Atlas Forum

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => 2016 U.S. Presidential Election => Topic started by: pops on November 25, 2018, 02:40:46 am



Title: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: pops on November 25, 2018, 02:40:46 am
Idea taken from the Scott Walker thread. Here's my maps for other Republicans.

Ted Cruz

()

Marco Rubio
()

John Kasich
()

Jeb Bush
()

Rand Paul
()

Chris Christie
()

Mike Huckabee
()

And for fun...
Jim Gilmore
()


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: Republican BRTD on November 25, 2018, 05:32:58 am
Your OP is flawed. Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, and Jeb would all probably have lost. And while I hate to say it, I think Rand would also have lost. Of course, if you were forced to come up with a 'winning map' for those candidates, it would have looked like the ones you put up.

Cruz would probably win all the Safe R (Texas + all Trump states he won at a 10+ margin) states, but I can see him losing Florida. Maybe he still wins Ohio though.

Rubio and Kasich might win both Florida and Ohio, but I don't think they break past Colorado and Virginia and MI/WI/PA.

Jeb would probably even lose Florida.

What I like to tell people about these hypothetical scenarios is that they don't happen in some mental vacuum where months of real world campaigning don't occur. For instance, you can't take Kasich and his 'reasonable moderate' image from OTL, which he crafted to fill a niche to compensate for being a loser who didn't come close to winning the primary,  and apply that to a hypothetical Kasich GOP nominee. Kasich's image would have necessarily tilted to the right, like Romney's did, if he successfully won the GOP nomination. He ain't winning states like Oregon (according to Old School Republican's scenario) or Connecticut (according to OP's scenario).


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: Stranger in a strange land on November 25, 2018, 08:51:15 pm
Rubio is leading by 10 points after the conventions. He faceplants in the debates, causing the polls to narrow to a dead heat, but still wins because of the Comey letter and Clinton being such a bad candidate. He also wins the popular vote because he does a better job holding the traditional Republican coalition together. However, his underwhelming victory limits his ability to pass major legislation.


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: IA less likely to flip than OH/TX/FL/GA/NC/AZ on November 25, 2018, 10:24:08 pm
Most of them (thinking of Kasich, Walker, Rubio, etc. here) would have won, maybe even fairly easily. This little narrative that Trump was somehow the most "electable" Republican because of his "unique" strength in the Midwest who ran a flawless campaign is cute, but unfortunately it has always been nothing but baseless delusion on the part of hardcore Trumpists and bitter Clinton supporters.


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: IceSpear on November 25, 2018, 10:35:35 pm
Most of them (thinking of Kasich, Walker, Rubio, etc. here) would have won, maybe even fairly easily. This little narrative that Trump was somehow the most "electable" Republican because of his "unique" strength in the Midwest who ran a flawless campaign is cute, but unfortunately it has always been nothing but baseless delusion on the part of hardcore Trumpists and bitter Clinton supporters.

Yeah, the only one I could see Hillary beating is Cruz, assuming things went down the same way they did in our timeline.


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: Koorca Ton on November 25, 2018, 11:27:52 pm
If we look at the GOP primaries and hypothetical polling, we'll see that Trump was able to win a string of narrow victories in several key states. However, he under performed other Republicans in staunchly R or D states.

So I don't think any other Republican could've beaten Hillary.


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: Dom. Pol. Councilor Dwarven Dragon on November 26, 2018, 02:25:34 am
Winners:

Walker would be RL-MI-PA-ME-2
Jeb! would be RL-MI +CO, NV, NH
Kasich would be RL + CO, NV, NH, ME-AL, MN. VA is within 1% but I still think Clinton carries it.
Rubio would be RL-MI-PA-WI-ME-2, + CO, NV (274-264 Rubio)

Two Scenarios for Rand. Scenario A is where his unorthodox positions and activities win very little from the Obama column and actually weaken the GOP in Appalachia: (
Img
)


Scenario B is one in which he reshapes the coalitions with his views, keeping down the Appalachian bleeding and making new appeals no other GOP candidate could:
(
Img
)
(Maine Split is 3-1 R)




Cruz has no appeal to moderates or to populists, and so would lose. Romney + IA, FL would be the map.
I agree with the OP on Christie and Huckabee.
Gilmore - we have to remember that in the event he somehow got nominated, he wouldn't be the gadfly joke he is in RL. The 2008 Virginia Senate Race is not a good measurement because Mark Warner was quite popular from his time as Governor and was not really seen as much of a partisan or political figure. Also it was a D wave year. That being said, he's basically just a Poor Man's Cruz so to speak, so 2012+IA is my guess.


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: olowakandi on November 26, 2018, 10:07:44 am
I doubt OR votes GOP, it's an environmental state.


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: IA less likely to flip than OH/TX/FL/GA/NC/AZ on November 26, 2018, 01:09:01 pm
So I don't think any other Republican could've beaten Hillary.

Cute.


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: Republican BRTD on November 26, 2018, 01:49:50 pm
Most of them (thinking of Kasich, Walker, Rubio, etc. here) would have won, maybe even fairly easily. This little narrative that Trump was somehow the most "electable" Republican because of his "unique" strength in the Midwest who ran a flawless campaign is cute, but unfortunately it has always been nothing but baseless delusion on the part of hardcore Trumpists and bitter Clinton supporters.

bs


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: Let Dogs Survive on November 26, 2018, 02:22:44 pm
Badly.

Hillary would've run a much different campaign with the others, and she was pretty much bullet-proof in spite of her lacking charisma.

Trump pretty much beat Hillary at her own game in that regard.


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: RINO Tom on November 27, 2018, 11:48:38 am
Most of them (thinking of Kasich, Walker, Rubio, etc. here) would have won, maybe even fairly easily. This little narrative that Trump was somehow the most "electable" Republican because of his "unique" strength in the Midwest who ran a flawless campaign is cute, but unfortunately it has always been nothing but baseless delusion on the part of hardcore Trumpists and bitter Clinton supporters.

bs

LOL, it's not BS at all.  It's completely true.


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: Republican BRTD on November 27, 2018, 02:35:28 pm
Most of them (thinking of Kasich, Walker, Rubio, etc. here) would have won, maybe even fairly easily. This little narrative that Trump was somehow the most "electable" Republican because of his "unique" strength in the Midwest who ran a flawless campaign is cute, but unfortunately it has always been nothing but baseless delusion on the part of hardcore Trumpists and bitter Clinton supporters.

bs

LOL, it's not BS at all.  It's completely true.

I disagree


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: uti2 on November 27, 2018, 03:26:56 pm
Most of them (thinking of Kasich, Walker, Rubio, etc. here) would have won, maybe even fairly easily. This little narrative that Trump was somehow the most "electable" Republican because of his "unique" strength in the Midwest who ran a flawless campaign is cute, but unfortunately it has always been nothing but baseless delusion on the part of hardcore Trumpists and bitter Clinton supporters.

bs

LOL, it's not BS at all.  It's completely true.

I disagree

MT sang a very different tune during the primaries, he asserted that Trump was the most electable republican candidate alongside Kasich:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=276061.msg5885876#msg5885876


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: uti2 on November 27, 2018, 03:31:14 pm
Rubio is leading by 10 points after the conventions. He faceplants in the debates, causing the polls to narrow to a dead heat, but still wins because of the Comey letter and Clinton being such a bad candidate. He also wins the popular vote because he does a better job holding the traditional Republican coalition together. However, his underwhelming victory limits his ability to pass major legislation.

Comey himself admitted that he took polling into account when he made his late announcement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/books/review/james-comey-a-higher-loyalty.html

Also, the IG Report confirms that it was the Trump-Russia investigation that specifically delayed the Weiner email investigation by a month, which means that without Trump, Comey would've either released it in late Sept (before the debates, which means that it would've been a phenomenon equivalent to Benghazi), or he simply wouldn't have released it at all.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/06/14/fbi-sat-on-weiner-probe-prioritize-russia-probe/


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: Republican BRTD on November 27, 2018, 03:31:52 pm
Most of them (thinking of Kasich, Walker, Rubio, etc. here) would have won, maybe even fairly easily. This little narrative that Trump was somehow the most "electable" Republican because of his "unique" strength in the Midwest who ran a flawless campaign is cute, but unfortunately it has always been nothing but baseless delusion on the part of hardcore Trumpists and bitter Clinton supporters.

bs

LOL, it's not BS at all.  It's completely true.

I disagree

MT sang a very different tune during the primaries, he asserted that Trump was the most electable republican candidate alongside Kasich:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=276061.msg5885876#msg5885876

Well well well, what do we have here....thanks for letting me know uti2


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: morgankingsley on November 27, 2018, 04:51:53 pm
My thought set on it has been if the democrats nominated anybody but Hillary and Trump was still the republican nominee, the democrats would win in a landslide. But I have reverse on the Hillary situation. I feel like if Hillary was still the democrat nominee, and any other republican would have won the nomination but Trump, then they would have won in a landslide


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: IA less likely to flip than OH/TX/FL/GA/NC/AZ on November 27, 2018, 04:56:24 pm
LOL, it's not BS at all.  It's completely true.

We’re arguing with people who live in their own little world/cult, with many of them being literal psychopaths. Case in point: that uti2 loser who appears in every thread of this kind to link to a few posts I had made years ago (of course taken out of context, and many not even meant to be taken seriously or made at a time when no one could have known how well-run Trump's GE campaign would be). He posts that link every time I (rightfully) claim that Trump wasn’t the most electable Republican. Imagine how many days/weeks it must have taken him to dig through a user's posting history like that, LMAO. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if he got paid to do it or if he had his own "MT Treasurer" folder in his basement.


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: Republican BRTD on November 27, 2018, 06:04:03 pm
LOL, it's not BS at all.  It's completely true.

We’re arguing with people who live in their own little world/cult, with many of them being literal psychopaths. Case in point: that uti2 loser who appears in every thread of this kind to link to a few posts I had made years ago (of course taken out of context, and many not even meant to be taken seriously or made at a time when no one could have known how well-run Trump's GE campaign would be). He posts that link every time I (rightfully) claim that Trump wasn’t the most electable Republican. Imagine how many days/weeks it must have taken him to dig through a user's posting history like that, LMAO. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if he got paid to do it or if he had his own "MT Treasurer" folder in his basement.

did your New Hampshire ex leave you for a Drumpf supporter

edit: look guys...it's quite simple. We already had Establishment GOP vs Establishment DEM. That was 2012, and the D won easy peasy.


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: uti2 on November 27, 2018, 06:06:09 pm
LOL, it's not BS at all.  It's completely true.

We’re arguing with people who live in their own little world/cult, with many of them being literal psychopaths. Case in point: that uti2 loser who appears in every thread of this kind to link to a few posts I had made years ago (of course taken out of context, and many not even meant to be taken seriously or made at a time when no one could have known how well-run Trump's GE campaign would be). He posts that link every time I (rightfully) claim that Trump wasn’t the most electable Republican. Imagine how many days/weeks it must have taken him to dig through a user's posting history like that, LMAO. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if he got paid to do it or if he had his own "MT Treasurer" folder in his basement.

You were saying that Trump ran as one of the most moderate candidates and how that would help him, and that was correct, polling showed him to be perceived as one of the most moderate candidates during both the primary and the general.

By the way, if you look into that thread, you were the one who challenged me, and I responded by posting your history, so stop being so triggered, you wanted to play chicken.

Trump also did receive advantages ordinary candidates would not have received.

He had the support of Wikileaks - whatever that meant in terms of moving votes - and he ironically had the Trump-Russia investigation as an assist as that beneficially delayed the Weiner email investigation to late Oct.


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: uti2 on November 27, 2018, 06:12:27 pm
^ By the way, you remind me of Morning Joe trying to disown his past support for Trump , the fact is that you did do it as did he and the reason you guys did it is because Trump did run as one of the more moderate candidates and that did electorally help him with moderates like yourselves - there's the empirical evidence.


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: dw93 on November 27, 2018, 09:01:09 pm
Kasich vs, Clinton:

()

350
188

Rubio vs. Clinton:
()

282
256

Cruz vs. Clinton:

()

285
253

Jeb! vs. Clinton:

()

318
220

Everyone else would've lost to Clinton with a 2012 or even 2008 electoral map, but I doubt Hillary exceeds Obama 2008 margins.


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: Lakigigar on November 29, 2018, 08:41:06 am
Trump might have been the strongest candidate in 2016 (because of his image of being an outsider), but of course, we don't know what would have happened if someone else won the nomination. If they ran against Obama (for a hypothetically third term scenario), they all would have lost (incl. Trump). Against Clinton, Romney and McCain would have had a better chance, but i'm not sure whether they would've been able to beat her.

Kasich and Rubio would have had a shot of winning the 2016 election too. I think Cruz and Bush would've lost.


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: Representative Carpetbagger on November 29, 2018, 06:40:27 pm
My thought set on it has been if the democrats nominated anybody but Hillary and Trump was still the republican nominee, the democrats would win in a landslide. But I have reverse on the Hillary situation. I feel like if Hillary was still the democrat nominee, and any other republican would have won the nomination but Trump, then they would have won in a landslide

This is probably true, but people who were hardcore supporters of either candidate don't like to face that reality.


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: Republican BRTD on November 30, 2018, 07:24:04 pm
My thought set on it has been if the democrats nominated anybody but Hillary and Trump was still the republican nominee, the democrats would win in a landslide. But I have reverse on the Hillary situation. I feel like if Hillary was still the democrat nominee, and any other republican would have won the nomination but Trump, then they would have won in a landslide

This is probably true, but people who were hardcore supporters of either candidate don't like to face that reality.

I dunno man, I think it's more like Democrats who hate Hillary for losing and Republicans who resent Trump for taking over, saying that their preferred candidates would do better. People have this incentive to paint Hillary as easier to beat than she actually was, partly because they want to big up Sanders or because they want to believe that Trump is DOA in 2020 or because they want to believe that their heroes like Kasich deserved the spot.


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: Medal506 on February 18, 2019, 02:51:46 pm
Cruz would have won both the electoral college and the popular vote, but the electoral college vote would be much closer than it was between Trump and Clinton.


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: Okthisisnotepic. on February 21, 2019, 12:29:49 pm
In 2016 I originally supported Rand Paul.  I think he'd lose the rust belt (WI would be very close) but win CO, NV, and NH simply because most of the people who voted for Gary Johnson would go to Paul*, who would also perform slightly better in the West anyway.  I also think Paul's position on criminal justice reform and non-interventionalism would help him among nonwhites and voters under 40.

This could also be Rubio's map, but he'd be vulnerable in OH/IA.


()
* I hate the Nate Silver trope that 3rd party votes hurt Hillary more than Trump, as someone who was a (small l) libertarian for many years (but not anymore) and familiar with what most GJ voters thought, Libs in general roundly despised HRC even if they weren't fans of DT by any stretch.  If GJ wasn't an option, I could see 75% plus of his votes going to Trump and the remainder split between Clinton and McMullin (who also wouldn't have been a factor if anyone but Trump was the nominee.



Ted Cruz: too conservative for CO/NV/NH, little rust belt appeal. Does well in Fl and AZ.

()

Jeb Bush: wins NV/NH, loses CO, ME-2 and VA, 269-269.

Walker:

()

Kasich:

()



Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: Mondale on February 22, 2019, 06:46:06 am
cough twice failed  cough candidate Hillary cough cough would of cough lost against anybody the GOP put up againts cough cough cough


Title: Re: How would other Republicans have fared against Clinton in 2016?
Post by: Wazza1901 on February 26, 2019, 08:44:39 am
Bush would of lost. (Bap rep from Dubya)
Cruz would of lost. (Considered too far right/evangelical friendly)
Christie would of lost. (Bridgegate and hardass on drugs/surveillance)
Carson would of lost. (similar to Cruz)

As much as it hurts to say this. I think Rand Paul probably would of lost because the NeoCons/ZionCons would flip their sh**t, and/or his rather right wing economic views might alienate moderate and rustbelt voters.

Rubio is feasible.

Kasich likely would have won.