How would Scott Walker have done against Hillary Clinton

[Blair]

Walker was a flameout in the primary- he was Rick Perry of 2016- looked very good on paper, talked up in Iowa etc but then when he opened his mouth his campaign fell apart. I know it feels like years ago but I Walker was by far the worst campaigner; his flip flops on abortion, his pledge to build a wall with Canada and him saying defeating unions gave him foreign policy experience (combined with his awful debate performances) meant that he was really awful.

The logic that Trump was bad, therefore everyone else would do better is extremely flawed. Sure someone like Kasich, Romney, Rubio would have done better than Trump but Walker had completely collapsed within 3-4 months of launching

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Walker was a flameout in the primary- he was Rick Perry of 2016- looked very good on paper, talked up in Iowa etc but then when he opened his mouth his campaign fell apart. I know it feels like years ago but I Walker was by far the worst campaigner; his flip flops on abortion, his pledge to build a wall with Canada and him saying defeating unions gave him foreign policy experience (combined with his awful debate performances) meant that he was really awful.

The logic that Trump was bad, therefore everyone else would do better is extremely flawed. Sure someone like Kasich, Romney, Rubio would have done better than Trump but Walker had completely collapsed within 3-4 months of launching

-Romney and Rubio would not have done better than Trump.

[Nyvin]

This "Anyone would've done better than Trump" theory is getting kinda ridiculous. 

[Blair]

Walker was a flameout in the primary- he was Rick Perry of 2016- looked very good on paper, talked up in Iowa etc but then when he opened his mouth his campaign fell apart. I know it feels like years ago but I Walker was by far the worst campaigner; his flip flops on abortion, his pledge to build a wall with Canada and him saying defeating unions gave him foreign policy experience (combined with his awful debate performances) meant that he was really awful.

The logic that Trump was bad, therefore everyone else would do better is extremely flawed. Sure someone like Kasich, Romney, Rubio would have done better than Trump but Walker had completely collapsed within 3-4 months of launching

-Romney and Rubio would not have done better than Trump.

In terms of the popular vote they sure would have

[blacknwhiterose]

trump was weaker in total votes but stronger re: transformational votes.

stop kidding yourselves: scott walker could have earned more votes (possible) and still lose the election.

This.  Scott Walker would have run up more typical margins in Texas, Arizona, and other traditional Republican regions of the sunbelt, but would not have appealed as well as Trump in the industrial Midwest outside his native Wisconsin.  Marco Rubio might have pulled a few more millennials and help seal up Florida.  I think Walker/Rubio would have beaten Hillary in the PV and the EC, but the EC would have been closer.

[Mr. Smith]

This "Anyone would've done better than Trump" theory is getting kinda ridiculous. 

It's looking more obvious that the opposite is true.

But anyway,

The hyped Scott Walker with his record at the time of announcement should've locked it up in Pennsylvania, Iowa, Ohio, and Wisconsin,...and flipped Nevada or Colorado rather than Michigan.

The one who actually ran would've lost North Carolina and probably had enough negative coattails to get Deborah Ross into the Senate.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

Walker/Rubio is a terrible ticket for taking on Hillary, much worse than Trump. She'd easily win NV and PA, take ME-2, and likely win MN.

Certainly win MN.

[Dr. MB]

Walker/Rubio is a terrible ticket for taking on Hillary, much worse than Trump. She'd easily win NV and PA, take ME-2, and likely win MN.

Certainly win MN.

Yeah, if she wins Michigan she's winning Minnesota. Florida for sure would go Republican with Rubio at the top, but Walker it's a tossup.

[libertpaulian]

Clinton would have obliterated him.  If Walker was the nominee, she would have run her 2008 WWC-themed campaign as opposed to her 2016 SJW coastal elite one.

All she would have had to do was play ads about his record on labor in the Rust Belt.

However, the one downside for the Dems in a Clinton vs. Walker race is that VA, NC, GA, TX, and AZ's trends toward the Democrats would have been somewhat stymied because the suburbs would have been more friendly to the Republicans.

[Arbitrage1980]

Walker was a flameout in the primary- he was Rick Perry of 2016- looked very good on paper, talked up in Iowa etc but then when he opened his mouth his campaign fell apart. I know it feels like years ago but I Walker was by far the worst campaigner; his flip flops on abortion, his pledge to build a wall with Canada and him saying defeating unions gave him foreign policy experience (combined with his awful debate performances) meant that he was really awful.

The logic that Trump was bad, therefore everyone else would do better is extremely flawed. Sure someone like Kasich, Romney, Rubio would have done better than Trump but Walker had completely collapsed within 3-4 months of launching

-Romney and Rubio would not have done better than Trump.

A Rubio-Kasich ticket would have re-aligned the electoral map in a way not seen since Reagan.

[uti2]

Walker was a flameout in the primary- he was Rick Perry of 2016- looked very good on paper, talked up in Iowa etc but then when he opened his mouth his campaign fell apart. I know it feels like years ago but I Walker was by far the worst campaigner; his flip flops on abortion, his pledge to build a wall with Canada and him saying defeating unions gave him foreign policy experience (combined with his awful debate performances) meant that he was really awful.

The logic that Trump was bad, therefore everyone else would do better is extremely flawed. Sure someone like Kasich, Romney, Rubio would have done better than Trump but Walker had completely collapsed within 3-4 months of launching

-Romney and Rubio would not have done better than Trump.

A Rubio-Kasich ticket would have re-aligned the electoral map in a way not seen since Reagan.

More like in a way not seen since Dukakis-Bentsen, especially considering that Rubio & Kasich have a lot in common with both of those candidates respectively in terms of their backgrounds and political posturing.

[Young Conservative]

Why do people think Hillary would somehow have more populist appeal Walker? Makes zero sense.

[Pericles]

He's a terrible candidate but so was Trump and he'd be running against a terrible candidate in Clinton. It could go either way.

[uti2]

He's a terrible candidate but so was Trump and he'd be running against a terrible candidate in Clinton. It could go either way.

What makes him significantly more 'terrible' than rubio? Rubio's entire strategy was to avoid and enable Trump during the campaign trail, the candidates like Jeb/Walker who attacked him early on were damaged by Trump's counter-attacks.

Rubio collapsed just as quickly when he finally attacked Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marco-rubio-is-running-scared/2016/02/03/787074bc-caca-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html

[Vosem]

Given his considerable record in appealing to that constituency, he would've done significantly better in the Midwest, across the board, than Donald Trump, definitely keeping IA/WI/MI/PA in his column and certainly flipping MN. He might've had somewhat less appeal to snowbird olds (I can see him still losing FL, for instance, though conversely Hispanic turnout wouldn't have been anywhere near as good, so perhaps not), but he would've won by a similar EC margin, and done significantly better in the popular vote.

[Maverick J-Mac]

He would've gotten around 330-350.  Regardless of the rhetoric you hear from the right about Trump being the only one who could beat Clinton, there's alot of candidates who would've done a little better.  Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, and Scott Walker would've all done better.  Mitt Romney would've won by at least 8 points.  We would've seen a Republican route.  It almost seemed like Trump did all he could to lose as if he was hired by the Clintons which seems like something they'd do.

[uti2]

It almost seemed like Trump did all he could to lose as if he was hired by the Clintons which seems like something they'd do.

The first part of your argument, any Generic R wins by a similar or slightly greater margin is one thing, but this second part...

This is a paradoxical argument and you're not taking the argument to its logical conclusion. If this were Trump's intention, what would he have done had he not been the nominee? He was threatening an independent run from day 1, so in that context, how would she lose unless she faced a united opposition which would only be in the form of Trump?

Perot barely spent any of his own money on his run, he mostly had free media...

[Maverick J-Mac]

http://

[Maverick J-Mac]

It almost seemed like Trump did all he could to lose as if he was hired by the Clintons which seems like something they'd do.

The first part of your argument, any Generic R wins by a similar or slightly greater margin is one thing, but this second part...

This is a paradoxical argument and you're not taking the argument to its logical conclusion. If this were Trump's intention, what would he have done had he not been the nominee? He was threatening an independent run from day 1, so in that context, how would she lose unless she faced a united opposition which would only be in the form of Trump?

Perot barely spent any of his own money on his run, he mostly had free media...

Trump as a 3rd party nominee would've been devastating to the Republican nominee.