Which revisionist theory is worse?

[MT Treasurer]

Option 3.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Write-in: Hillary was the only Democrat who could have won in 2016.

[Santander]

Write-in: Ronald Reagan was not a race-baiting, anti-intellectual who ran a corrupt administration

[OSR stands with Israel]

Write-in: Ronald Reagan was not a race-baiting, anti-intellectual who ran a corrupt administration

This my friends is who calls himself a true republican. What a joke

[OSR stands with Israel]

Option one .

[RINO Tom]

Write-in: Ronald Reagan was not a race-baiting, anti-intellectual who ran a corrupt administration

This my friends is who calls himself a true republican. What a joke

He says that about himself?  Wasn't aware.  I mean he was a Democrat for a good chunk of his time on this site, and I bet he would openly acknowledge a change in views.  Anywho, Reagan's awesomeness aside, obviously the Trump theory, which is just asinine.

[Kringla Heimsins]

Write-in: Ronald Reagan actually governed the country.

In reality, everything was controlled by George H. W. Bush. Reagan only read the most important things, and relied on his astrologist for advice. And by the end, he had dementia.

[Intell]

Write-in: Ronald Reagan was not a race-baiting, anti-intellectual who ran a corrupt administration

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Write-in: Hillary was the only Democrat who could have won in 2016.

-This.

Of course, Trump was not the only electable Republican in 2016, just like Clinton was not the only electable Democrat in 1992. Both claims, however, are arguable given lack of counterfactuals. In any case, WJC did change the map. He was the first Democrat since LBJ to win California, New Jersey, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Colorado. He was also the first Democrat in history to win a presidential election while losing Texas and North Carolina.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Write-in: Ronald Reagan was not a race-baiting, anti-intellectual who ran a corrupt administration

-Uh... I'm not the biggest fan of Reagan out there, but this is a bad misrepresentation of his presidency.

[Sumner 1868]

Write-in: Ronald Reagan was not a race-baiting, anti-intellectual who ran a corrupt administration

[RINO Tom]

The rise of the anti-Reagan "right" is hideous, LOL.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The rise of the anti-Reagan "right" is hideous, LOL.

Yah it is

[uti2]

Option 3.

How about you flip this theory on the head? Any dem could've won '92 due to Perot splitting the vote by running third party, meanwhile, no other rep could've won '16 due to Trump splitting the vote by running third party had he lost the primary, he said from day 1 and even before entering the race that he would run independent if he lost the primary. He could put Trump Jr's name on the ballot in states with loser laws and he wouldn't need that much money to spend (just ~100 mil), Perot didn't spend that much either (he spent ~100 mil inflation adjusted), Perot mostly got Free Media.

How's this for an interesting option?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Write-in: Ronald Reagan was not a race-baiting, anti-intellectual who ran a corrupt administration

aren't you a Trump supporter tho

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Option 2, because the one about Clinton realigning the map is true.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Write-in: Ronald Reagan was not a race-baiting, anti-intellectual who ran a corrupt administration

aren't you a Trump supporter tho

Trump is the anti Reagan

[MT Treasurer]

Option 2, because the one about Clinton realigning the map is true.

It really isn't (see: 1988, 2000, 2008, 2016).

[OSR stands with Israel]

Option 2, because the one about Clinton realigning the map is true.

It really isn't (see: 1988, 2000, 2008, 2016).

Um it is 1992 brought the west coast to democratic fold and brought states like Illinois Vermont new hamshire ,Maine, Michigan , New Jersey to democratic fold

[MT Treasurer]

Option 2, because the one about Clinton realigning the map is true.

It really isn't (see: 1988, 2000, 2008, 2016).

Um it is 1992 brought the west coast to democratic fold and brought states like Illinois Vermont new hamshire ,Maine, Michigan , New Jersey to democratic fold

That wasn't because of Clinton. Any other Democrat likely would have won those states as well, the trends were already evident in 1988.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Option 2, because the one about Clinton realigning the map is true.

It really isn't (see: 1988, 2000, 2008, 2016).

Um it is 1992 brought the west coast to democratic fold and brought states like Illinois Vermont new hamshire ,Maine, Michigan , New Jersey to democratic fold

That wasn't because of Clinton. Any other Democrat likely would have won those states as well, the trends were already evident in 1988.

-"Blue Wall" states NJ, PA, MD, and DE, as well as probable WJC-only states TN, KY, and GA all trended Republican in 1988. However, of these, only NJ was a Ford--->Clinton state.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Option 2, because the one about Clinton realigning the map is true.

It really isn't (see: 1988, 2000, 2008, 2016).

Um it is 1992 brought the west coast to democratic fold and brought states like Illinois Vermont new hamshire ,Maine, Michigan , New Jersey to democratic fold

That wasn't because of Clinton. Any other Democrat likely would have won those states as well, the trends were already evident in 1988.

-Also, the pro-Dukakis trend in New England may have just been a product of Dukakis being from New England, just like the pro-WJC trend in the South was probably largely a product of WJC being from the South.

[Young Conservative]

Option 2 is so cringeworthy I cannot pick any other.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Option 2, because the one about Clinton realigning the map is true.

It really isn't (see: 1988, 2000, 2008, 2016).

Since 1992, Democrats have only lost the popular vote for president once (2004) and have won four presidential elections with over 300 EVs.  Republican have won three by very narrow margins.  Trump was the first Republican since Bush 1 in 1988 to get over 300 EVs. 

2000 was a regional realignment, not a national one.  While Appalachia started becoming solidly red for the first time, the coasts and the Upper Midwest continued to vote D by narrow margins.  2008 wasn't a realignment because minority turnout (especially black turnout) was above average due to a candidate of color (Obama) on the ballot.  For reference, here are some stats about 1992.

States that have voted all D for president since 1992: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, MN, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA
Clinton '92 states that voted R in 1988: CA, CT, DE, IL, ME, MD, MI, NV, NH, NJ, NM, OH, PA, VT
States that voted all D from 1992-2012: ME-2, MI, PA, WI

If that's not a realignment, then I don't know what is.

[libertpaulian]

Option 2, because the one about Clinton realigning the map is true.

It really isn't (see: 1988, 2000, 2008, 2016).

Since 1992, Democrats have only lost the popular vote for president once (2004) and have won four presidential elections with over 300 EVs.  Republican have won three by very narrow margins.  Trump was the first Republican since Bush 1 in 1988 to get over 300 EVs. 

2000 was a regional realignment, not a national one.  While Appalachia started becoming solidly red for the first time, the coasts and the Upper Midwest continued to vote D by narrow margins.  2008 wasn't a realignment because minority turnout (especially black turnout) was above average due to a candidate of color (Obama) on the ballot.  For reference, here are some stats about 1992.

States that have voted all D for president since 1992: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, MN, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA
Clinton '92 states that voted R in 1988: CA, CT, DE, IL, ME, MD, MI, NV, NH, NJ, NM, OH, PA, VT
States that voted all D from 1992-2012: ME-2, MI, PA, WI

If that's not a realignment, then I don't know what is.

/mic drop