Which revisionist theory is worse?

[Arbitrage1980]

Clinton 1992 was a re-alignment, although that was not the consensus at the time. He won by running as a charismatic moderate southern democrat who eschewed the stagnant urban liberalism of his party while rejecting the harsher elements of Reaganism. But the re-alignment occurred because of his relatively successful presidency on the domestic front, mainly the sharp reduction of crime and strong economic growth. This was critical because it won over college-educated suburban whites who used to vote GOP at the presidential level. Also, the GOP's rightward shift on social and cultural issues alienated new england, mid-atlantic, upper midwest, and the west coast.

[Phony Moderate]

1992: Brown was a real quasi-libertarian weirdo back then (and kind of still is). He may have beaten Bush but he could just as easily have gone down in a landslide. Tsongas could easily have been painted as an out-of-touch liberal, as could have Harkin. Kerrey (who is actually quite charismatic) could have won a big victory though, despite his, er, issues.

2016: Kasich would have won a bigger victory on a lower turnout. I have a feeling that Rubio would have choked, losing all of the key states in the North and maybe even Florida. Cruz could have won but probably wouldn't have.

So I dunno, they're about equal.

[Slow Learner]

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?

Perot took equally from Bush and Clinton.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

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

Yah it is

Cute. You think reaganism has a monopoly on the right wing. Well it doesn't. trumpists are right wingers too, whether you like it or not.

[Xing]

Obama only won because of the recession.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

I am not certain that another Democrat would have carried Ohio, Nevada, Montana, Colorado, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Missouri the way Clinton did.  That's 94 Electoral Votes, which would have put the Democrats at 276 EV.  In such a scenario, NH and NJ would have been battlegrounds. 

[Santander]

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

aren't you a Trump supporter tho

I also admire Nixon, Wallace and LBJ, all of whom were all of the above. I'm just saying that both sides have whitewashed Reagan's legacy and turned him into an abstraction that borders upon deification.

And no, I never claimed to be a "true Republican"... why would want to be that? I happen to be aligned with the GOP on almost all of the issues, but I abhor the party itself and most of its politicians.

[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

I also admire Nixon, Wallace and LBJ, all of whom were all of the above. I'm just saying that both sides have whitewashed Reagan's legacy and turned him into an abstraction that borders upon deification.

And no, I never claimed to be a "true Republican"... why would want to be that? I happen to be aligned with the GOP on almost all of the issues, but I abhor the party itself and most of its politicians.

Dude the reason Reagan is so liked is that he was the most successful president at least in the past 55 years, not because Republicans think he is a demi-god  .

[Nyvin]

How about the very pervasive theory that any Republican would've won bigger than Trump did?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

How about the very pervasive theory that any Republican would've won bigger than Trump did?

-You really think Lyin' Ted and Liddle Marco had a chance?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

How is 2 in anyway not true? I'm not saying THE ONLY ONE, but yes, the majority of the Republican field would have done worse, and that's an understatement.

Kasich could have won. and... Paul? Maybe. Way too boring though. He is way too uninterested in what he actually speaks about. Christie just collapsed. I like Huckabee, but I'm not sure that message resonates in 2016, and the though of a southern Republican swinging the rural Midwest is a bit odd. I think back to Snowguy (?) saying that much of Minnesota is held in check by the fear of being like Mississippi. Very low ceiling.

So, literally maximum 2 out of the other 16 GOP candidates would have had a chance against HILLARY CLINTON and neither really had a prayer as one is the antithesis of GOP voter values and Kasich lol. Hardly revisionist. Thus,

How about the very pervasive theory that any Republican would've won bigger than Trump did?