Replies

Trump won an impressive victory, carrying 31 out of 50 states. But in several of them — including key states such as Georgia, Arizona, and Texas — he won a smaller percentage of the vote than Mitt Romney did. Indeed, nationally, Trump won 46.2 percent of votes cast, whereas Romney won 47.2 percent. In the 37 states considered “non-swing” or uncompetitive this year, Hillary Clinton’s margin of victory was greater than Barack Obama’s in 2012.

These numbers suggest why Trump's victory in the electoral college was hardly a "landslide" as Trump's surrogates have been asserting. The numbers there say otherwise. That is not to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his victory, he won fair and square and he is about to be elected by the college of electors, and properly so.

But it is to say that sweeping assertions about Trump being the only Republican in the field who might have beat Hillary are not to be taken at face value.

The point of bringing this up is not to re-litigate the primary season, but it is to contest the often bruited assertion on these threads that those who supported other Republican candidates would have doomed the cause to defeat. The point of that? To win relief from the unremitting denigration of those who supported Ted Cruz or other Republicans during the primaries but dutifully switched to Trump upon his nomination.

But it is to say that sweeping assertions about Trump being the only Republican in the field who might have beat Hillary are not to be taken at face value.

I don't think there was any other Republican in the field that could have beaten Hillary Clinton. This isn't a reflection on the capabilities of the candidates, but on the peculiarities of this campaign and on Trump's path to 270 electoral votes.

Pick a generic Republican candidate this year (Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz), and ask yourself two questions:

1. Would this candidate have won any states that Trump lost?

2. Would this candidate have lost any states that Trump won?

I sat down and went through this a few times, and I had a hard time convincing myself that the number of electoral votes the generic GOP candidate might have gained in #1 was enough to offset the likely loss of EVs in #2.

For example: I don't think there was a single candidate other than Trump who would have won Pennsylvania.

Interestingly, I think any of these generic GOP candidates would have outperformed Trump in the popular vote, only to lost anyway -- because they simply would have gotten bigger GOP margins in deep "red" states.

I agree in part and disagree in part with your comments.

Trump’s claim to a “landslide” is thin, given that he was 2nd in the popular vote and had several narrow wins. However, Trump has little choice but to go out and assert that he won a mandate in a landslide and has a mandate. He did win well over half the states (so it is not pure fantasy) and he based his election on implementing real change. He needs to maintain momentum to overcome opposition to his agenda, language is a crucial tool in this effort.

The recent successful (in policy terms) presidents- Reagan, Clinton, Obama all used their win, regardless of size (Clinton won roughly only 43%) to generate a perception of a mandate and win policy victories. I believe that Trump will create the perception of a mandate to overcome both potential GOP establishment and Dem opposition.

While Trump was not my first choice (I backed Cruz) his pure outsider status gives him a unique opportunity that Cruz or other candidates would not have had.