Never heard this question asked but it got me thinking.

Who could have beaten Trump and Pence in 2016 and what policies/campaign would they have needed to run to do so?

In a democracy even Hilary would have beaten Trump.

Sadly, she did not beat him by enough to become president in the USA.

But we live with a very dumb system where those ultimately arbitrary lines mean that Republicans can become president. Well GHWB would have still been president, but no Republican would have won since then

We have the electoral college for very good reasons. A large country with 50 states deserves a balanced representation. I get the optics from other countries, but I strongly support our electoral construct.

We have the electoral college for very good reasons. A large country with 50 states deserves a balanced representation. I get the optics from other countries, but I strongly support our electoral construct.

We have the electoral college for very good reasons. A large country with 50 states deserves a balanced representation. I get the optics from other countries, but I strongly support our electoral construct.

No. She didn’t win. And you already know that.

are you talking in primary space or in the general?

In primary space, I think no one could have beaten him. His media saavy and ability to play on emotions was too good; he really was not offering different policies than any of the other Republicans were hawking. He did perhaps go over the top on immigration, but that's because he correctly recognized the huge emotional lever that it represented.. As much as I don't like Cruz, he had the resume and the credibility and Trump steamrolled him with a bunch of BS.

As far as in the general, I think Clinton should have beaten him on the issues. It was strictly a horribly executed campaign. When you look at the tiny margins Trump won by and then look at how little effort Clinton put into campaigning in those states, its really like she handed him the election.

Basically my point is, the 2016 election was not won or lost on issues. It was won on media based fear mongering and good versus bad campaign operations. Roger Stone and other Republican strategist like Bannon were master salesman and sold an inferior product just well enough where they had to (WI, OH, MI) to enough disillusioned white voters. And they almost did it again in 2020 when the stink around Trump was so much more obvious.

Hillary would have coasted to victory if the upper peninsula of Michigan was part of Wisconsin and the Florida panhandle was part of Alabama.

But we live with a very dumb system where those ultimately arbitrary lines mean that Republicans can become president. Well GHWB would have still been president, but no Republican would have won since then.

Someone will of course argue the founding fathers thought the Florida panhandle being part of Florida was critical to our country or some other deeply stupid nonsense.

Never heard this question asked but it got me thinking.

Who could have beaten Trump and Pence in 2016 and what policies/campaign would they have needed to run to do so?

In 2024 the Democrats need the next Obama. Smart, personable and light enough on experience to not have a lot of baggage. I'm not sure I'm seeing that candidate. Mayor Pete maybe?

I’ve always felt that way in the past (especially since I grew up in a state with only three electoral votes and now live in one with four). But seeing the winner of the election lose the popular vote 2 times in the last 6 elections after only happening 3 times in the first 53 elections has me rethinking it. The senate would still give states equal representation regardless of population. But the president would always be who the population as a whole voted for.

But maybe it’ll just be temporary blip. After happening in 1876 and 1888 (which were closer together than the most recent ones) it didn’t happen again for over 112 years

Sure. I’m a staunch independent (unaffiliated). Neither party represent my interests so I vote based on issues and not party.

I live in California, which is hard left. I hate the fact that we don’t have a balanced representation in our state. I also split my time in Arizona which is far more centrist than hard left or right.

I work in the tech industry with a career spent in tech startups (been a founder myself) and despise the anti-business policies adopted in my state thus driving many startups and even mainstream tech companies out of the state.

Im also strongly pro-choice, pro LGBTQ+, same sex marriage, etc, yet also strongly pro business (particularly startup and small business). I support the 2A though I’m not a gun owner/enthusiast.

Frankly, there are far more voters like me than hard left or right.

I see the electoral college as a critical construct of our democracy because states can manipulate votes left or right (ie public sector unions).

I’ve been extraordinarily lucky in my tech startup career and can live anywhere in the world I choose. Luck is a great factor in wealth creation. I’m staying here for now though I’ll be completely out of CA within 3 yrs for political/tax reasons.

We have the electoral college for very good reasons. A large country with 50 states deserves a balanced representation. I get the optics from other countries, but I strongly support our electoral construct.