What would a Rubio electoral map have looked like?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Basically a rerun of 2012 with a 3.5 point nationwide swing. Some improvement for Rubio in Virginia (due to the Black vote) and probably Iowa (HRC's no Obama), making Virginia a tossup, but Clinton still having an edge there due to the continued expansion of NoVa. Don't overestimate Rubio; don't underestimate Rubio's similarity to Romney, and don't underestimate HRC's ability to shape-shift. This party system is extremely stable. Had it not been for Trump, the state-by-state correlation between the 2012 and 2016 results would have been over .98, especially if the candidate most similar to Romney (Rubio) was picked.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Bingo.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Half of 2015 was the year of Trump. So that survey may well be colored by his unique candidacy.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Trump was by far the biggest story of 2015 in the United States, outshining anything Obama did. His favorability ratings did not change substantially from the time he became the Republican frontrunner to November 8, 2016. Everyone had an opinion of him by late July 2015. You are assuming Trump favorability and Obama favorability are independent variables. I doubt that's the case.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Amazing debate in this thread. Very well-informed and articulate posts by both sides.

It seems like everyone agrees that Rubio most likely would have won the national popular vote since he would have done significantly better in CA, AZ, TX, GA, than Trump? Rubio probably would have lost CA by around 15 points (compared to Trump's 30) and won TX by 12-15 (compared to Trump's 9). My guess is GA would have been a comfortable 8-10 point margin.

-Agree on all except natl popular vote and CA.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Rubio wouldn't have lost IA in the GE, but he probably wouldn't have won NV either. I think it would have been Romney 2012 + FL + IA + OH + WI + ME-02 + maybe CO + maybe PA.

Well, keep in mind that ME-02 is lepage/trump land, but besides that, rubio would have problems in CO due to his federal drug position, and Hillary would've been able to run a more effective rustbelt campaign without the russian hacks, if it was a more conventional race, allowing her to consolidate more votes from bernie supporters. She'd remind people of rubio's positions on the auto bailouts, etc. and how it's the same as romney's. She does that and she is much more likely to keep the blue wall in tact causing an electoral problem for him.

*Kasich is a more unique kind of candidate with the specific type of regional appeal for the area, which is why they shouldn't be grouped in together electorally. Remember, Kasich was going to do the OH-PA-Upstate NY route, which is very similar to what Trump did, Jeb and Rubio don't have the same appeal in that corridor, it's highly probable that Jeb/Rubio would've tried to push through NV anyway, and run into EV issues and come up short electorally.

-Basically true.