows said).

Anyway, I'm not saying that it would have been a landslide for Rubio, but I just don't see how someone as flawed as Clinton defeats Rubio in anything but a squeaker (unless Rubio seriously crashes, which is possible). Rubio has some flaws (mainly his extremely outdated views on social issues and the fact that he might crack under pressure) but he also is a decent campaigner, has a compelling background and he could appeal to minorities. Compare that with Clinton's negative image (thanks to the right's witch hunt), her awkwardness on the campaign trail, the 9/11 collapse (which would look even worse with Rubio as GOP nominee) and 8 years of Democratic rule. Rubio wouldn't have done as well in the industrial states as Trump, but he doesn't need all of them. Romney 2012 + FL, OH, VA and CO would have been enough. Or Romney 2012 + FL, OH and PA.

[uti2]

Both of their analyses included all taxes, and Trump's tax plan would have cut taxes for the top 0.1% slightly more than Rubio. Trump's plan included a 15 percent top rate on pass-through income which would have caused a lot of wealthy people to recategorize their income as pass-through income. If you're a hedge fund guy you'd be better off under Rubio's plan, if you're an extremely wealthy lawyer you'd be better off under Trump's plan. Bottom line is that both tax plans were roughly as regressive (just look at the analyses). And I'm not sure whether people really care about these things anymore. Trump's plan was regressive and completely unrealistic and Romney's plan only would have worked if he raised taxes on the middle class. They both lost the PV, but I don't think their tax plans played huge roles in it.

I agree that the comparison with Obama isn't perfect, but the main point was that Rubio is more personable than Clinton (like Obama was much more personable than Romney). Ultimately that's what most people care about.

As for Bush, Lee Atwater basically slaughtered Dukakis. Like he said: "By the time we're finished, they're going to wonder whether Willie Horton is Dukakis' running mate". I don't think someone in the Clinton campaign could have done the same to Rubio.

If a Rubio nomination would have butterflied part of emailgate away that would have helped Clinton. But Republicans would have continued the witch hunt anyway. And the collapse at the 9/11 memorial likely wouldn't have been butterflied away.

Republicans almost always fall in line. Remember how 40% of Republicans considered Romney as an evil Taxachusetts liberal in late 2011 only to see him as a Reaganesque conservative savior in 2012? They would be treating Rubio as the second coming of JFK after the primaries, and as far as I know the media quite liked Rubio.

The main problem is that Rubio might have cracked under pressure like he did in the NH debate (like Shadows said).

Anyway, I'm not saying that it would have been a landslide for Rubio, but I just don't see how someone as flawed as Clinton defeats Rubio in anything but a squeaker (unless Rubio seriously crashes, which is possible). Rubio has some flaws (mainly his extremely outdated views on social issues and the fact that he might crack under pressure) but he also is a decent campaigner, has a compelling background and he could appeal to minorities. Compare that with Clinton's negative image (thanks to the right's witch hunt), her awkwardness on the campaign trail, the 9/11 collapse (which would look even worse with Rubio as GOP nominee) and 8 years of Democratic rule. Rubio wouldn't have done as well in the industrial states as Trump, but he doesn't need all of them. Romney 2012 + FL, OH, VA and CO would have been enough. Or Romney 2012 + FL, OH and PA.

Wealthy Lawyers aren't billionaires. Wealthy businessmen/investors that are actual billionaires almost entirely earn all of their income through capital gains/dividends. What rubio would've done is given them effectively zero income taxation, that is quite a large difference.

Rubio just runs through scripted statements very quickly. He did not even give many interviews to the media that weren't run through his handlers, see Christie's descriptions in his interviews of how Rubio was handled. It's very similar to Edwards, Dewey or Dukakis. Dewey's campaign consisted of empty platitudes and every action he made was based on field-tested recommendations.

Romney would've been the new Willie Horton, I say that half-jokingly but that is really what his plan would be characterized as. If you want to make the argument that Romney was 'for the rich', that's literally would Rubio's plan would be. The narrative would be about how people like Romney would pay no taxes at all under the plan (and that would be factually accurate).

Don't forget Reagan had some senior moments on the campaign trail too.

Any GOP nominee would have to go through Trump. Just look at how Cruz's numbers dramatically collapsed from Feb (where he was polling more 'generically' and close to rubio), and how badly they fell into early May from Trump's attacks. The thing is, most of those attacks on Hillary, aren't even based on real acts, a lot of it is imaginary like Vince Foster's death, etc. Trump was basically using those same National Enquirier style smears against his opponents. So, anyone, who would get the nomination after that would've had to go through all of that baggage.

So, what it would come down to is a Republican capable of winning voters independent of Trump, someone like Kasich could've done better with urban voters, since he was genuinely more moderate. Rubio or Walker fundamentally were very right-wing, their urban support would ultimately be capped. This is why independents almost exclusively voted for Trump and Kasich in the GOP primary, each did well in different ways.

[uti2]

Dewey's campaign consisted of empty platitudes and every action he made was based on field-tested recommendations.

To add to this analogy, remember how quickly he flipped on drafting women after NH after polls came in suggesting that the position didn't test out so well? That in and of itself independently adds testimony to the idea that Christie's characterization was accurate.

That kind of strategy might work fine with people who stay within the lines and act with a certain level of assumed decorum. It wouldn't work that well against someone vicious and willing to degrade their opponents like Biden/Clinton (or Truman/LBJ/Bush Sr.). In contrast, look at what happened when he tried to go off script.

You need to remember that Clinton hired a team of psychologists on how to handle Trump, she would've done the same for any opponent. Hillary's strategy in the 2016 election also dramatically flipped from her original strategy.

Hillary's original strategy was a replica of Obama's 2012 plan. Make a populist economic argument against the GOP rival and work to turn out the base. She flipped the plot entirely to court anti-Trump republicans.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137093/clinton-campaign-decision-made-may-doom-down-ballot-democrats

This is why she was concerned with improving the margins in states like AZ, her data analytics people told her that this strategy (baring any unforeseen conditions like Russia/Comey) was the best way for her to ramp up her margins vs. Trump.

By the way, if you accept that Comey's announcement helped the top of the ticket, it's not unreasonable to accept that he also helped the GOP downballot.

[Badger]

All of this assumes Trump would've adopted a very different set of policies, such as never touching Birtherism with a 10 foot pole as early as 2011, never embracing the hard-core anti-immigrant xenophobia that would've killed him as a legit Democratic contender, either never endorsing McCain in 08 or otherwise admitting he was wrong and (at least mostly) embracing Obama. It's entirely conceivable, though, as Trump probably could've adopted and fought for whatever policies would've given him the best opportunity to win. This guy was a Democrat (of sorts) not all so long ago.

If he'd then run as a populist keeping earlier support for national payer, made serious noises about real tax reform ("The tax code is corrupted to make people like me getting richer and the middle class poorer. I'm tellin' you now, folks, I don't need the money. I'll do just fine without the IRS backing me".) Kept his long held social liberalism on gays and abortion, etc. railing against big outside contributors. ("People United is just a sham for the elite to buy politicians and laws. I can't be bought, people, I'm too expensive! They'll never afford me!"), but at the same time hammering Clinton on her ethical problems and running against trade, he just might have out Bernied Bernie. Think of if a hyperactive showboating Warren Buffet ran as a Democrat.

Could he have seriously run Bernie out soon enough to combine his wing with a populist vote? Could he have kept his consistent and inherent sexism under wraps long enough to not flush a YUGE segment of the Democratic female primary vote away? Even then who would he be running against in November? Cruz most likely. Would "Pussygate" have dampened enough women support that he still couldn't win?

All interesting questions, but the bottom line is Trump running as Democrat in 2016 was reasonably viable so long as he took a different route starting around 2011, and even winning wasn't beyond the pale either.

[Inmate Trump]

I can't speak for other Dems, but I would not support him for the same reasons I do not support him now.

Demagoguery is demagoguery no matter the party; racism is still racism; sexism is still sexism; homophobia is still homophobia.

Treating Putin like as though he were a respected world leader is laughable and wrong no matter who is president.

Colluding with a foreign government to win an election is treason no matter the party.

[Inmate Trump]

I forgot a few things.

Sexual assault remains sexual assault regardless of political party.

Saying you'll be dating a 10 year old girl in a few years is creepy regardless of party.

[Inmate Trump]

Republicans who love Trump right now would despise him were he a Democrat, and for the same reasons the Dems despise him now.

Of course, there would be some Democrats who would defend a Democrat Trump...but I genuinely believe it wouldn't be anywhere near the same level of defense that congressional Republicans are currently offering.  I highly doubt there would be a huge wave of Dems in this alternate reality betraying their own beliefs as there are a good 95% of GOPers betraying theirs.