Which are the fairer assessments of the election?

[Mr. Smith]

I believe that Trump and Clinton were the best of the field for the year, despite being the worst for each other in match ups.

Sure, any other Republican probably would've looked better on paper, but none of them captured the anger in the same way, and besides Kasich, all of them are even more unlikable than Hillary...and not in the likably unlikable way.

The debates would've been an even bigger massacre, and thanks to higher expectations, it's highly unlikely that the media would've been like "Oh hey, he actually could say something coherent".


However, while there's no doubt Hillary blew it, at least she had a chance. I'm just not sure Sanders or anyone besides Biden would've been able to get under trump's skin the same way Hillary did. For all the lament about the Midwest, the Sunbelt came a long way closer...and quite likely would've flipped with just another week.

I'm just not sure NH, Nevada, Colorado, or Virginia would've held out without Clinton, so the Popular Vote would likely have been lost too.

All the same, I do believe that someone else would've done more to help Congress and let the candidates run more for themselves than try to get one message across.

While that means, Opt. 2 is solid....I'm not so sure it's either 3 or 4 solidly, but rather a combination of both. I voted 3 because of the high-stakes and the fact that it came to one tipping point to finish off a fragile edge.

[Mr. Smith]

Congressional results seem to point to the first one being true. The rest are all disputable. Only voted for the first one.

Keep in mind how over-nationalized Congressional Races are and how overly anti-Trump things became on the D side, I'm just not sure that holds up so well.

Pretty much all things rested on that gamble paying off, it quite obviously didn't.