Was Trump stronger or weaker than a generic R would have been?

[GregTheGreat657]

I'd say stronger as 2016 had one of the most economically left-wing electorates of any election of all time, and so a populist was required for the GOP to win that year.

[ModerateRadical]

In 2016? It's a mixed bag. I don't think Trump's win was the ceiling for the GOP that year, and a huge part of the reason that Trump's anti-establishment message stuck was that Hillary seemed so above it all, while Trump expressed a rage at the political establishment that people shared, even if it wasn't for the same reasons. Without Trump, there's likely fewer panicked Democrats rushing to vote for Hillary out of fear of the worst-case scenario, and probably significantly less bleeding in the suburbs for the GOP. There's probably a substantial number of people who Trump turned out who would stay home if he wasn't the nominee, but on the other hand, most of the Libertarian vote would probably swing to the Republican nominee in that scenario. Trump had seriously alienated a chunk of his party (his primary campaign was way less disciplined and ideologically coherent than his GE campaign was), and was able to recover from it b/c Hillary was too busy reaching out to moderate Republicans (who were reluctant to vote for Hillary Clinton as an alternative) in the first place to bother to keep her own party united enough to win.

[Agonized-Statism]

I don't think anyone would disagree that the McCains and Romneys of the party weren't winners, and the leading Tea Partiers like Cruz didn't have a broad enough appeal. He saved the party from a complete 2010s wilderness imo, but the problem is that it's more about Trump as a savior figure than a national populist movement, so he's sabotaging Republicans' chances.

[TDAS04]

Difficult to say.  I'm guessing that Hillary would have defeated Cruz, but she would have lost to Kasich.  As for a Romney or a Rubio, I'm not sure.  

Trump may have had to right combination of establishment backing (as little as it seemed) and grassroots backing to pull it off.  Cruz had even less establishment backing, without any more populist appeal than Trump.

[OSR stands with Israel]

These are the Republicans who were stronger than Trump in 2016 were:

1. Kasich and I think he wins between 332 EV and 353 EV(those two states in question are MI/NM)

2. Rubio and I think he wins between 309 EV and 337 EV(the three states in question are VA/MN/NM but he loses MI)

3. Trump who won 306 EV but without Access Hollywood I think he wins between 328 EV and 337 EV(only state in question is CO)

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Much much weaker.

[Agonized-Statism]

Guess I have to be the one to say it- Kasich obviously loses in a repeat of the Romney and McCain candidacies. To the grassroots, he would be a RINO, and to Democrats he would be inseparably tied to all the worst things they see in the party no matter what he says. He's only overestimated on Atlas because Democrat users have Trump to compare him to (and in any scenario where Trump is around to contend with, he also loses), and want to explain away 2016 as Hillary's weakness rather than Trump's appeal, and because there are a handful of Republican users who predict Republican victories no matter what. He loses, as does any candidate who doesn't both appeal to the base and expand the coalition. The only two who could do that are Trump and Rubio, imo.

[Redban]

Stronger. He had record support from blue-collar whites, and his celebrity status and personality helped arouse enthusiasm

[MT Treasurer]

Very obviously weaker — the only reason he didn’t convincingly beat the most unpopular Democratic nominee in history was because his own favorability ratings were somehow even worse than hers! Anything else isn’t "nuance" but obvious revisionist history promoted by people who have a vested interest in pushing the "only a populist GOP is electable" narrative. It’s disingenuous to claim that Kasich couldn’t have won WI and PA (even if it’s possible his wins would have looked more like Johnson's/Toomey's). I personally think he would have won more states than Trump, but the point is that there was a very clear path for the GOP in 2016 with or without Trump.

Also, polling was showing all of the Obama states flipped by Trump (including WI/MI/PA) as very vulnerable for Democrats well before he won the nomination (with people like Kasich, Rubio, and in some cases even Cruz faring better than Trump in all of these states). The signs of OH/IA/ME-02 rapidly trending away from Democrats were already there in 2014. Trump's 2020 "overperformance" as an unpopular incumbent only further underscores how badly he underperformed the fundamentals in 2016 against a miserable opponent after eight years under a Democratic president and Scalia's death (with his replacement being a defining issue in that election).

[MT Treasurer]

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=207302.msg4485682

I absolutely agree. I also think that the Midwest will be key to the 2016 election. A good VP choice will be essential for the GOP.

I made this post in February 2015, four months before Trump even announced his candidacy. Back then, I also made several posts predicting that PA would vote to the right of VA (and be more winnable for the GOP than VA) in 2016, at a time when the consensus was that VA was a "must-win" for Republicans, "PA is a fool's gold for Republicans" comments/threads were popping up every day on the 2016 board, and the vast majority of pundits/observers thought that Republicans needed to prioritize inroads with non-white (esp. Hispanic) voters over going all in on the Midwest. I still remember all the polls showing Republicans 'surprisingly' competitive in the Midwest while struggling in VA well before Trump won the nomination — and again, this wasn’t just the case with Trump but with the other Republicans as well. Of course, those polls were summarily dismissed as unreliable outliers.

[Mr. Smith]

Stronger.

[President Johnson]

These are the Republicans who were stronger than Trump in 2016 were:

1. Kasich and I think he wins between 332 EV and 353 EV(those two states in question are MI/NM)

2. Rubio and I think he wins between 309 EV and 337 EV(the three states in question are VA/MN/NM but he loses MI)

3. Trump who won 306 EV but without Access Hollywood I think he wins between 328 EV and 337 EV(only state in question is CO)

My first "instinct" is to agree here, however, I'm not sure whether this is just wishful thinking since we'd personally prefer Kasich over Trump for obvious reasons.

2016 was clearly the year of the outsiders, and Kasich is an insider like Hillary. The question is whether Kasich would have turned out Blue Collar Workers in the Midwest they way Trump could, who had some unique appeal to them another Republican didn't have. And if not, whether Kasich could have gotten enough support from moderates or disaffected Democrats to make up these losses. That's why I tend to say Trump was stronger than "generic Republican", although another candidate could very well have beaten Hillary as well.

[OSR stands with Israel]

These are the Republicans who were stronger than Trump in 2016 were:

1. Kasich and I think he wins between 332 EV and 353 EV(those two states in question are MI/NM)

2. Rubio and I think he wins between 309 EV and 337 EV(the three states in question are VA/MN/NM but he loses MI)

3. Trump who won 306 EV but without Access Hollywood I think he wins between 328 EV and 337 EV(only state in question is CO)

My first "instinct" is to agree here, however, I'm not sure whether this is just wishful thinking since we'd personally prefer Kasich over Trump for obvious reasons.

2016 was clearly the year of the outsiders, and Kasich is an insider like Hillary. The question is whether Kasich would have turned out Blue Collar Workers in the Midwest they way Trump could, who had some unique appeal to them another Republican didn't have. And if not, whether Kasich could have gotten enough support from moderates or disaffected Democrats to make up these losses. That's why I tend to say Trump was stronger than "generic Republican", although another candidate could very well have beaten Hillary as well.

Kasich did do very well with WWC voters in 2014 and him being actually moderate on economic issues could also help further have broad appeal . He wasn’t one of the moderates who just decided to moderate on social issues but stayed extremely right wing on economics as he actually was the most moderate candidate on economic issues in the GOP primaries as well .

[President Johnson]

These are the Republicans who were stronger than Trump in 2016 were:

1. Kasich and I think he wins between 332 EV and 353 EV(those two states in question are MI/NM)

2. Rubio and I think he wins between 309 EV and 337 EV(the three states in question are VA/MN/NM but he loses MI)

3. Trump who won 306 EV but without Access Hollywood I think he wins between 328 EV and 337 EV(only state in question is CO)

My first "instinct" is to agree here, however, I'm not sure whether this is just wishful thinking since we'd personally prefer Kasich over Trump for obvious reasons.

2016 was clearly the year of the outsiders, and Kasich is an insider like Hillary. The question is whether Kasich would have turned out Blue Collar Workers in the Midwest they way Trump could, who had some unique appeal to them another Republican didn't have. And if not, whether Kasich could have gotten enough support from moderates or disaffected Democrats to make up these losses. That's why I tend to say Trump was stronger than "generic Republican", although another candidate could very well have beaten Hillary as well.

Kasich did do very well with WWC voters in 2014 and him being actually moderate on economic issues could also help further have broad appeal . He wasn’t one of the moderates who just decided to moderate on social issues but stayed extremely right wing on economics as he actually was the most moderate candidate on economic issues in the GOP primaries as well .

Fair enough, though in 2016 things were somewhat different and it was a presidential race. Trump's protectionism certainly appealed to voters in the Midwest, and Kasich was always a supporter for free trade and voted for NAFTA. Kasich winning Wisconsin would definitely have been possible, perhaps even Pennsylvania. I'm not that sure about Michigan though.