Scott Walker v. Hillary Clinton

[Senator-elect Spark]

How would have Walker fared in a general election?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

He would have won, but in a more (pre-2016) conventional map for an election.  That might mean not taking Michigan but coming closer in (and maybe winning) more diverse states.  It would be more visible in a county map, with far fewer Sun Belt suburban counties flipping- and while he would have won Wisconsin, it would have looked more like the Walker 2014 map than the Trump 2016 one.

[I Can Now Die Happy]

sorry EC, but you're clearly thinking wishfully on the behalf of every movement-conservative type Republican. The whole 'every other Republican would have won at even greater levels' sentiment is mostly driven by wishful thinking for your ideology. I admire your passion though, but at the same time your presence on Atlas is somehow more tolerated by virtue of you also siding against Kerplumpf.
 
To answer the OP....it depends how Scott Walker ends up as the nominee. He clearly didn't have the charisma to make it in the 2016 primaries. Let's assume that everyone else running in 2016 had a freak accident, leading to Scott Walker being the only GOP presidential figure remaining...maybe he can use the resulting anti-Hillary paranoia as a result of every other GOP candidate being taken out of commission to win? lmao

Anyway, maybe he could win through exploiting the fact that many voters nationwide don't know much about him, allowing him to define himself early? Of course, he'd be up against the full force of the Hilldawg machine. He was able to win in 2010 and 2014 due to low turnout from the D's, but 2016 Presidential turnout, plus being attacked relentlessly, could easily lead to him losing states like Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, etc. He'd get the partisan GOP vote, the partisan conservative vote, and not much else imo. Many who who voted Trump in the original time line would either stay home or vote third party.

Hillary would have to screw up big time to lose to Walker. We wouldn't have had a Presidential candidate so bereft of charisma since 2004 (Kerry) if he became the nominee.

[Vosem]

Pretty much all polling conducted in the 2016 cycle showed that any other Republican would’ve polled a consistent 5-7 points stronger than Trump; the idea that populism is some special salve, or that Obama/Trump voters weren’t going for Walker Republicans in 2018, is silly. Walker would’ve won and flipped NH, MN, ME-Statewide, and maybe CO. NV has a pretty hard ceiling for presidential Republican candidates and I think VA would’ve been gone for any Republican candidate except in a landslide situation, which Walker v Clinton wouldn’t have been.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Pretty much all polling conducted in the 2016 cycle showed that any other Republican would’ve polled a consistent 5-7 points stronger than Trump; the idea that populism is some special salve, or that Obama/Trump voters weren’t going for Walker Republicans in 2018, is silly. Walker would’ve won and flipped NH, MN, ME-Statewide, and maybe CO. NV has a pretty hard ceiling for presidential Republican candidates and I think VA would’ve been gone for any Republican candidate except in a landslide situation, which Walker v Clinton wouldn’t have been.

Cruz probably does worse than Trump though

[I Can Now Die Happy]

Pretty much all polling conducted in the 2016 cycle showed that any other Republican would’ve polled a consistent 5-7 points stronger than Trump; the idea that populism is some special salve, or that Obama/Trump voters weren’t going for Walker Republicans in 2018, is silly. Walker would’ve won and flipped NH, MN, ME-Statewide, and maybe CO. NV has a pretty hard ceiling for presidential Republican candidates and I think VA would’ve been gone for any Republican candidate except in a landslide situation, which Walker v Clinton wouldn’t have been.

sauce ?

You are aware that early polls before the primaries concluded don't mean much, right? Sorry dude, it seems you're doing the same thing ExtremeConservative and Old School Republican are doing

[pops]

[OSR stands with Israel]

Scott Walker/Marco Rubio 305
Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine 233


Kaine is what allows Hillary to keep VA.

[MT Treasurer]

316 - 222

Closest states: MN, MI, FL, PA, CO

[RINO Tom]

316 - 222

Closest states: MN, MI, FL, PA, CO

This, with a possible Clinton win in Michigan.  People really overestimate how much of her loss had to do with some unique Trump appeal to certain demographics and how much more it had to do with her unique weakness with those demographics.

[Blair]

I think Walker would have been a weak candidate- he pretty much fell apart in the first months of the campaign, and was very unsuited to the prime time of a presidential campaign. There's a certain risk of him falling apart.

[I Can Now Die Happy]

I think Walker would have been a weak candidate- he pretty much fell apart in the first months of the campaign, and was very unsuited to the prime time of a presidential campaign. There's a certain risk of him falling apart.

yep! exactly on point

[Mr. Smith]

Only Trump. No exceptions.

[RINO Tom]

Only Trump. No exceptions.

LOL, never would have picked you to be a Hillary Clinton apologist in 2018 when I first joined.

[MT Treasurer]

LOL, never would have picked you to be a Hillary Clinton apologist in 2018 when I first joined.

Yeah, agreed. He’s always been somewhat contrarian, but it’s unfortunate that he’s basically become indistinguishable from your average Democratic/Clinton Atlas hack.

[Peanut]

I think Walker would have been a weak candidate- he pretty much fell apart in the first months of the campaign, and was very unsuited to the prime time of a presidential campaign. There's a certain risk of him falling apart.

yep! exactly on point

Huh, NYCMM, the stars have aligned just right and I agree with you for once! Trump had an appeal unique to Trump, and Hillary was uniquely unappealing. The Obama-Trump voters would not have supported someone that was just another typical Republican (they voted against Romney for a reason.) Walker would have performed better in some areas of the country (Orange county CA, NV, CO, VA), but weaker in areas Trump did great in (OH, IA, MI, PA) which might be enough for a narrow Hillary victory. We'd flip PA and MI for sure, as well as ME-02, which causes a tie, leaving us at needing whichever Trump state for a Hillary victory (with possibilities in AZ, OH, or FL.)

Trump and Hillary were uniquely positioned for a close election. Walker was a worse candidate than Trump because he didn't excite the right people. Walker vs. Hillary would be a Tossup, but it'd be a... different kind of Tossup, if you know what I mean. There's a reason some Democrats believe Pence is easier to beat than Trump.

[ViaActiva]

Pretty much all polling conducted in the 2016 cycle showed that any other Republican would’ve polled a consistent 5-7 points stronger than Trump; the idea that populism is some special salve, or that Obama/Trump voters weren’t going for Walker Republicans in 2018, is silly. Walker would’ve won and flipped NH, MN, ME-Statewide, and maybe CO. NV has a pretty hard ceiling for presidential Republican candidates and I think VA would’ve been gone for any Republican candidate except in a landslide situation, which Walker v Clinton wouldn’t have been.

Agree with this - Hillary was just so unpopular and scandal ridden that any other Republican (bar maybe Cruz) would likely have won.