Was Trump the only candidate that could beat Hillary Clinton

[uti2]

Both Kasich and Rubio would have smashed Hillary and gone on to become great presidents.

They would've been flattened like the Mitt Romney husks they were.  Especially Rubio.

Sans Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush, you couldn't ask for an opponent who could make Hillary so humanized and populist sounding more than Marco "Obama knows what he's doing....Obama knows what he's doing....Obama knows what he's doing" Rubio.

And Kasich, well it's Chafee 2.0 in the making.


As for the the states that'd allow Hillary to win:

With Rubio: MI/PA/WI  (because Rubio is even worse at connecting there)

With Kasich: MI/FL (He'd only make Michigan close, and he wouldn't inspire the WWC vote to drown out whatever minority votes Hillary's ground game got her in Florida)


The only comfort those two would bring is "thank goodness Arizona was kept safe and not 90,000 votes away from going D" and "well at least there's Utah"

Kasich would have won WI and PA , and easily won FL . With Kasich many Bernie or Bust voters from the primary stay that way instead of reluctantly voting for Hillary

I was being nice with PA, but without Trump as a New York icon, Hillary could play up her cred in the Upstate to keep good margins NE Pennsylvania and win by the same means Obama did rather than the "all in on Philly with a sprinkle of Pittsburgh" approach taken.

The idea is that a normal republican would do worse with working class whites, but that's acceptable since they'd do better with middle class whites. Here's the problem with that trade-off.

In terms of PA, Philadelphia is a Northeastern city, it is much more liberal on social issues (guns/abortion, etc.) than even the Denver suburbs. Trump won more votes than Toomey in PA overall, because many in the Philly suburbs only voted for Toomey because they expected Clinton to win and wanted a downballot check (they also voted for Santorum in 2000). They wouldn't vote for a social conservative as a general rule of thumb.

MI - they'd have to do as well with rural working class whites, which most people here accept probably wouldn't happen.


WI- that would come down to democratic turnout, Clinton ignored the state, which is something she wouldn't do normally.

VA and NoVA- Gillespie tried that strategy in an off-election year in 2014 and failed.

NV - high percentage of working class whites and minorities, not that many college educated swing voters

NH - generally a moderate state with libertarian/anti-hawkish tendencies, perhaps Kasich is able to peel off moderates a la GWB in 2000 with compassionate conservatism redux (maybe).

CO, yes, this state would potentially be interesting, of the two states that would be most competitive under this theory, it would be CO and WI, and it would be a hard fight either way, this is why I suspect Kasich may have been able to pull these states off and win. CO has a high percentage of college-educated 'moderates' who might be attracted to Kasich, so Kasich would need to win those voters + keep the margins up in suburban Wisconsin.

Mark Warner was very popular in VA


Hillary being pretty unpopular in 2016 would definitly lose VA to Kasich and the popular vote by 6.5-7.5 points

Kasich would need someone like Mcdonnell as VP to counter Kaine, and Mcdonnell was too tainted by the corruption scandal.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Think about all the negatives of Donald Trump.  Think of all the things he said and did.  And he won the election.

Now tell me what is so bad about the other Republicans that would make them less popular than Trump.

[Liberalrocks]

Comey elected Trump

[Mail-order President]

Kasich - I think Kasich would've have the best chance against Hillary.  Probably would win the Popular vote by a couple points (50-47) but underperform Trump in the Electoral College (298-240).

Rubio - Would for sure win Florida, and Ohio.  I'm skeptical about Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia.  He barely loses in the rust belt, so Hillary is elected while losing the popular vote (48-47) while winning the Electoral College (272-266).

Jeb! - GWB is still seen as responsible for the Great Recession so that would stain Jeb's campaign.  Hillary wins the Popular vote comfortably (47-50) and Electoral College easily (303-235).

Cruz - I feel like this would be similar to Jeb's! except he won't be stuck with the Bush stigma.  Cruz's appeal to Hispanics gets him a slight popular vote win (48.5-48) and barely wins the EC (274-264).

I overall think Trump would have the best performance in the Electoral College, but one of the worst with the Popular vote.

[uti2]

Kasich - I think Kasich would've have the best chance against Hillary.  Probably would win the Popular vote by a couple points (50-47) but underperform Trump in the Electoral College (298-240).

Rubio - Would for sure win Florida, and Ohio.  I'm skeptical about Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia.  He barely loses in the rust belt, so Hillary is elected while losing the popular vote (48-47) while winning the Electoral College (272-266).

Jeb! - GWB is still seen as responsible for the Great Recession so that would stain Jeb's campaign.  Hillary wins the Popular vote comfortably (47-50) and Electoral College easily (303-235).

Cruz - I feel like this would be similar to Jeb's! except he won't be stuck with the Bush stigma.  Cruz's appeal to Hispanics gets him a slight popular vote win (48.5-48) and barely wins the EC (274-264).

I overall think Trump would have the best performance in the Electoral College, but one of the worst with the Popular vote.

I see the concept you're trying to get at here, would elaborate on the qualifiers though. Cruz and Rubio would share the same core demographics, but Cruz might've been able to peel off additional marginal rural Trump voters, which could have made all the difference in a close race.

Kasich's path would've come from alternatively doing slightly better in urban regions.

So, to add analogies, Kasich = Bush 2000/2004 (Compassionate Conservatism)

Jeb = Romney 2012 - marginal Romney voters

Rubio = repeat of Romney 2012 (w/ a cyclical adjustment)

Cruz = Romney 2012 + marginal Trump voters (perhaps enough to win)

Is this close to your thinking?

[Mail-order President]

Kasich - I think Kasich would've have the best chance against Hillary.  Probably would win the Popular vote by a couple points (50-47) but underperform Trump in the Electoral College (298-240).

Rubio - Would for sure win Florida, and Ohio.  I'm skeptical about Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia.  He barely loses in the rust belt, so Hillary is elected while losing the popular vote (48-47) while winning the Electoral College (272-266).

Jeb! - GWB is still seen as responsible for the Great Recession so that would stain Jeb's campaign.  Hillary wins the Popular vote comfortably (47-50) and Electoral College easily (303-235).

Cruz - I feel like this would be similar to Jeb's! except he won't be stuck with the Bush stigma.  Cruz's appeal to Hispanics gets him a slight popular vote win (48.5-48) and barely wins the EC (274-264).

I overall think Trump would have the best performance in the Electoral College, but one of the worst with the Popular vote.

I see the concept you're trying to get at here, would elaborate on the qualifiers though. Cruz and Rubio would share the same core demographics, but Cruz might've been able to peel off additional marginal rural Trump voters, which could have made all the difference in a close race.

Kasich's path would've come from alternatively doing slightly better in urban regions.

So, to add analogies, Kasich = Bush 2000/2004 (Compassionate Conservatism)

Jeb = Romney 2012 - marginal Romney voters

Rubio = repeat of Romney 2012 (w/ a cyclical adjustment)

Cruz = Romney 2012 + marginal Trump voters (perhaps enough to win)

Is this close to your thinking?

Kasich is not quite Bush 2000/04, but is the closest thing I can think of to that.  Kasich's perceived centrist policies would attract independents that were turned off by Trump.

Jeb would probably be like McCain in that he has to burden GWB's economy and policies.  Although Jeb! would be against HRC and there was a 2 term Dem president so he would do much better than McCain.

Rubio is an empty suit, basically Romney 2012.  I think he'd do better than Romney with College Educated Whites and Hispanics, but the 'blue wall' still holds.

I agree that Cruz may have done better than the others with Rural voters to win Iowa, and Wisconsin.  There were some rumors that Cruz may have picked Trump as his running mate so that'd help for sure.  Cruz's base would be Romney 2012 + Higher share of Hispanics, and Non College Educated Whites (Probably enough to carry him to victory).

If the Republicans want to win the popular vote they need to appeal to Hispanics more.

[Mycool]

I definitely think Trump would be the strongest performer in the Electoral College. People seem to underrate a few things:
1. People viewed Trump (in spite of his stated policy positions) as a moderate, so he appealed with the population of social conservative/economically moderate to liberal voters.
2. The fundamentals (two term Democratic President, slow, but steady economic growth, etc) pointed to about an R+1 year
3. If campaigning in a state won it, Clinton would have carried PA and FL, as they were highly visited.
4. Rural voters have tended towards economic populism, so they were attracted to a New York billionaire masquerading as one.

I think Cruz and Rubio would have under-performed Trump electorally, with Cruz losing the Midwest, PA, and potentially having a similar margin in AZ to Trump. Whereas Rubio would have carried FL, probably won OH by a narrower margin, but would be weaker in swing states. Kasich is an interesting case, as I do think he would be stronger in terms of the popular vote, but I don't see him as some unbeatable national figure. Kasich would have probably kept Virginia tighter (maybe a 2-3% Clinton win), but lost NV by a larger margin (closer to Obama in 2012) and probably lost FL, MI, and WI as well. I do think he could have carried PA, for the same reason as Trump, people who voted Republican due to the Comey letter as a vote against Clinton, not for Republican policies.

[here2view]

I really don't see the argument for how Kasich would won, or won by big numbers. He finished 4th by delegate count in the primaries and didn't even clear 50% in his home state - his only victory. No one took him that seriously during the primary ("Jeez, oh man" & "Let's stop fighting!") I remember people making fun of him for campaigning until the very end, even after Trump had all but secured the nomination.

Now, after the election is over, some people on Atlas have a completely altered view of Kasich. He really was a weak candidate. I like him as an individual but he was essentially for me the "least worst" out of the initial dozen and a half choices. I think the map vs. Clinton would have been the 2016 one, except Hillary wins Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. I could see Kasich winning New Hampshire and maybe Wisconsin. He would still lose even if he gets these two and Pennsylvania.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Kasich or Rubio would have won, but by a much narrower margin than the Beltway Conventional Wisdom^TM thinks. Rubio in particular would be in a weak position because of his narrower-than-expected victory, lack of experience, and empty suit nature. Much like Trump, he would also be undercut by factions from within his own party, as the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus would continue to be a pain, and the Trumpist/Alt-Right faction would continue to gain in strength.  There's also the Angel Barrios stuff, which would be bound to come out at some point.

[uti2]

I really don't see the argument for how Kasich would won, or won by big numbers. He finished 4th by delegate count in the primaries and didn't even clear 50% in his home state - his only victory. No one took him that seriously during the primary ("Jeez, oh man" & "Let's stop fighting!") I remember people making fun of him for campaigning until the very end, even after Trump had all but secured the nomination.

Now, after the election is over, some people on Atlas have a completely altered view of Kasich. He really was a weak candidate. I like him as an individual but he was essentially for me the "least worst" out of the initial dozen and a half choices. I think the map vs. Clinton would have been the 2016 one, except Hillary wins Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. I could see Kasich winning New Hampshire and maybe Wisconsin. He would still lose even if he gets these two and Pennsylvania.

If Kasich had Rubio's establishment support, he would've done much better. All else being equal, if you take out the handicap of establishment support rubio had, and take into account the amount of money he had (almost as much as Jeb) and compare that to Kasich & Cruz, he was the major underperformer.

[uti2]

Kasich or Rubio would have won, but by a much narrower margin than the Beltway Conventional Wisdom^TM thinks. Rubio in particular would be in a weak position because of his narrower-than-expected victory, lack of experience, and empty suit nature. Much like Trump, he would also be undercut by factions from within his own party, as the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus would continue to be a pain, and the Trumpist/Alt-Right faction would continue to gain in strength.  There's also the Angel Barrios stuff, which would be bound to come out at some point.

Well, if elected, he would essentially push for policies opposing that wing without any reservations. His first move (per the advise of his coterie) would've been to push for amnesty with no strings attached in league with the Democrats. His team would spin it as 'Identity Politics is what it takes to win, Obama proved it, and so has Rubio, deal with it'. That would potentially open him up to a primary challenge, but he absolutely would do it anyway, especially in the context of the 'beltway hype'. Even Jeb and Kasich would have had more reservations before trying to pull something like that off.

Rubio wasn't even reaching out to that group at all, he paid less attention to them than Hillary paid attention to the Bernie wing of her party. Even Romney tried to marginally pander to them in 2012. Trump at least tried to make overtures to the establishment.

Let's put it this way, if you believe that faction to be bigger than or as big as the Bernie wing of the Dem party, then he would've had to deal with just as many or more disaffected voters than Hillary in the first place.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Kasich wins for sure.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

I don't know but Hillary Clinton was the only person who could of lost to Trump.

[Mr. Smith]

I don't know but Hillary Clinton was the only person who could of lost to Trump.

Equally not true.

Look at what's happened to his staff people after a disparaging remark that his base eats, they've resigned or lost importance...usually after denying such problems.

Look at what happened to the other 16 Republicans, especially L'il Marco and Lyin' Ted?

All Trump would've needed to do is  find a label, idk...Commie Bernie, Crazy Bernie, etc., and that'd be it.  And given how flustered Bernie got when actually attacked....he probably would've lost Virginia and Nevada, canceling out MI/WI/PA anyway.

Joe Biden might've had a chance, but like Hillary, he also had problems fending off Obama...but then again, he lost to Dukakis. Actually, given all the pictures of him being touchy-feely, Trump probably would've labeled him Touchy Joe and his base like the hypocrites they are, would've eaten that up [same way they said "buh Bill!"]...and if he responded in the debates the way he did Paul Ryan, it's not improbable that reluctant NeverTrumpers would've decided for Trump out of sympathy.

No, Hillary did the right thing by effectively not feeding the troll, and really was the best choice to defeat Trump [paradoxical yes].

[darklordoftech]

Rubio and Kasich would have a chance, but not Cruz or Jeb. If Cruz was nominated, "Cruz-McConnell" would be the new "Dole-Gingrich", and Jeb has a brother who's hated more than Hillary's husband is.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

I don't know but Hillary Clinton was the only person who could of lost to Trump.

Equally not true.

Look at what's happened to his staff people after a disparaging remark that his base eats, they've resigned or lost importance...usually after denying such problems.

Look at what happened to the other 16 Republicans, especially L'il Marco and Lyin' Ted?

All Trump would've needed to do is  find a label, idk...Commie Bernie, Crazy Bernie, etc., and that'd be it.  And given how flustered Bernie got when actually attacked....he probably would've lost Virginia and Nevada, canceling out MI/WI/PA anyway.

Joe Biden might've had a chance, but like Hillary, he also had problems fending off Obama...but then again, he lost to Dukakis. Actually, given all the pictures of him being touchy-feely, Trump probably would've labeled him Touchy Joe and his base like the hypocrites they are, would've eaten that up [same way they said "buh Bill!"]...and if he responded in the debates the way he did Paul Ryan, it's not improbable that reluctant NeverTrumpers would've decided for Trump out of sympathy.

No, Hillary did the right thing by effectively not feeding the troll, and really was the best choice to defeat Trump [paradoxical yes].

It's almost as if we watched a different election. So Trump would of said "Commie Bernie" and that would of been the end of him? BAHAHA your analysis is a joke, we don't live in the 20th century anymore.

[Mr. Smith]

I don't know but Hillary Clinton was the only person who could of lost to Trump.

Equally not true.

Look at what's happened to his staff people after a disparaging remark that his base eats, they've resigned or lost importance...usually after denying such problems.

Look at what happened to the other 16 Republicans, especially L'il Marco and Lyin' Ted?

All Trump would've needed to do is  find a label, idk...Commie Bernie, Crazy Bernie, etc., and that'd be it.  And given how flustered Bernie got when actually attacked....he probably would've lost Virginia and Nevada, canceling out MI/WI/PA anyway.

Joe Biden might've had a chance, but like Hillary, he also had problems fending off Obama...but then again, he lost to Dukakis. Actually, given all the pictures of him being touchy-feely, Trump probably would've labeled him Touchy Joe and his base like the hypocrites they are, would've eaten that up [same way they said "buh Bill!"]...and if he responded in the debates the way he did Paul Ryan, it's not improbable that reluctant NeverTrumpers would've decided for Trump out of sympathy.

No, Hillary did the right thing by effectively not feeding the troll, and really was the best choice to defeat Trump [paradoxical yes].

It's almost as if we watched a different election. So Trump would of said "Commie Bernie" and that would of been the end of him? BAHAHA your analysis is a joke, we don't live in the 20th century anymore.

And yet Make American Great Again had traction in the first place, clearly enough people still do.

That's enough people who'll still hold out against "socialism" and "Communism" or what have you.

And given how had against Lyin' Ted, what hope does he have against Telegenic Trump?

[Mail-order President]

I don't know but Hillary Clinton was the only person who could of lost to Trump.

Bernie would've feel apart in the General campaign and would melt against Trump in a debate.

After the C word (communist) is used against Bernie, he would be doomed.

[America Needs R'hllor]

No. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

[Mr. Smith]

No. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

The dark side is strong in American politics.

[😥]

Kasich has won much easier than Trump. Cruz and Rubio also won not only Electoral College, but also in the national vote, unlike Trump

[Politician]

Kasich would have beaten her by a similiar electoral vote margin, Rubio would narrowly lose, Bush and Cruz would lose landslides.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Kasich would have beaten her by a similiar electoral vote margin, Rubio would narrowly lose, Bush and Cruz would lose landslides.

I'm pretty much in agreement here. A Republican was favored in 2016, but that doesn't mean that the wrong Republican couldn't have screwed it up.