Who would have been the Republican nominee had Donald Trump not run?

[Beet]

Discuss.

[Real Texan Politics]

Definitely Ted, but I don't think he would've won as many states as Trump did.

[El Betico]

Maybe Jeb would have been far more competitive without being targeted by Trump from the beginning, the low energy thing was really effective...I can see at some point a two horse race between him or Rubio and Cruz...the establishment candidate would have won with a speedy alignment behind him like in this year Dem primary.

Sometimes I also wonder if Trump would have survived with a Lee Atwater alive and well...

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Hot take: Scott Walker.  Donald Trump's candidacy was such a fundamental curveball to the race that it could have been very different.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Cruz.  Although it wouldn't be as lopsided, He forms a plurality in a similar form that Trump did while Kasich, Jeb and Rubio only get around 20%, each.

[SevenEleven]

Do you guys think Rubio and Cruz hissing at each other in Spanish on the debate stage plays out differently without Trump standing in the middle?

[Cayahougac]

Cruz.  Although it wouldn't be as lopsided, He forms a plurality in a similar form that Trump did while Kasich, Jeb, and Rubio only get around 20%, each.

I agree, with Cruz taking the Huckabee santorum wing and probably Rubio being the 08 Romney. however, in this nontrump scenario, I still think another candidate will be a factor either christie or paul, as even without trump Jeb really bungled his campaign during the debates.

[brucejoel99]

Unironically, I think Jeb! wins.

He still morphs from the juggernaut he was considered to be before Trump humiliated him into a weak frontrunner, & I'd wager that he gets overtaken by a flavor-of-the-month Carson. Walker still craters, as he was a god-awful campaigner; whatever's left of his support goes to Jeb!, who's able to regain a shakily meager-but-firm lead in the polls after San Bernardino. Cruz, campaigning as the anti-establishment boogeyman, surges in IA & wins big there; Jeb! takes second by a bit, & Rubio & Carson are clumped together. However, Jeb! wins by about 7 points in NH, defeating other establishment candidates & Cruz. Kasich & Christie drop out, & SC is close between Jeb! & Cruz, but ultimately Jeb! wins very narrowly there; say, by 1 point. NV's pretty unpredictable, but I'll give it to Cruz due to his superior ground game in caucus states. Rubio's dying campaign gets put out of its misery on Super Tuesday. Cruz takes a delegate lead after victories in the South, but his lead isn't big enough to be sustained. The race is close, but after winning FL & other narrow victories on March 15th, Jeb! pulls ahead. The race continues into April, but Jeb! is ultimately the GOP nominee.

[Hope For A New Era]

Definitely Cruz.

As for whether he would have won the election...that's harder to say. People didn't like Clinton, true, but Trump brought with him a very specific turnout surge that is unique to him. Remove a tiny part of that surge - just a few thousand votes in three states - and he loses.
Cruz would not have had that surge - but he also would have received a lot of the vote that in 2016 was driven to third parties by the unpopularity of the two major candidates.

Probably a narrow Cruz victory, I guess?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Definitely Cruz.

As for whether he would have won the election...that's harder to say. People didn't like Clinton, true, but Trump brought with him a very specific turnout surge that is unique to him. Remove a tiny part of that surge - just a few thousand votes in three states - and he loses.
Cruz would not have had that surge - but he also would have received a lot of the vote that in 2016 was driven to third parties by the unpopularity of the two major candidates.

Probably a narrow Cruz victory, I guess?

Well, it would have been a very different map. What if the turnout surge was in VA-01 or VA-05 or NV-02, instead of MI-05 and PA-08?

[darklordoftech]

Definitely Cruz.

As for whether he would have won the election...that's harder to say. People didn't like Clinton, true, but Trump brought with him a very specific turnout surge that is unique to him. Remove a tiny part of that surge - just a few thousand votes in three states - and he loses.
Cruz would not have had that surge - but he also would have received a lot of the vote that in 2016 was driven to third parties by the unpopularity of the two major candidates.

Probably a narrow Cruz victory, I guess?

Well, it would have been a very different map. What if the turnout surge was in VA-01 or VA-05 or NV-02, instead of MI-05 and PA-08?

Cruz would appeal more to wealthy, religious, and “neocon” voters but less to working-class voters.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Ted Cruz. He embodied the Tea Party wing of the GOP. Although you could make the case for Jeb! due to his fundraising.

[dw93]

It wasn't gonna be Jeb. Even Republicans didn't want another Bush and his campaign isn't gonna be any different (at least not meaningfully) without Trump and Kasich is still gonna be a slightly better 2016 version of Jon Huntsman so he isn't happening. Christie and Walker also do better without Trump but not enough to secure the nomination. So it comes down to Cruz  or Rubio. The nominee will be Rubio if the donors dump Jeb early enough, if they don't than Cruz gets it. Rubio has a decent shot against Hillary, Cruz loses.

[Badger]

No idea, but it wasn't going to be Jeb, Kasich, or Cruz.

So, Walker or Christie?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Whoever channels the immigration issue. Could be Cruz, because Walker had to take orders from the Koch brothers on that issue. It wouldn't be Rubio or Jeb, for that reason. As always, both left and right on this forum there is a critical failure to understand this issue and how important a role it has played in the politics since 2007.

[TDAS04]

Cruz.

[RINO Tom]

Definitely Cruz.

As for whether he would have won the election...that's harder to say. People didn't like Clinton, true, but Trump brought with him a very specific turnout surge that is unique to him. Remove a tiny part of that surge - just a few thousand votes in three states - and he loses.
Cruz would not have had that surge - but he also would have received a lot of the vote that in 2016 was driven to third parties by the unpopularity of the two major candidates.

Probably a narrow Cruz victory, I guess?

Well, it would have been a very different map. What if the turnout surge was in VA-01 or VA-05 or NV-02, instead of MI-05 and PA-08?

Cruz would appeal more to wealthy, religious, and “neocon” voters but less to working-class voters.

The 2016 GOP electorate wasn’t any more “working class” than the Democratic one, and its “working class” voters would not have been as unified without Trump, either, IMO.

[Samof94]

What if the convention is contested?

[Chips]

Cruz, probably.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Definitely Cruz.

As for whether he would have won the election...that's harder to say. People didn't like Clinton, true, but Trump brought with him a very specific turnout surge that is unique to him. Remove a tiny part of that surge - just a few thousand votes in three states - and he loses.
Cruz would not have had that surge - but he also would have received a lot of the vote that in 2016 was driven to third parties by the unpopularity of the two major candidates.

Probably a narrow Cruz victory, I guess?

Well, it would have been a very different map. What if the turnout surge was in VA-01 or VA-05 or NV-02, instead of MI-05 and PA-08?

Cruz would appeal more to wealthy, religious, and “neocon” voters but less to working-class voters.

The 2016 GOP electorate wasn’t any more “working class” than the Democratic one, and its “working class” voters would not have been as unified without Trump, either, IMO.

I think the comments above were more about a hypothetical 2016 Cruz vs. Clinton GE.  I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Cruz holds up a little better in suburbia (especially suburbs with significant evangelical influences), but doesn't make quite as strong of inroads in places like Elliott County, KY (even if it probably would have still flipped).

[H. Ross Peron]

Definitely Cruz.

As for whether he would have won the election...that's harder to say. People didn't like Clinton, true, but Trump brought with him a very specific turnout surge that is unique to him. Remove a tiny part of that surge - just a few thousand votes in three states - and he loses.
Cruz would not have had that surge - but he also would have received a lot of the vote that in 2016 was driven to third parties by the unpopularity of the two major candidates.

Probably a narrow Cruz victory, I guess?

Well, it would have been a very different map. What if the turnout surge was in VA-01 or VA-05 or NV-02, instead of MI-05 and PA-08?

Cruz would appeal more to wealthy, religious, and “neocon” voters but less to working-class voters.

The 2016 GOP electorate wasn’t any more “working class” than the Democratic one, and its “working class” voters would not have been as unified without Trump, either, IMO.

I think the comments above were more about a hypothetical 2016 Cruz vs. Clinton GE.  I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Cruz holds up a little better in suburbia (especially suburbs with significant evangelical influences), but doesn't make quite as strong of inroads in places like Elliott County, KY (even if it probably would have still flipped).

The concern is less anomalies like Elliott County, Kentucky but rather the Northern white working-class counties-both metropolitan (Macomb, Richmond) and non-metropolitan-where the bulk of Obama-Trump voters are concentrated. It seems highly unlikely a very religious Southerner with conventional Republican views on the economy would have had any appeal with the Northern WWC. Hillary would easily have retained the Blue Wall against Cruz though she would have lost Florida and Iowa to him while Wisconsin and Ohio would have been uncomfortably close.

[Turbo Flame]

Cruz, probably.

That's what I thinking.

[hughesr44]

Cruz. With that being said however, I think it would've been a close race between Rubio and Cruz with Kasich in third. I don't personally think Ted would've won as many states as Trump did either.