Could any of the other 16 Republican's have defeated Hillary?

[Allthesaints]

IF THEY COULD HAVE THEY WOULD HAVE!!!!!! I’m sorry to SHOUT but for crying out loud do you understand what JUST HAPPENED???? 45 just slammed it like a boss.

[fightin kentuckian]

Nope, I think that most of them would have turned into McCain sooner or later, trying to out liberal a liberal. Cruz would have stuck to his conservative guns but would have lost using conventional political tactics. Only an unconventional person such a Trump could have pulled this off.

[kabar]

No way.

[freedomfiter2]

Not a chance.

[freedomfiter2]

Exactly, everyone else was either ignorant or a NWO stooge.

[UnwashedPeasant]

Most of them, absolutely, yes.

But most of them would then have governed as centrists appeasers.

Trump can excel in the job itself, more than in the campaign.

[metmom]

Nope.

[MoochPooch]

While I would have preferred another Republican candidate to Trump, I honestly don’t think anyone else could have defeated her. Which is why Trump stepped in. Simply, he did what he felt he had to do. He knew that only someone larger-than-life (take that, Castro!) could challenge Hillary.

While I wasn’t too familiar with all the other candidates, they struck me, with the possible exception of Rubio, as either too rigid or too colorless. Also, the GOP back then was in disarray.

Trump was a moderate right-winger (or a moderate liberal) who was fiscally conservative. And, of course, charismatic. I am apprehensive about his election, but happy.

A bigger question: couldn’t the Democrats have found anyone else besides Hillary and Bernie (who was an outlier)? The GOP had a lot of fresh, virile faces. I think the Dems’ choice of candidates reflects their demographic problem.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

No one except Trump addressed the middle class. The elite including the Republicans and so-called conservatives were so busy taking care of themselves and their friends and only Trump addressed the real issues. Working-class Americans have not had a raise for 20 years, their jobs have been shipped overseas and they were out of hope.
He also addressed the Islamic issue and out of control immigration. No other Republican did that.

[nathanbedford]

Of course, any one of a number of the Republican candidates could have beat Hillary and by a larger margin. The proof? It was the Republican Senators, not Trump, who had coattails in Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and even in New Hampshire. In other words, all of these Republicans were more desirable than was Trump.

The country was looking for a viable alternative to a woman who was convicted by the e-mails and by the statements of the FBI Director in the public mind to be a criminal unworthy of the office. It was not Trump who characterized Hillary to be a criminal but the e-mails and the FBI investigation.

Any one of three or four other Republican candidates such as Ted Cruz, Rubio, Carly Fiorina, or Dr. Carson were free of the baggage which burdened Trump's candidacy and brought him down nearly to the level of his criminal opponent.

The country had utterly repudiated the Obama Legacy at the level of the statehouses, at the level of the governorships, at the level of the House of Representatives, at the level of the United States Senate. It was ready for change at the presidential level and required only a Republican candidates who did not repel them. Even under these circumstances in which Trump should have walked away with the election, he could not get more votes than Hillary.

Trump's win in the electoral college is valid and settles the matter at a constitutional level but in this game of might-have-been, the reality is that Republicans chose the one candidate who could lose to Hillary and who nearly talked and tweeted his way out of the victory.

[ModelBreaker]

No. None of them could have won WI, PA and MI.

Rubio probably could have run up better vote totals in NY, Cal and MASS than Trump. But that affects the electoral college not at all. I don’t see how Rubio or anyone else besides Trump could have turned out the Reagan Democrats in the midwest. Maybe Christie—but he’s an ass.

[trebb]

Nope - if those of us who were gung-ho Cruz had got our way, Hillary would be President Elect. None of the others would have done much better or even as well for a few.

[Joe Boucher]

Oh yeah, Jeb?
Get real.

[Tuxedo]

Rubio I think would have beaten her, albeit a different path. Youth versus an aged hag. That being said, Trump will be a better President. Rubio needs to grow some more. As to the others... not sure. Jeb would have had the money to outslug her, but again... Bush/Clinton ugh. His last name was a curse. Carson was my guy, but would have wilted in front of the Machine. Christie could have given her a tussle if not for Bridgegate. The others, nah... Perry, Graham, Walker, Fiorina, Jindal, Kasich, Cruz, Gilmore, Pataki, Paul, Huckabee, and Santorum... maybe Huckabee has a decent run - folksy, well-spoken and likeable... but no. Stars lined up the way they needed to. This was a good field of candidates.

[VaeVictis]

No. Certainly not Jebro the Builder

[ek_hornbeck]

I think that many/most of the GOP candidates could have defeated Hillary, with two exceptions:

Jeb Bush, who was about as charismatic as Hillary, and was rightly perceived to be a legacy candidate just like Hillary, may very well have lost.

Ted Cruz, who checked all the right boxes for movement conservatism but had zero crossover appeal among independent voters. Trump won by getting some people who voted for Obama in 2008/12 to vote for him instead. Cruz could not have accomplished this - he would have won all of the red states and zero purple states.

I think that Rubio, Christie, Paul, and perhaps even Carson or Fiorina could have easily defeated Hillary. This isn't necessarily an endorsement of all of them, just commenting on the obvious fact that people were ready for almost any alternative to Hillary with a couple of possible exceptions.