How would Rubio/Kasich be doing against Clinton/Kaine?

[uti2]

First of all, Kasich wasn't going to be VP, so you can take out Kasich out of that slot, second of all, the polling showed that in terms of swing states Kasich was the only one beating her comfortably in all of them, rubio was behind in oh,va, etc, and only tied in FL.

[uti2]

Rubio was never going to win the primary.

The polling conducted right after Iowa pretty clearly showed Rubio gaining directly at Trump's expense. Even if you assume none of that happens, both Kasich and Bush had pledged to quit if they didn't make the threshold in New Hampshire (which they wouldn't have without Rubio's gaffe in the debate), and Rubio was clearly on track to win South Carolina without the gaffe, even if you assume there is no leakage from Trump directly.

Without Rubio wounded, Rubio clearly fights Trump to a draw in the South and after that even if his support from the establishment was as lukewarm as Cruz's was (and it would've been much more full-throated), it's very difficult to see Rubio not carrying most of the Midwest and then the nomination. Would've been funny if Trump still carried FL though, which he might've depending on what strategy Cruz would've taken after Super Tuesday (hard to see him not winning Texas, but also hard to see him winning anything of too much import afterwards).

And Rubio wouldn't be doing that much better - unlike Trump, Rubio's backwards and gross statements would actually hurt him. Unlike Trump, being an embarrassing lightweight would hurt him.

Why would any of these things hurt Rubio if they didn't hurt Trump? Especially considering how much the media obviously loved Rubio.

Rubio has a backlog of people who worked with him who think he's an emptyheaded over-ambitious backstabbing fool, and those people would come out of the shadows quickly. Rubio also has plenty of dirt on him, which could be properly utilized against him.

So do, I mean, every recent presidential nominee ever. Including Hillary Clinton.

His voting record is as conservative as Ted Cruz's, and true conservatism is god damn toxic with the general electorate.

If this year didn't make clear to you that voters don't care about ideology, I don't know what will.

Rubio is just not ready for prime time.

I'd say Rubio would be up in the polling right now by 2-3, with the map looking similar to what it is now except a lot of state margins would be different (i.e. Florida, Colorado, Texas, Iowa in the wrong direction, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania).  

And, in the end, even you admit that Rubio would be winning. And, yeah, my assessment of the general election isn't really much different from yours. Kasich at the top of the ticket might be doing even better, but I don't think, after the final lineup of candidates for this year had been determined, anyone other than Rubio, Trump, and Cruz (in that order) ever had a shot.

No, Rubio was only able to stay in so long because Trump's primary opponent was ted cruz and the establishment hated Ted Cruz, if it have been anyone else, walker/perry, even jeb, the party would've ordered everyone else out to stop trump 1-on-1. That's why rubio was consistently artificially rehabilitated.  Bush's #s would've made no difference dropping out, as NV proved. The only midwestern states he would've done well in would've been the same ones that cruz did and didn't do well in, so it wouldn't have been much of a difference.

Because those things did hurt Rubio, his unfavorables soared in March right before he dropped out, just like Cruz's did. Trump had many other things going for him that a normal gop candidate wouldn't have in a trumpless race, like bernie weakening her by staying in so long, dnc leaks by russians, etc. that only happened in the context of Trump.

Actually, they do, many moderates in the GOP refused to back either Trump or Cruz or backed Trump instead, precisely because they saw Cruz as too extreme. Now, you might say, 'well those moderates would've backed rubio,' no, because that would've been offset by some of cruz's conservatives refusing to vote for either trump or rubio, same as what happened to cruz with moderates. Furthermore, because of social issues, a sizable number of moderates still would've voted for trump over rubio, so the effect evens out. The reality is that rubio had no chance, but he played a role in demonizing ted cruz, so that moderates would think of cruz as 'unbearable', but cruz did the same thing to rubio with conservatives, calling him a 'traitor, etc.

No, it was always going to be either Trump or Jeb outright, or cruz at the convention with delegate games, rubio/cruz artificially inflated their numbers in the beginning with their refusal to attack Trump, then they were exposed later on when they started to attack, and their unfavorables went up.

Rubio never had a shot at 1237, Trump and Jeb were the only 2 candidates who did, Cruz would've had a more likely chance of stealing it at the convention.

So, Trump, Jeb (outright), and Cruz (convention play) were the contenders this year.

[uti2]

322: Marco Rubio/John Kasich - 52.0%
216: Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine - 45.0%
Others - 3.0%

MN flips before WI, lol? For someone promoting social conservatism at that? lol

http://

PA before NV?

This is the kind of fantasy talk that makes it unreal, you assume all those trump voters would go into the column of another republican, when many of those republicans are only with trump and not necessarily any other republican.

Working class union types who are with trump and vote dem for economic reasons wouldn't vote for a 'union busting koch puppet', someone like kasich who at least tries to act more moderate is another story.

Rubio/Kasich (R) 274 EV
Clinton/Kaine (D) 264 EV

Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa would be the states Clinton needed to flip to win.

Flip NV to lean D and put FL tossup, and OH lean-D, and that would be the map, rubio would have EV problems, Clinton would be favored in terms of the EV. It would be a reverse 2000 election. Why do people keep ignoring Clinton's strong polling in FL v. Rubio, she did very well with consolidating the Dem base there + minority women. Only Kasich actually had enough appeal with FL dems to be ahead of her by large margins as the polls showed.

Clinton and Trump both would be lucky to get 100 EV against any other candidate besides each other.

No, that's just due to political polarization. It's like people trying to ignore Bernie beating Cruz by double digits in the polling averages, because they have an agenda.

Rubio was never going to win the primary.

I'd say Rubio would be up in the polling right now by 2-3, with the map looking similar to what it is now except a lot of state margins would be different (i.e. Florida, Colorado, Texas, Iowa in the wrong direction, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania).  

He would've done worse in OH, and slightly worse in NV due to the types of working class voters in those states who normally back Dems going for Trump. It would've been like a reverse of 2000, except Hillary wouldn't have to focus on blue states like Gore did, which hurt Gore in swing states like FL.

One of my good friends from college works for the Clinton campaign. He told me that the team was terrified of a Rubio-Kasich ticket and could not believe their luck when the GOP actually nominated Trump. He's more nervous now obviously but is confident that Hillary will win.

Kasich never would've accepted VP nod, and Rubio was only played up by the media due to their dislike of Ted Cruz, in a GE that goodwill would've gone anyway. What caused Hillary damage was Bernie, and it was especially charged in the year of 'the outsider' due to Trump. Bernie wouldn't have damaged her as much without Trump feeding him that narrative. Hillary's team would've been better off listening to Bernie's concerns instead of ignoring them, rather than listening to republican propaganda, that's the reason for her whole weakness with left-wing voters in the first place. Obama at least reached out to the left, Hillary's silly focus on republican suburbs is what additionally alienates the traditional dem base. That they are now beginning to realize that after such a long time, shows the delusion of the Clinton campaign, they think it's the 1990s, not 2016, but anyway circumstances would've been a bit different if Clinton had hit a republican from the left with bernie out of the way early on, and rubio wouldn't have been pushed by the media as hard without cruz in the way. Any other #2 runner up to Trump, Walker/Perry, etc. they would've played them up to stop Trump and ordered the rest of the field to clear early on, that's also why the media gave Kasich a break, their hatred of Ted Cruz.

Anyway, overall, Rubio wouldn't have done any differently from Jeb, Jeb's name baggage, would've been offset by rubio's social conservatism and foreign policy that would've angered the anti-war crowd/bernie left on multiple counts. Bush ran as a relative isolationist to keep the latter more split in 2000 while still trying to keep the former column in his ranks, and Jeb would've tried to make the same play here.

Kasich at the top of the ticket, would've been the only assured winner, anything else would've been a tight race.

[uti2]

I've changed my mind on this, considering how poorly she is doing against Trump.

Rubio/Kasich vs. Clinton/Kaine would be one of the closest elections ever:

269-269

Kasich/Rubio would probably beat Clinton.

299 - 239

Again you need to assume that Trump had multiple different factors going for him, like bernie doing additional damage to hillary, russian hackers with dnc emails, etc. that have benefited him asymmetrically which wouldn't have happened with any other candidate, that being said we agree on the similar template.


Kasich v Clinton would've been like Mccain v. Gore or Bush v. Kerry '04, easy win for Mccain/Kasich/Bush '04, but not by a super large margin some people think due to polarization. Only changes for Kasich is that I'd give him NH and NV, and take out PA. Still in the similar ball-park of an 04 level margin of victory.

Rubio or Jeb would've been like Bush v. Gore, with the EV map shifting to the Dems favor compared to 16 years ago.

Due to changes in the EV map, rubio would need kasich to even be competitive similar to bush, but considering that Kasich has ruled out VP status, without Kasich, it's very likely Rubio loses ME-2 and more likely he loses OH giving Clinton the election.

[uti2]

In any event Bush/Rubio would've performed more or less the same on the EV map. A Bush v. Clinton would've caused a 'dynasty fight', that would've lowered turnout overall, and low turnout helps Republicans, rubio would've caused a more polarized atmosphere with slightly higher turnout on both sides evenly, but more or less the same result. If Bush or Rubio were to win, they would need a super-strong VP who can appeal to moderates in a close race in a swingable state, someone like Kasich or Sandoval (don't think the latter would get approved at the convention, and the former has already ruled out VP, but oh well) on the ticket (same way Gore would've won with Shaheen or Graham on his ticket). Barring that (as I mentioned those VP picks would be unlikely), Clinton skates by with a close victory due to demographic shifts on the electoral map v. 2000.

It's somewhat ironic, but rubio running when he wasn't supposed to and then artificially inflating his own numbers by refusing to attack Trump and then cracking under pressure due to his lack of readiness in actually attacking Trump is exactly what led to Trump by splitting the anti-turmp opposition.

Rubio never thought he would have to do any real work, he thought everything would be handed to him and that he would be given affirmative action, precisely due to all the media hype, that was only artificially generated on the back of anti-cruz sentiment. Cruz was actually ready to fight a serious campaign, rubio never was.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/12/14/joe_scarborough_where_is_marco_rubio.html



If it was just Bush attacking Cruz, his attacks against Cruz wouldn't be that effective, and Walker, Cruz mostly got along. Cruz originally had sky-high favorables amongst republicans as the 'not trump' candidate back in Jan, Rubio 's attacks in Feb, by coopting Trump's 'lyin ted' narrative, shows the incompetence of the rubio campaign, they couldn't make any original attacks other than juvenile jokes, they had to resort to copying others. In a way, Rubio's campaign was even weaker than the Clinton Campaign, this is another thing that people overlook that causes them to overestimate his chances.

If if had simply been Cruz and Trump, Kasich and Jeb after NH, with Jeb/Kasich polling as distant laggards, the establishment probably would've swallowed the hard pill and endorsed Cruz much earlier, just like they eventually did (too late) in WI, giving Cruz a more competitive chance against Trump from the beginning. It's very possible, he might've been able to deny Trump 1237, if he had overperformed in the southern states with his competition out of the way, because Cruz had special appeal to Trump's populists which didn't really sour until after March 15, when it looked like Cruz 'tried to steal the election with the establishment at the convention'. Cruz initially employed that delegate strategy with the intention of Jeb as his mark, knowing that his base wouldn't care if Jeb Bush was screwed over.

The alternative in a trumpless race, is that if Jeb were smart he would've either worked with Christie, etc. to take him out early, as the risk of not doing that is that it would've simply had him splitting the vote with Jeb again, to help Cruz's chances of taking it at the convention by hurting Jeb's chances at getting 1237, unless Jeb's people tried to use brute-force at the convention, in which case he'd be heavily weakened for the general anyway, again, thanks to rubio.

In a trumpless race with no rubio, it would've given the more honorable candidates who wouldn't play games and try to use other candidates as foils and suck up breathing room, e.g. someone like Walker more of a chance to win instead.

So, there was pretty much no bigger enabler of both Trump and Cruz than Rubio. Any other conservative like walker/perry, etc. would've been acceptable enough to the establishment, and they would've been easily backed them provided they generated momentum, rubio knew that, so he took the risks with playing footsie with trump and cruz, and ended up dividing the party for his own attempted treasonous political coup against his own mentor that failed.

[uti2]

Landslide victory for Republicans - just no way to deny that.

Both Hillary and Trump are lucky. These two need each other to win.

No, otherwise Bush would've landslided Gore. Trump being in the race changed many things, including on the democratic side, with Bernie, russian dnc leaks, etc. That would not happen in a normal race.

When there were head to head match-ups Trump would always lose & the best poll was him squeezing ahead by 1-2% at best when Clinton would have scam while Kasich would be ahead by 6-7% & same with Rubio.

If Kasich is at the top of the ticket (with Rubio), then NC, CO, OH & FL (with Iowa) is going to GOP & surely they are winning the White House. Additionally PA, MI, VI, NH could go GOP.

I think Kasich will cross the 300 mark safely with a 4-5% win, the map would be similar to what Obama vs Romney or McCain was with a little change here & there.

Both Kasich & Rubio will do incredibly strong among non-white, Clinton's strongest group & could crack Bush's 40% Hispanic vote odd. Look at what Rubio is doing now in Florida Senate race among non-whites vs other GOP guys. Kasich is also doing strong in his state.

In the end Clinton has too much baggage & corruption & that would catch up to her despite the attacks agaisnt Kasich. He is a moderate face, people would not be forced to vote for Clinton to keep Trump out. I mean that is what Clinton's whole campaign all about!

No, that has to do with FL cubans, and that's a senate race, Hillary was always polling strong against Rubio in FL, neck and neck, because she also did very well with minorities. Rubio was only polling at 31% with Hispanics overall against Hillary, and that was with his peak polling with all those polls in mid-Feb. Bush got 35% in 2000 in line with Reagan's 35% in 1980, and Mccain's 31% in 2008, he did better with all races in 2004, due to post-9/11 terror and panic.

Keep in mind though, that Cruz was always barely trailing Rubio in those same polls, Cruz eventually collapsed due to polarization as his unfavorables went up starting in March, and the same trend was happening to Rubio right before he dropped out.

Rubio wouldn't have helped Kasich, when Kasich was getting 7+ in FL v. Clinton, while Rubio was only tied.

There was a huge world of difference in swing state polling, kasich was up 7+ and big in the bulk of them, rubio was down in OH, VA, he was electorally looking otherwise very similar to Bush.  Like cruz, he overperformed in red states, while not so much in purple states. Kasich was doing the opposite.

By the way, the last 2 nat. polls, were yougov and nbc, that had clinton +2 and tied respectively v. rubio.

[uti2]

I've changed my mind on this, considering how poorly she is doing against Trump.

Rubio/Kasich vs. Clinton/Kaine would be one of the closest elections ever:

269-269

Kasich/Rubio would probably beat Clinton.

299 - 239

Lmao at Kasich getting anything under 320 electoral votes vs Hillary

BernieBros and Left-Wingers are not going to be ecstatic to see 'lehman brothers kasich' if he was attacked harder on that angle and his history, his numbers would've gone down and his favorables would've gone up with more attacks, just like cruz's did, and rubio's were starting to right before he dropped out. Considering Kasich had such a comfortably buffer by polling so high, he still would've won, just in a tighter margin.

Trump hogging all the media attention was a double edged sword, he also took all the negatives for himself. This was not a normal primary season where the candidates actually discussed issues.

People who think Cruz would be in a tight race with Clinton are the ones who make crazy maps like this. LOL @ NM, PA, making OH and FL dark blue and putting MI and MN in green. It would be the opposite rubio/jeb would be in a tight race, and cruz would be comfortably behind.

[uti2]

By the way I should point out that bernie was beating cruz by double digits in the polling averages, yet the same people (not saying he would've beaten him by that margin) like to pretend that never happened or make excuses/rationalizations. They're trying to have it both ways.

[uti2]

No, Rubio was only able to stay in so long because Trump's primary opponent was ted cruz and the establishment hated Ted Cruz, if it have been anyone else, walker/perry, even jeb, the party would've ordered everyone else out to stop trump 1-on-1. That's why rubio was consistently artificially rehabilitated.

Rubio surged in Iowa before Jeb dropped out, and he was taking support directly from Trump in national polls immediately after Iowa. Rubio was constantly artificially rehabilitated (this happened once, after NH, but whatever) because Kasich never had a shot and because the establishment hated Cruz too much to give him their backing.

 Bush's #s would've made no difference dropping out, as NV proved. The only midwestern states he would've done well in would've been the same ones that cruz did and didn't do well in, so it wouldn't have been much of a difference.

I have no idea why Nevada proved that Bush made no difference dropping out; polling before Bush dropped out forecast Trump in the mid-40s there, which was exactly what he got. Rubio would've done well in Midwestern states by pushing out Kasich in New Hampshire, so there would've been three candidates, not four, which almost certainly leads to victories for Rubio in KY/MI/IL/OH even if he doesn't take any support at all directly from Trump, which, I cannot emphasize enough, he was doing after Iowa.

Because those things did hurt Rubio, his unfavorables soared in March right before he dropped out, just like Cruz's did.

Presidential candidate unfavorables always soar when they're losing. The cause was in the dynamics of the race, not really in Rubio's personal characteristics.

Trump had many other things going for him that a normal gop candidate wouldn't have in a trumpless race, like bernie weakening her by staying in so long, dnc leaks by russians, etc. that only happened in the context of Trump.

Sure, but Trump also has many, many, many weaknesses that no other GOP candidate would have. It's not a controversial conclusion, and it's backed up by polling, that pretty much any of Trump's opponents, even including Ted Cruz, were meaningfully stronger than Trump in the general election polling.

Actually, they do, many moderates in the GOP refused to back either Trump or Cruz or backed Trump instead, precisely because they saw Cruz as too extreme. Now, you might say, 'well those moderates would've backed rubio,' no, because that would've been offset by some of cruz's conservatives refusing to vote for either trump or rubio, same as what happened to cruz with moderates. Furthermore, because of social issues, a sizable number of moderates still would've voted for trump over rubio, so the effect evens out.

Cruz would almost certainly have remained a candidate at least through the 3/15 states, so the very conservative ideological people would still have voted for him. Regardless, Trump was losing support net to Rubio when Rubio was strong, and this effect was unnecessary in any case if Kasich was gone. Rubio+Kasich+Cruz people who are simply NeverTrump rather than having any attachment to Cruz is more than Trump in pretty much all of the Midwest and most of the South.

The reality is that rubio had no chance, but he played a role in demonizing ted cruz, so that moderates would think of cruz as 'unbearable', but cruz did the same thing to rubio with conservatives, calling him a 'traitor, etc.

Objectively, looking at polling early in the race, Rubio probably had a better chance at the nomination than Trump did. Cruz was always dependent on the "contested convention" scenario and was probably incapable of winning outright (certainly, when Rubio stayed in after NH, Cruz became incapable of winning outright), though Cruz did have the advantage that he would've been the overwhelming favorite in any contested convention scenario.

No, it was always going to be either Trump or Jeb outright

Now Jeb, in fact, almost certainly never had a shot, and certainly had no shot after Trump entered. He may have had a shot in a Trump-less race by following the Trump playbook (of having the largest fragment of support and keeping his opposition from unifying), but considering how much the race was dominated by Trump's personality it's very difficult to speculate what would've happened in Trump's absence.

Amusingly, Rubio probably actually wouldn't have had a shot in a Trump-less race; his niche was that he was the only candidate acceptable to every group that was opposed to Trump (I like to phrase the would-be coalition as "southwest Missouri and Manhattan"; the candidate had to be somebody both places would vote for). Makes your point a tad ironic, I guess.

, or cruz at the convention with delegate games, rubio/cruz artificially inflated their numbers in the beginning with their refusal to attack Trump, then they were exposed later on when they started to attack, and their unfavorables went up.

Rubio never had a shot at 1237, Trump and Jeb were the only 2 candidates who did, Cruz would've had a more likely chance of stealing it at the convention.

So, Trump, Jeb (outright), and Cruz (convention play) were the contenders this year.

Jeb never had a shot after Trump's campaign took off. Rubio, by contrast, only had a shot after Trump's campaign took off.

Kasich's shot was the same as Rubio, neither had a path to 1237, if it was always going to be convention play the establishment should've backed Cruz. His numbers were inflated, then he got attacked, after hiding, simple to see what happened.

Kasich was the only one who could've beaten Trump in OH, in the rest of the states you mentioned he would've done exactly the same as Cruz, just flip the 2 in how they performed.

Kasich's net favorables were flat, despite his 'losing'. Cruz's went down dramatically after following a similar trajectory with Rubio with their declines in March.

And you shouldn't assume that all those Trump voters would back another Republican candidate, so you shouldn't put them in that column, if after all 'they're not conservative'. There is no proof of Kasich bleeding support from Rubio anymore than vice versa, Kasich got closer in VT to Trump, than Rubio did in VA, and Kasich lost VT by the same logic, again you shouldn't put all Kasich voters in candidate x's column, that's the same mistake with saying Trump would've gotten less than 1237, because 100% of rubio/jeb people would've gone to cruz, that didn't happen. Rubio has the similar social conservative nature that would let him bleed some moderates to Trump, + some conservative cruz supporters would sit out or back Trump just the same, as what happened to Cruz in reverse.

Early in the race it was Jeb and Walker who were ahead, rubio was hovering around consistently lower than cruz and carson. He objectively never had a real chance, cruz did, if the establishment had backed him immediately after iowa, but because they hated him, they gambled and lost.

The reason Jeb suffered was due to Rubio/Cruz enabling Trump and refusing to attack him, had they done so in the beginning, their weaknesses would've been exposed and fleshed out earlier.

First they came for Jeb, I did not speak out...

My question is how would Rubio do in the debates? It was an absolute disaster during the primary season.

This is a little over-the-top; Rubio lost one poorly-timed debate in February and was otherwise fine throughout. You can just as easily say Hillary in the debates is a disaster because she lost a debate to Obama in October 2008.

Rubio is an empty suit and would have collapsed by now: he'd be trailing worse than Trump. Kasich would be leading by 5-7.

There is no prominent politician within the Republican Party (not passing judgment on other non-politician figures like Carson and Fiorina, though I suspect this applies to them as well) who would be doing worse than Trump. Rubio against Clinton would have the favorable dynamic of a likable candidate facing an unlikable candidate (see Obama v. Clinton 2008), as opposed to our current dynamic of two unlikable candidates facing each other.

Because the debates this cycle were not about issues, had they been about issues, rubio would've looked out of his grasp, he was just repeating memorized lines, he could've been taken out like that at any time. Hillary or Obama or Cruz wouldn't have IQs low enough to regurgitate memorized lines. they're all ivy league educated.  Rubio really does crack under pressure, in the week after NH, he also got nervous and broke his tooth, then he went desperation juvenile insults in the end after NV, because he knew he had no chance.

Obama only beat Clinton in a super-tight race due to winning over left-wing independents/greens those are the exact people who would hate rubio enough to back Clinton, hence Clinton beating Rubio in that scenario.  Gore beat Bush in the Popular vote dispite his lack of 'likability'.  Besides due to less polarization, obama's favorables were actually way higher as were politicians in general, rubio's numbers were creeping up in march just like cruz's did. The 2 most well-known GOP politicians, cruz and jeb had comparable favorables to Clinton.

[uti2]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. It's true that Cruz and Jeb had comparable favorabilities to Clinton; Trump's are even worse, which is why he's losing.

Rubio never had any serious campaign infrastructure or ground game, it was all 'media hype', only Cruz and Jeb were prepared on those fronts from the beginning. So in that sense, his odds weren't much different than Kasich. And about those social conservative voters, that social conservatism would also turn off people from rubio, hence you shouldn't assume all those kasich voters would've gone to him.

Kasich was governor of his state, and he polled relatively close to Trump, that showed the strength of Trump more than anything, rubio's #s maxed out in trying to help kasich there, but don't assume all those kasich voters would've gone to him. WI republicans are demographically similar to IA and MN, more of a religious socon influence. IL and MI are closer to OH republicans, which benefited Trump. There is no way anyone other than Kasich had a shot in OH, considering Trump's performance in PA.

And in a Trumpless race, it wouldn't have been negative? Romney was damaged pretty badly from his primary attacks, the same would've happened without Trump.

You want to cherrypick what happened for a few days after IA, and ignore the rest of the weeks before and after that, that's what's called an outlier, if you use it to model 'trajectories'.  

Trump had all the negative media attention on him, then when other candidates got the spotlight and were seen as serious contenders, they also got the same negative media, hence their unfavorables creeping up in march.

No, the polling was consistent showing Trump winning SC and NV, despite bogus arguments of '3-2-1' media hype. In NH, Kasich and Cruz were tied with Rubio in NH back in Jan, you're talking about literally a couple of days of media hype to base your 'trajectories' on, relying on outliers is not how you build a working model.

No, the fact that Rubio collapsed in a similar fashion to Jeb, showed him to be just as weak as Jeb if not even weaker in the end, as he was also terrible at counter-attacks that were not hosted in a scripted fashion. Cruz was a little bit stronger as he was more calculated and coompetent, but he couldn't handle the wear and tare in the end, he might've done better which is more point if the establishment had backed him after iowa.

Those 'debates' were scripted memorized lines, like with Jeb, that by they way were based on scenarios that wouldn't be possible in a Trumpless race, Cruz's 'attacks' were purely on technicalities and were very legalistic, he only argued symmetrically. Jeb in the ia debate did the same and won that debate, it's just that rubio split his voters by running and he wasn't demonized by getting seriously attacked yet, Jeb would've done fine without Trump in the race. Rubio can only argue when given a script and a set of talking points, take him out of that comfort zone and he has nothing. The FL debate was just him spouting off the same lines he usually does without him attacking anyone, that was not a real debate, it was like one of the earlier 'soundbite' debates, not actual argumentation.

If you think they would utter the same line 10 seconds after the other back-to-back, then you haven't heard them speak. Cruz before IN, was the same as before WI,  he was arguing in the same fashion, even with intense opposition, like those Trump supporters debating him before the IN primary. He held his own far better and kept his cool up until primary day in the end. The point is that due to polarization, everyone's unfavorables in a competitive modern day race would be high, as with cruz and jeb, and rubio's was going up in march following cruz's trajector in which cruz was totally decimated in Apr./May. Like I said, Gore generated enough turnout to win the PV, despite his unfavorables v. Bush. It would be like Bush v. Gore, except the electoral map has shifted in many states to benefit the democrats, instead of the republicans like back then.

[uti2]

This is true in principle, but Rubio and Cruz both had some amount of media attention going back to at least October when their surges began.

Again, all that support for rubio was literally patched together at the last second to artificially rehabilitate him. It was a hail mary, where all the establishment people tried to move over to him in an emergency backup plan, not anything methodological or organized and nothing anything with a fundamental infrastructure to back it up like cruz. It was a terrible gamble based on a hatred of cruz.

Like I said, Cruz's performance proves that the 'anti-trump' candidate notion is absurd, not all of candidate x's supporters would go to candidate y and vice versa.  39% in IL in a split field is actually very indicative his numbers would go higher. His OH numbers were hampered by Gov. Kasich's strong performance, the WI number is more in line with his IA performance, if more people had dropped out before IA. You're also forgetting the special circumstances in WI with Walker, etc. and the local media there being especially anti-trump, that market is shared with MN, and back in IA, they were devout socons who were all backing Cruz. Trump was consistently polling ahead in PA from the beginning as he did in OH, until Kasich got momentum. A lot of people who might've voted for Kasich for governor but were Trump voters were split along kasich/trump lines.

Back in Jan, the numbers were showing only Cruz was cleanly and consistently beating Trump 1-on-1, Rubio and Cruz both tarnished their numbers in their attacks and made many of their voters untenable to each other's bases, so that assumption of all candidate x voters going to y is wrong. The voters knew about 'stopping trump' yet many didn't care, because for them it wasn't necessarily about stopping trump and following romney's plan, because they didn't necessarily agree with it.

Back in Oct, Carson was still leading and was a force until Dec. all eyes were on Trump in Jan/Feb due to the question of 'If Trump could actually win a primary', etc., so he still hogged all the attention, the only candidate with public expectations of capable of winning was still Trump, then the numbers for the others like cruz as I mentioned went down when when it was suggested he could win and many eyeballs went on him from people who weren't paying attention before.

I mean, the guy was up against Trump, Cruz, and Bush for the privilege of facing Hillary Clinton. Contrast matters

Again you're only talking about a contingent of voters, some wanted to 'stop trump', others didn't care and were voting for their candidate of choice, not all of those votes would go to another candidate, which is why again on super tuesday, those numbers showed despite those 'stop trump' voters attempting to coalesce it wasn't enough, because not everyone in the party was concerned with that goal, even after romney's speech. You're assuming that there was a 'non-trump' vote, but those factions are aligned very differently, for who is not trump and for what reasons they are, that's due to divisions in the GOP. Jeb was seen as a 'poor debater' due to getting attacked by Trump in the debates, the same exact thing happened to Rubio when he debated Trump, so rubio was vulnerable to the same weaknesses as Jeb in the end. Rubio never 'won' any debates accept on media hype by repeating canned lines and not attacking the frontrunner. Jeb's negatives were driven up due to competition by Trump, Trump ended up doing the same to rubio/cruz who hid from him in the end anyway. Because it's not successful unless he gets called out on it, debate him in that assymetrical fashion and he folds easily, worse than Jeb. Jeb was getting hit by Trump's assymetrical attacks constantly from the beginning, weakening his image in the first place. In a trumpless race, the other candidates still would've been weakened but it would've been more orderly instead of with Trump hogging all the media attention and honing attacks on his opponents.

They practice talking points, they don't actually repeat a memorized script, i.e. if candidate x says something about me, 'I will respond with this cute memorized line', that's exactly what rubio only knows how to do. No, the unfavorables were going up like I said, and Cruz's were comparable and Gore won the PV, he only lost because the demos of the EV map were different back then.

Besides, they weren't 'looking for change', that's just a narrative Trump's candidacy allowed to be built up. Without Trump, a different dynamic. You admit he wouldn't have won in a trumpless race, but he never had a chance of getting 1237 in a race with trump either, it would've either been trump, or jeb (if everyone had attacked early on equally), or cruz taking it at the convention with his delegates. Like I said rubio no chance at hitting that number, and cruz's people were the ones with the strong infrastructure and ground game to take it at the convention, which would've happened in a contested convention.

He never had a chance in a race with trump and cruz to begin with, he only acted as a thorn in the side of cruz more than anything.


Like in Bush v. Gore, except in reverse, rubio would've done the same as jeb and would've lost in a somewhat close race, cruz would be way behind, and again factor in the unique circumstances that happened only due to trump you can't extrapolate other candidates' performance in a similar fashion.