The question can be understood to be asking any one of a few things. It might be asking is it possible that there could have been nothing rather than the something we experience, that is, is there anything that had to exist making nothingness impossible.
There are other ways to interpret the question, such as given the world as we find it, is anything in it necessary, such as stars or life. The answer to that one is yes. I believe that given the initial conditions of the universe, much or all that followed was necessary, meaning that if another singularity broke symmetry as this one did and generated the same particles and forces, yes, they would generate galaxies of solar systems that would eventually harbor life and mind.
One might understand it to mean that given that our universe, which might not have existed (a contingent existence) but obviously does, is there anything else that necessarily exists for the world to exist, that is, even if there could have been nothing rather than something, does the fact that this universe exist imply the necessary existence of something prior to produce or sustain it. The question in this form invokes the musings of the ancients about necessary first causes (prime movers), and is an aspect of cosmological arguments for gods, the argument being that the universe is contingent (God didn't have to create it), but given its existence, an intelligent designer is necessary. That argument has been refuted. It is not clear that the existence of the universe requires that there be a prior cause.
But rather than list all of the ways the question can be conceived and answering them all, I'll answer the question asked in the first paragraph - could there have been nothing, or is there something that necessarily exists (is not contingent upon any other condition, and couldn't not exist).
I'd have to answer that perhaps that is the case, but if so, we cannot know that. It's an interesting question in that it underscores two different meanings of the word
possible. The first is the obvious one - a thing or process or relationship that we know could come to pass because it has happened before.
But there are also things we call possible only because we don't know them to be impossible, but in fact may be and might even be come to be understood as impossible some day, but not yet. It is in that sense that I say that it is possible that there there be nothing rather than something even if it isn't because if the latter, I don't and can't know that to make come to that conclusion. From that perspective, I can call nothing a necessary being, but I also cannot say that nothing fits that description.
There is a book called
Necessary Existence by Alexander R. Pruss and Joshua L. Rasmussen, an abstract from which defines a necessary being as "a concrete entity that cannot fail to exist," and adds that, "an example of such a being might be the God of classical theism or the universe of necessitarians.
Necessary Existence offers and carefully defends a number of novel arguments for the thesis that there exists at least one necessary being."
This sounds relevant to the form of the question I have chosen to address, although I must say that I am doubtful that I could be convinced that anything necessarily exists as defined here by any argument. The reasoning faculty evolved within the universe to understand it from within, and is a poor judge of what is necessarily true about the universe as a whole or anything that may lie outside of it or have preceded it, as we can see when we look at very large and very small scales still within the universe and find them to be counterintuitive. Of course they are, as intuition also evolved to evaluate things on the scale of sensory experience, so I pretty much ignore such arguments as this book might contain.
Why not just say that existence implies existence - and for which we might all agree - instead of a wild goose chase as to discovering this 'being'. 
