Lion of the Blogosphere

Could anyone but Trump have defeated Hillary?

The conventional wisdom of the GOPe before the election was “Hillary is a very weak candidate, and if anyone else were running against her, we would win, but because the stupid voters nominated Trump, we will lose.”

The post-election reality is that Trump won Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, all states which George W. Bush lost in 2000, the last time a non-incumbent Republican won the presidential election.

Does anyone think that Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush (the two most likely nominees had Trump never gotten involved) would have won those states that George W. Bush lost?

I think that without Trump rousing the prole-white Rustbelt vote, any other Republican would have had to win via the Bush 2000 route and have won the following states which Trump lost: New Hampshire, Colorado and Virginia.

Could Jeb or Rubio really have won Virginia which Trump lost by 4.9 percentage points? It’s true that W trounced Gore there in 2000, but since then, there has been big population growth in the blue DC suburbs. Obama beat Romney in Virginia by 3.88 percentage points in 2012 even without a hometown vice-presidential running mate. Would Jeb or Rubio really have done so much better in Virginia that they would have been able to make up the deficit by which Trump lost? Since 2000, Virginia has become a solidly blue state, with a Democratic governor (Terry McAuliffe) and two Democratic Senators (Mark Warner and of course Hillary’s running mate Tim Kaine).

If the Republican nominee had been anyone but Trump, winning the election would have been a longshot.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 15, 2016 at 11:22 am

Posted in Politics

28 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Rubio or Jeb might have won, but not as decisively as Trump and it would have been a victory without a future. By opening up the Midwest Trump has given the GOP a new lease on life, and his refusal to pander to the Chamber of Commerce on immigration has given the Right an opportunity to plug the hole on that front, which was slowly siphoning away our Electoral College votes in the Southwest and Upper South. Trump was the only sane choice this election.


    November 15, 2016 at 11:36 am

    • Exactly my thoughts. GOP needed to change the map or else they’d lose long term. Trump got MORE of the Hispanic and black vote than Romney, so this idea that Hispanics are turned off by Trump’s mouth and policies is only what the Dems and GOPe convinced themselves to believe. Putting the rust belt in Trump’s column put the Dems on defense. Now their work to take back the Presidency in 2020 and even 2024 is even more cut out for them. Our chances for a filibuster proof majority in the Senate also look great for 2018. Two top priorities now for Trump: a conservative supreme court, and immigration restrictionism.

      Bilbo Baggins

      November 15, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    • Rubio and Jeb would have been crushed by a Clinton landslide. Kasich and Paul are probably the only two that could have been serious competitors, and that would depend on it Paul improving his debating skills.


      November 15, 2016 at 5:46 pm

      • Rubio, Kasich, Jeb, all would havr been DOA. You have to simultaneous keep conservatives on board and get the Reagan democrats.

        Kasich and Jeb would have meant conservatives stayed home. Also, Jeb, Rubio, maybe Kasich are too tainted by the Republican brand (likes big business, doesn’t care about the working man).

        Only Trump, I think, could get over the toxic republican brand with Reagan democrats. Going forward, the GOP needs to be single minded about fixing its brand in the eyes of Reagan democrats or the republican party WILL cease to exist. End of story.


        November 15, 2016 at 11:58 pm

  2. Well Hillary got 5 million fewer voted than Obama.

    And Trump got fewer votes than Romney or Bush so it seems plausible that many other candidates would have won.

    I think that we’ll have to wait for all of the final state numbers to settle down to compare apples to apples. Hillary was clearly a very weak candidate but we need to look to the actual votes to determine where her weakness was.

    Lion o' the Turambar

    November 15, 2016 at 11:36 am

    • Analysis of the electoral map shows Trump would have beaten Obama in 2012.


      November 15, 2016 at 12:12 pm

    • This is due almost entirely to lower voter turnout in non-swing states. Voter turnout in swing states is up and Trump got more votes them Romney there (already, with more still being counted).

      Trump traded the votes of college educated white women on the cost for blue collar whites in swing states.


      November 15, 2016 at 2:14 pm

      • Well I am not a big fan of the “vote flipping” but there is some amount of that.

        If we just look at OH, Trump gained 110K votes on Romney. But HRC lost 510K from Obama.

        On the other hand Trump would have lost OH to Kerry in 2004. And he was 100K votes below Bush in 2004.

        So it seems a stretch to conclude only Trump would have won since any generic republican capturing even 20% of the votes Hillary lost would have won the state. And there is a recent history of Bush getting more votes.

        Lion o' the Turambar

        November 15, 2016 at 5:38 pm

      • Correct. Analyzing the 2012 vs 2016 numbers for all 4 major candidates, Trump would’ve won close to 40 states had GOPe voters in red and blue states “came home” and voted Trump. They did not, but it didn’t change the end result. GOPe voters in the swing states did come home, as did new GOP voters in the Rust Belt. In Florida and Pennsylvania, Democratic turnout was up, but Republican turnout was up even more. In OH, MI, WI, and IA, Dem turnout was down, GOP turnout was up. In red and blue states, turnout on both sides was down, with the exception of Texas and Arizona, where Dem turnout was up because of Hispanics, but not enough for Clinton to carry either state. Trump’s gamble paid off. Minnesota is now a swing state: that’s how much the map changed.

        Bilbo Baggins

        November 15, 2016 at 7:48 pm

  3. Most of Virginia is happily sucking on the teat of the status quo in one way or another. It’s not just a matter of population growth in the beltway. I really don’t think the kind of people who so love big spending on “defense” and so forth would vote Trump.


    November 15, 2016 at 11:42 am

  4. The country is very anti-establishment right now.

    Running Jeb Bush would have reminded people too much about George Bush. Between Bill (Hilary) and George, Bill always wins. Because to be frank, George was the worst president in history.

    People saying that the election needed more establishment Cayman islands cabana boys need to realise the primaries are a good reflection of whether people will turnout. Trump has historic numbers of primary votes even in a 16 person field.

    Clinton on the other hand would have lost the primaries even without media, DNC, vote rigging and southern blacks. Her turnout among the left was god awful, even with the media characterising Trump as Hitler/Putin agent. Her strategy was literally to appeal to Never Trumper cucks.

    Surprise! You can barely fill a bingo club with the amount of cucks in most states.

    While Lubio and the Cuck king won’t have media against them, they wouldn’t have got turnout. The election was won on passion (or lack of) core supporters. That’s why the polls missed it. People need a reason to vote, not an obligation.

    The Philosopher

    November 15, 2016 at 12:02 pm

  5. I think it’s conceivable that a GOPe candidate could have won Nevada and Colorado, with more time and money spent in those places. Still, the Rust Belt strategy gave us a much more comfortable lead. While getting Nevada is still feasible for Republicans, Colorado is becoming ever bluer by the minute – like Virginia with the DC metro area, the growth ofDenver has tipped the state to the left.

    Trump was always the risky option. The other guys wouldn’t have won us the Rust Belt (except MAYBE for Kasich, but I doubt it), but no one was worried about an absolute blowout where we’d end up losing Utah and Georgia under, say, Rubio.

    What 2012 showed was that going for the safe option wouldn’t cut it anymore. The odds were rigged against the Republicans, so going with the high-risk, high-rewards option was the best chance we had.


    November 15, 2016 at 12:05 pm

  6. People talk about what a terrible candidate Hillary was, but that is in part because Trump wrecked her.

    In January of 2013, Hillary’s average favorability was 63/28 or +35. As of the election it was around 41/54 or -13. True:

    Obviously you had things like Wikileaks, but someone had to pick up all the negatives and market them. Trump didn’t hold back, calling her, among other things, the founder of ISIS, enabler of Bill’s womanizing, destroyer of women, etc. He only ever called her Crooked Hillary, as if that was her name. In seemed childish, but in a hundred million American brains ‘crooked’ is the word association that pops up first in relation to Hillary. The expert on branding made that her brand. In fact the words ‘Crooked Hillary’ were no doubt implanted by Donald J. Trump in the brains of the FBI, along with the rest of us.


    November 15, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    • Exactly, it is laughable to assume that soft belly Jeb or puppy dog Marco could have withstood the Clinton barrage, let alone fight back. Think back to the second debate, that was tantamount to a barroom brawl, the third debate while not quite the melee was still rough business. Think Jeb or Marco would have challenged her on anything? Hah. Regardless, why was I sposed to vote for Jeb again? so I could learn how to love? Marco? to honor his magic penis? Think Kasich would have lasted 5 minutes with his dipshit aw shucks routine? Maybe with those retards in whatever state it is he’s from but that’s about it.

      Not a longshot, not even close. The republicans would do well to realize, without Trump, they would be no where, probably starting on a short steep road to complete irrelevance.

      2 Minute Alpha

      November 15, 2016 at 7:55 pm

  7. Little Marco is a far-right ultra-True-Conservative and would have lost yuge in Virginia. The key blue swing in VA has been in the DC client NoVA region and they hate people like Little Marco and Cruz there as much as they hate Trump.

    As part of his extremism, Little Marco has been an anti-marijuana crusader that promised to make it illegal again in the states that have legalized; the president has the power to overthrow those state laws with the stroke of a pen (Gonzales v Raich). That means Little Marco would have lost 60-40 or worse in Colorado and also lost big league in Nevada. He could even have lost Alaska.

    Which adds up to zero chance for Little Marco in the Electoral College.

    Jeb!, of course, had no virtues at all as a candidate and would have been schlonged easily everywhere.

    Remember that Hillary was prepared for Little Marco and Jeb! and had years of strategy developed against them.

    The real question is how Ted Cruz or Scott Walker might have done. Those guys might have had a chance; Ted Cruz in particular is a sneaky little weasel and hard to finish off. But they were never on the GOPe menu.


    November 15, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    • Scott Walker was too boring to ever win the nomination.

      Ted Cruz only came to prominence as a last resort to stop Trump. Without Trump the “party decides” rule would have won out, and the party was split between Jeb and Marco but no way did they want Cruz who is universally hated by everyone who knows him.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 15, 2016 at 1:42 pm

      • I like Cruz. He was good as Solicitor General in Texas. He is very smart. He is a great debater. Not sure why you think people hate him. He is not super charismatic.

        not too late

        November 15, 2016 at 7:21 pm

      • Because all reports are that people hate him.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 15, 2016 at 7:25 pm

      • This isnt correct.

        Yeah GOPe didnt like him but that proves his cred as a change agent who wasnt a business as usually guy.

        But Cruz won Iowa when there were still 12 people in and won on super Tuesday against establishment candidates.

        He was a front runner way before consolidation.

        Lion o' the Turambar

        November 15, 2016 at 7:38 pm

    • The one thing I remember about Cruz is his agenda included abolishing the IRS, he’s not that smart

      2 Minute Alpha

      November 15, 2016 at 7:57 pm

    • Walker was a scrappy political fighter and might have made a good President, but I don’t see how he could have gotten elected or beaten Hillary.

      I belong to a Facebook WSJ type group and it was filled with #nevertrump types who thought Marco was the savior. However after the election, Trump was suddenly getting “strange new respect.” Many of them admitted that only Trump could have won this election, No other Republican had a chance getting Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin. It had to be Trump.

      Mike Street Station

      November 16, 2016 at 6:22 am

  8. My congressman is a Republican and a member of the House leadership (but not Ryan). Just prior to the election, he told me that it was a pity that the Party didn’t nominate someone who was a better candidate, such as Scott Walker or Marco Rubio. I like Walker and don’t have much use for Rubio, but neither went anywhere in the primaries. Trump carried 38 states and got 3 million more votes than any other GOP primary candidate. Granted that Hillary was not a tremendous candidate and had a ton of baggage, I doubt that any other Republican could have carried Wisconin, Michigan or Pennsylvania.

    Black Death

    November 15, 2016 at 1:37 pm

  9. Pretty astonishing yet totally predictable that Hillary won 93% of the vote in Washington DC. Actually that really says it all about the election in general.

    Two in the Bush

    November 15, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    • Lot of good it did her. Hey maybe she could run for DC mayor. Can you imagine a job of more drudgery? ugh.

      not too late

      November 15, 2016 at 7:26 pm

  10. No.

    While Michelle Obama is quoted as saying “when they go low…we go high”, in truth none of the republican nominees from the past decade have been willing to fight back. It had to be Donald Trump.


    November 15, 2016 at 5:07 pm

    • While Michelle Obama is quoted as saying “when they go low…we go high”,…

      And then her husband told blacks Trump “would tolerate the Klan”.

      Doesn’t seem like Obama “going high” to warn about Donald KKK Trump raised up the black vote did it!


      November 15, 2016 at 6:11 pm

  11. The Virginia Governor also allowed ex-felons to vote, which added about 67,000 who were likely to favor HRC.

    Professor Helmut Norporth predicted in March, that Trump had an 87% chance of beating Clinton using his ‘Primary Model’.

    “The model is 86 percent certain that Hillary Clinton will defeat Marco Rubio. Clinton would get 52.4 percent and Rubio 47.6 percent of the two party vote.

    According to the model, Ted Cruz or any other candidate (except Trump) would fare the same way against Clinton.”


    November 15, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    • Actually I think the Virginia Supreme Court overturned Governor Terry “The Cuck” McAuliffe’s order giving felons the right to vote as being beyond the scope of the powers granted to him by the VA Constitution.

      Two in the Bush

      November 15, 2016 at 9:13 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: