Who'd be winning without Trump?

[ClimateDem]

If Trump hadn't got in, who would be winning?

Probably Cruz. He'd be able to appeal more to the Trump section of the electorate while keeping a lot of his own.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

If Trump weren't in, I'd actually guess Cruz would be doing worse. He has drafted off Trump for months.

I honestly have no idea what would have happened. There are just too many possibilities.

[Ronnie]

I think the race might have materialized in several different ways without Trump in the race--it would have hinged on whether Christie would have launched the same attacks on Marco Rubio as he did right before the New Hampshire primary.  If he would not have done that, then Rubio would have quickly emerged as the frontrunner, going on to win South Carolina and Nevada.  If not, then it might have remained a wide-open race, with Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich all splitting states.  I might make maps later.

In any case, I see Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio as the only potential victors in a race without Trump.  Nobody else seemed nearly as capable as those three in running their campaigns and in getting their messages across.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Cruz was supposed to sweep the South in a Huckabee esque fashion. Bush would probably have been the  frontrunner right now on his way to the nod.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I still maintain that Scott Walker would have won the nomination had Trump never entered.

[Maxwell]

Cruz. He's the only one after Trump with any skills. He would've dominated that field.

[andrew_c]

Either Bush or Rubio.

[Xing]

Probably Bush or Kasich. I think Rubio would've still fizzled under pressure, and Cruz wouldn't have been as successful. Anti-establishment Republicans wouldn't really have a clear candidate to coalesce behind, so it'd probably end up being a 2012 redux with Bush or Kasich as Romney v 2.0.

[morgieb]

Probably Cruz due to the fact that he would've probably swept most of the South w/o Trump, though Bush wouldn't have tanked.

[Volrath50]

I'm not sure if he'd be winning, but I think Christie could have been a major candidate, appealing to many of Trump's OTL voters, at least if he had presented himself right.

[Santander]

Jeb or Rubio.

[°Leprechaun]

Possibly Kasich or Cruz. Right now Kasich can't win because it is mathematically impossible.

[BlueSwan]

Leaning Rubio.

[ScottieF]

Cruz, with Rubio right behind.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Honestly, Jeb!

[IceSpear]

Are people seriously saying Jeb? lmao

[standwrand]

probably Walker vs Bush vs Rubio with Rubio dropping after he lost FL.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Kasich would have won NH, without Trump and went on to win MI and OH, while Cruz, except for FL would have won SC.A Cruz & Kasich battle would have been great for GOP. But, Biden would have been the only one to beat Kasich in Ohio RiverValley and Iowa. Which Trump is Romneyesque against Clinton.

[Vosem]

I see a strong argument that someone would've played the role of _trump in mobilizing conservative voters, and would currently be the target of pushback from the establishment: ironically enough, the likeliest person to seize this role would've been Cruz.

If there is no such presence in the race because all the options (Cruz, Carson, Huck, Santorum, perhaps Jindal) fail to break out, Iowa almost certainly goes to Walker, with NH endorsing some establishment choice (Walker himself would've had a chance to win with the splintered field, but one of Bush/Christie/Kasich is likelier; Paul also may have had a shot) is likelier. South Carolina would be a battle between Walker, a more-conservative choice (Cruz/Huck/Santorum/Jindal/Perry), and an establishment pick. Nevada would've been a last stand for either Rubio or Paul (though in a race without a boogeyman, Paul may have emulated his father and continued onward), unless the latter had won an earlier state. From there, first- and second-places in one of the early states probably continue onward.

Walker would've been favored, but it would've been a deeply splintered race without such a presence, with probably no candidate managing to break 20% until after the first several contests, and such has the tendency to produce very, very weird results. The reason so many candidates entered was because they saw the chance to win that existed (which _trump eliminated for most) and went for it. Some chance exists that had no candidate successfully broken out (maintain a few Kasich '16/Gingrich '12 campaigns, who stay in and remain strong only in their home regions, and you get this result) there could've been a brokered convention regardless.

Bush had a chance to emerge as the establishment option by winning or coming in second in NH, doing well in SC, and then trying to consolidate the establishment lane, but he certainly was never much of a strong favorite. Rubio grabbed the "acceptable to moderates and TPs" shtick after Walker was eliminated, but in a race where Walker remained Rubio would've been extraneous; he has no appeal to IA or NH, and he would've found it difficult to compete in SC. Rubio's early campaign focused a great deal on NV; he may have been attempting for a surprise victory there. I didn't think Rubio's campaign had much of a shot until Walker cleared the way for him, and I don't think it would've been particularly successful in a race where that never occurred (especially since he'd be overshadowed by Bush as the FL candidate). I can see Rubio being among those who drop out before the voting starts and goes back to his home state to run for reelection (as Walker did in real life).

[bballrox4717]

Probably Cruz. Cruz really did a fantastic job or marginalizing other social conservatives and won Iowa with Trump in the race. I imagine he still wins Iowa and plays much better in the South. There's no telling what happens in New Hampshire. Kasich probably takes it because Rubio's gaffe would still happen (Christie was gunning for Rubio for weeks) and Bush clearly wasn't connecting with voters. Carson would have risen higher than he did IRL but still wouldn't have lived up to media scrutiny.

The field probably doesn't winnow as quickly, since with no Trump, Bush probably does well enough in NH and SC to stay in until he loses in Florida. Cruz wns SC, Nevada, sweeps the South on Super Tuesday, with Kasich taking Vermont and Rubio taking Minnesota and Virginia. Cruz keeps winning until Kasich takes Michigan. Bush and Rubio's war with each other allows Cruz to take Florida, but Kasich continues to gather momentum by winning Illinois and Ohio on the 15th. As of now, the stop-Cruz forces would be mobilizing behind Kasich to try and prevent Cruz from obtaining a majority of delegates, but its apparent that there's practically no way to prevent him from winning the plurality. 

This election cycle was doomed for the GOP from the start, honestly. Bush, Walker and Rubio were all deeply flawed front runners, Kasich was never going to be able to run a national campaign, and Trump or no Trump, Cruz is clearly the best political operator in the party right now. He's going to be a huge front runner in 2020 if Trump loses.