Who would be President right now if Trump had never entered politics?

AviatorShades said:
Cruz would have won the primaries then I think beaten Hillary worse than Trump did via being less inflammatory, having a tighter grip on the religious vote and being hispanic. 97.475% confident.
Click to expand...

It's easy to assume the second place guy would've won but one thing to consider during the primaries was Trump, Bush, Kasich, and Rubio were all competing performing best with urban voters while Cruz had somewhat solidified the rural vote already. So if trump doesn't run, that means possibly one of those other three takes the vote share Trump was accumulating. Speculating only goes so far but it is an important note when thinking of the map.
 
Mitt Romney would've won, easily. He would've given it a try if Trump didn't.
 
AviatorShades said:
Cruz would have won the primaries then I think beaten Hillary worse than Trump did via being less inflammatory, having a tighter grip on the religious vote and being hispanic. 97.475% confident.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Cruz would probably be President. Kasich might have had a chance, but Cruz is the safe bet.

Or Hillary. Cruz and the rest of them didn't seem to know how to beat her. Trump (*cough* Putin *cough*) did.
  1. Clinton
  2. Cruz
  3. Kasich
IMO. That order.
 
nostradumbass said:
Kasich and Lil Marco wouldn't have won the primary. Kasich is basically a democrat who just runs as a republican for some reason, which is why he's the one democrats were trying to convince electors to vote for in one of their early tantrums while trying to find a way around the electoral vote.
Click to expand...

In what possible sense is Kasich "basically a Democrat"?

Lead said:
It's easy to assume the second place guy would've won but one thing to consider during the primaries was Trump, Bush, Kasich, and Rubio were all competing performing best with urban voters while Cruz had somewhat solidified the rural vote already. So if trump doesn't run, that means possibly one of those other three takes the vote share Trump was accumulating. Speculating only goes so far but it is an important note when thinking of the map.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that people are actually trying to analyze the situation rather than just expressing tribalism in the form of analysis.
 
Jack V Savage said:
In what possible sense is Kasich "basically a Democrat"?



You're assuming that people are actually trying to analyze the situation rather than just expressing tribalism in the form of analysis.
Click to expand...

I mean, I can understand why on its face someone would think second place moves up to first and so on but it just isn't that simple. It's all speculation so I don't feel the need to put my foot down specifically one this cause there's some much that changes without him in the race. Does that cause the Bush campaign to not derail as much as it did? If so, does that keep him in the race longer which keeps a split establishment field longer. Who out of the establishment field wins prizes like New York and California? Let's not pretend Cruz was signaling his own nail in the coffin when he picked Carly as an early VP pick in a desperate attempt to get a state he couldn't win because of the demographic he was pulling.
 
Bestonian said:
Mitt Romney would've won, easily. He would've given it a try if Trump didn't.
Click to expand...

He stayed out cause of Bush, not Trump. That was clear early 2015 he still wanted to do so and when he didn't, he took some indirect shots at Bush and somewhat loosely backed Rubio. I don't think any of his calculation was is trump in or out, especially since he made his decision before the summer of Trumps announcement.
 
Nobody but Trump stood a chance against Clinton. So yeah, Hillary would be Presidentress.
 
Lead said:
I mean, I can understand why on its face someone would think second place moves up to first and so on but it just isn't that simple. It's all speculation so I don't feel the need to put my foot down specifically one this cause there's some much that changes without him in the race. Does that cause the Bush campaign to not derail as much as it did? If so, does that keep him in the race longer which keeps a split establishment field longer. Who out of the establishment field wins prizes like New York and California? Let's not pretend Cruz was signaling his own nail in the coffin when he picked Carly as an early VP pick in a desperate attempt to get a state he couldn't win because of the demographic he was pulling.
Click to expand...

Again, I think you're taking it way more seriously than anyone else is.

Even with the same candidates and everything we know leading up to the election, chance plays a huge role, in terms of people making last-minute choices about whether to show up, stuff like the Comey letter which was decisive, and more. It's impossible to predict what would happen with all the dynamics changed with any certainty, and people who claim more are showing how ignorant they are or are trying to make some other point.

What we know about the race pre-Trump was that the fundamentals favored a Republican winning and it appeared that JEB was the most likely individual winner of the nomination but a big underdog against the field (going by betting odds, he had like a 1-in-4 chance). Clinton was very likely to get the Democratic nomination from the start (and that's unlikely to be affected by Trump) so she'd be the most likely winner of the general but a small underdog against the field.
 
AviatorShades said:
Keep in mind that Hillary's campaign covertly promoted Trump as the Republican frontrunner after determining she had no chance against Rubio or Kasich and iffy chances against Cruz (yes they knowingly did what they're pretending to think Russia did).

http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the...ed-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

I don't think she would have won the presidency under any circumstances... Republicans would have had to nominate a cactus or something.
Click to expand...
Killary would beat any man under the right circumstances.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Again, I think you're taking it way more seriously than anyone else is.

Even with the same candidates and everything we know leading up to the election, chance plays a huge role, in terms of people making last-minute choices about whether to show up, stuff like the Comey letter which was decisive, and more. It's impossible to predict what would happen with all the dynamics changed with any certainty, and people who claim more are showing how ignorant they are or are trying to make some other point.

What we know about the race pre-Trump was that the fundamentals favored a Republican winning and it appeared that JEB was the most likely individual winner of the nomination but a big underdog against the field (going by betting odds, he had like a 1-in-4 chance). Clinton was very likely to get the Democratic nomination from the start (and that's unlikely to be affected by Trump) so she'd be the most likely winner of the general but a small underdog against the field.
Click to expand...

Weren't you seeing it as dead even on party odds alone? I don't think there were many analysts favoring either side strongly. Not that it mattered.
 
Lead said:
Weren't you seeing it as dead even on party odds alone? I don't think there were many analysts favoring either side strongly. Not that it mattered.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think from the start, the GOP was favored to win (not by much, though). But the clown show candidates made that seem hard to believe. Kasich seemed like the only really plausible general winner among the actual candidates. Trump seemed like a joke candidate, but now he's a joke president.
 
Jack V Savage said:
I don't think so. I think from the start, the GOP was favored to win (not by much, though). But the clown show candidates made that seem hard to believe. Kasich seemed like the only really plausible general winner among the actual candidates. Trump seemed like a joke candidate, but now he's a joke president.
Click to expand...

You add in the electoral aspect and that makes it even more difficult to consider matchups. I don't know if other candidates would've won the rust belt states. I'm wondering if any of these are long term shifts for the map. I'd consider Wisconsin turning red but find it hard to believe Michigan and Penn would remain a red state.
 
Every poll said Hilary was going to beat Trump, but he surprised everyone. Even Trump and his own team thought they were going to lose.

So who the hell knows who would've won if Trump lost the primary?

We are living in strange and turbulent times.
 
Jack V Savage said:
I don't think so. I think from the start, the GOP was favored to win (not by much, though). But the clown show candidates made that seem hard to believe. Kasich seemed like the only really plausible general winner among the actual candidates. Trump seemed like a joke candidate, but now he's a joke president.
Click to expand...
No way Kasich wins. He's not a person that gets conservatives excited. Or maybe anyone.
 
KONG-D'SNT-TAP said:
Ted Cruz is slime and the majority f the country knows it. Only dingbats and other ultra religious wackaloons would vote for him.

He has no chance in hell.
Click to expand...

Couldn't pretty much the same be said about Trump?

I'm curious about what might have happened if the Democrats had had a real primary with legitimate candidates running instead of a coronation of someone a huge portion of the country despises.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,663
Messages
55,432,835
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top