NBC/WSJ national: D: Clinton 52% Someone else 45%; R: Someone Else 52% Trump 45%

[Mr. Morden]

NBC/WSJ national poll, conducted June 19-23:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/poll-majority-republicans-prefer-someone-else-trump-n599861

[Sir Mohamed]

With one strong opponent, the Trumpster would have lost the primaries. That’s still my theory. The divided field was his biggest push. Although he got the largest number of votes of votes in total numbers, he only received a little more than 44%. Romney got over 52% in 2012, McCain got almost 49% and W has had 68% in 2000.

[IceSpear]

Pointless poll in reality, but as a political junkie it's somewhat interesting, since "someone else" is the ultimate opponent. Some Democrats may be picturing Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, others could be picturing Zell Miller or Jim Matheson, and everything in between (including "unbeatable titan" Joe Biden.) Similarly, on the Republican side, people could be picturing anything from Jon Huntsman to Mitt Romney to Ted Cruz to Rand Paul to Mike Huckabee.

I interpret that as Hillary's inevitability being unshakable from the start, regardless of who her opponent(s) were. Trump could've been in trouble with a strong unifying figure, but it's doubtful such a figure could ever have materialized, and same goes for the Dem side. Candidates who tried to be all things to all people tended to flame out early or put in embarrassingly pathetic performances (Walker, Jindal, Paul, Rubio, O'Malley.)

[Mr. Morden]

I interpret that as Hillary's inevitability being unshakable from the start, regardless of who her opponent(s) were. Trump could've been in trouble with a strong unifying figure, but it's doubtful such a figure could ever have materialized, and same goes for the Dem side. Candidates who tried to be all things to all people tended to flame out early or put in embarrassingly pathetic performances (Walker, Jindal, Paul, Rubio, O'Malley.)

It's less clear to me that this is telling us about what might have been, as opposed to how supportive the parties are of their nominees now.

I mean, 45% say they're satisfied with Trump as the nominee.  But in an alternate universe where Kasich didn't run and Rubio didn't make a debate gaffe, a larger %age than that might have been supportive of Republican nominee Marco Rubio.  Given that Trump started the primary season with a bunch of 35% plurality victories, I don't think it would have necessarily taken a "strong unifying figure" to beat him.  Just a somewhat different field of candidates and/or strategies for beating him.