Could Republicans have had a viable Presidential candidate this year?

[foolsguinea]

@DerekMichaels00

Rubio [snip] by being non-light skinned, he likely would have bested Romney with Hispanics and potentially blacks as well.

:dubious:
:dubious:
:dubious:
Have you ever seen a photograph of Marco Rubio?

[Measure_for_Measure]

@tomndebb

Sure. The GOP “deep field” backfired on them. All the responsible candidates* stole votes from each other so that the one utter idiot to was able to garner a greater proportion of the votes, leaving him to appear as though he was actually the most popular.

@Measure_for_Measure

Yes. This is an artifact of winner take all voting. Approval voting would mitigate against it.

In 2015-16 there were 4 outsiders running and 10 other sorts of candidates. If there were 10 outsiders running and 4 mainstreamers, then a mainstreamer would probably have won.

No. Look at the data. The four outsiders consistently drew 60-70% of the vote while establishment (Bush, Rubio, and Kasich) totals hovered around 20%.

Chart: http://wm40.inbox.com/thumbs/a2_130b1c_6e6921e3_oG.gif.thumb
Discussion: Introducing the Jimmy Carter Outsider Index, 2016 Republican Primary Edition - Politics & Elections - Straight Dope Message Board

I still think that Cruz was a great help to Trump, since the establishment would probably been ok with outsiders Fiorina or Huckabee. They aren’t picky after all.
If Trump crash and burned, then Carson and Cruz would have ballooned. Admittedly I doubt whether Carson would have prevailed. But Cruz might have. This election was destined to be weird.

[AK84]

@foolsguinea

:dubious:
:dubious:
:dubious:
Have you ever seen a photograph of Marco Rubio?

Dude, I am Pakistani and I was lighter skinned than my purebred German flatmate. However, he was white and I am not, its an ethnic term, not a one about skin tone.

[foolsguinea]

I was objecting to “non-light skinned.” Marco Rubio* is* light-skinned. He’s fair-skinned, even. In fact, he’s so light-skinned and European-looking, I’d just call him “white.”

DerekMichaels00 is talking about an imaginary Marco Rubio. If you want to make a point about him being a “minority” then call him “minority,” or [ethnically] “non-white” [although that’s technically incorrect in his case], or [for maximum silliness] “diverse.” But he is “light-skinned.” The word describes people like him.

[asahi]

@Shalmanese

I believe the Bush low energy perception was the product of him failing, not the cause of it and, if he had shored up his support from the moderates early, he’d plod along to the nomination in much the same way Romney had, picking up a reliable 30 - 60% in each state which his rivals would win one or two but not be able to mount a coherent national strategy.

Bush tanked in the polls before there were votes. He suffered from the same problem that plagues Hillary Clinton now that we’re in the general, which is our collective fatigue of dynastic politics. People are angry at the system: nobody represents the system more over the last 25-30 years than Bush and Clinton.

What Trump did with Bush is what he has done repeatedly (and successfully), which is to brand and label the candidates. He does this with simply monikers so that it sticks in people’s minds and he can refer to it over and over again. Trump may indeed be piss poor at actually running businesses that grow value for investors, but he understands marketing in the digital age and how to connect with people as well as anyone.

While other candidates were staying up all night worried about Jeb’s growing war chest, initial endorsements, and his family name, Trump zeroed in on what he realized was a weakness that he could use to exploit and excite viewers. He took a powerful man and reduced him to a little weakling. “Low energy, Jeb.” What Trump was telling the audience is, “Pffff, look at this little wussy.” Trump bullied him. Pushed him around. Dared him to fight back. And in doing that, he not only tore down Jeb Bush, he also convinced voters that he was a tough guy.

When Trump was trolling Obama in 2011 and 2012 about his birth certificate, it seemed outrageously stupid, but in fact, I think in retrospect he was priming his audience and getting a sense of the mood of the voting public. It was probably the reaction to those tweets and pressers that convinced him he had a shot at this.

@Shalmanese

Of course, the other fatal error in this campaign was the crowded field meant that all the top tier candidates were obsessed with sniping at each other, believing they could deal with Trump once the time came. In a less contested field, I think the attacks on Trump would have started a lot earlier, when they would have had much more of an effect in moulding public opinion.

This indeed worked to Trump’s advantage. If Trump had been pitted against Ted Cruz earlier, I think Cruz could have won. Trump succeeded in part because he avoided fighting a holy war until he already had a few states under his belt and a growing legion of fans. However, there was no way the party was going to rally around Cruz any more than they did Trump, so it probably remains in the realm of the hypothetical.

[Hari_Seldon]

I wish I were more sanguine than most of you seem to be that Trump isn’t viable. He has consistently done better in votes than predicted in polls and his poll numbers aren’t so bad either. It is not going to be the widely predicted blowout that could even have changed congress. So, even if Hillary wins, another four years of gridlock.