If Rubio had won

[uti2]

As a young charismatic son of immigrants

Well, I did vote for Rubio in the primaries.  He would have won in a landslide, though.

Correct. It would've been the biggest GOP victory since HW Bush 1988 and resulted in a true re-alignment.

You do realize that superficially in this analogy Clinton would be Bush Sr. and Rubio would be Dukakis, right?

There's no statistical evidence to suggest that rubio would've done significantly better with Hispanics in CO or NV. Rubio lost latinos overall in his FL senate race, and lost non-cuban latinos by a two-thirds margin to his opponent.


Would a Korean-American get excited over a potential Japanese republican nominee? Mexicans =/ Cubans

[uti2]

As a young charismatic son of immigrants

Well, I did vote for Rubio in the primaries.  He would have won in a landslide, though.

Correct. It would've been the biggest GOP victory since HW Bush 1988 and resulted in a true re-alignment.

You do realize that superficially in this analogy Clinton would be Bush Sr. and Rubio would be Dukakis, right?

There's no statistical evidence to suggest that rubio would've done significantly better with Hispanics in CO or NV. Rubio lost latinos overall in his FL senate race, and lost non-cuban latinos by a two-thirds margin to his opponent.


Would a Korean-American get excited over a potential Japanese republican nominee? Mexicans =/ Cubans

Trump won 306 electoral votes despite being outraised 2:1, endless blunders, access hollywood debate, losing all 3 debates to Hillary, the party establishment rejecting him. Yeah, I'm pretty sure Rubio would have killed it. He would not have done quite as well with working class whites, so let's say he would have lost MI and WI. But given the general landscape, he would have won the other Trump states, and since he would have done better with minorities and college whites, he would have added NV, CO, MN, VA, NH.

The establishment more or less backed him in the end. You're forgetting that Trump had a ton of free media to make up for the fundraising deficiency. A normal candidate would not get free media like that.  Reagan and GWB were known for making tons of 'gaffes'

If you want to talk about debates, sure, Trump was nonsensical, but at least he looked like he stood for *something* and answered questions off-the-cuff. In contrast, it's not that hard to call someone out for using a memorized stump speech you know that they're going to use before they say it.


Trump did slightly better with Latinos than Romney. Rubio won standard one-third of non-cuban latinos (the standard numbers that Republicans generally get) in his senate race. The argument that he would do substantially better with latinos should be seriously called into question when he couldn't even win latinos in his senate race.

Also, here's another interesting angle, rubio has a very right-wing platform, and you know the mainstream media would shred him on that, so where would he have to ultimately go for media support? The Drudge/breitbart/alt-right media complex hates his guts and would unenthusiastically support him, if it all.

[uti2]

Rubio probably would've won like HW in 1988 (as someone said earlier). I could see him winning Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, the rest of Maine, Virginia, and New Jersey (by a hair). He'd probably lose Michigan and Wisconsin though.

You also estimate Clinton-Cruz 279-259, rubio and cruz aren't that different. It's extremely hypocritical to see big contrasts like that for such similar candidates. The reality is that they wouldn't do that differently. Rubio is closer to Cruz than Kasich, and in a general election he'd have to either  acknowledge the nature of his right-wing platform, or he'd try to deflect it by going into repeat mode, which would be just as damaging or even worse. The irony of the Bush Sr.-Dukakis analogy is that Clinton is a better profile match for Bush Sr., and rubio is a better profile match for Dukakis. Bush Sr. being an out-of-touch northern 'WASP' elitist, and Dukakis being a child of immigrants who tries to be as cautiously inoffensive as possible.

[uti2]

Rubio probably would've won like HW in 1988 (as someone said earlier). I could see him winning Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, the rest of Maine, Virginia, and New Jersey (by a hair). He'd probably lose Michigan and Wisconsin though.

You also estimate Clinton-Cruz 279-259, rubio and cruz aren't that different. It's extremely hypocritical to see big contrasts like that for such similar candidates.

No, I didn't? Never have I once mentioned Cruz in this thread, nor discussed Cruz with you.

The reality is that they wouldn't do that differently. Rubio is closer to Cruz than Kasich, and in a general election he'd have to either  acknowledge the nature of his right-wing platform, or he'd try to deflect it by going into repeat mode, which would be just as damaging or even worse.

Again, no. Rubio is a moderate conservative, Cruz is an ultra-conservative, and Kasich is a moderate. But we're not talking about Cruz, buddy.

The irony of the Bush Sr.-Dukakis analogy is that Clinton is a better profile match for Bush Sr., and rubio is a better profile match for Dukakis. Bush Sr. being an out-of-touch northern 'WASP' elitist, and Dukakis being a child of immigrants who tries to be as cautiously inoffensive as possible.

Not sure why this was put here, but Bush Sr. was succeeding a highly popular president. Dukakis could not compete and was a poor campaigner.

I saw you mention Cruz before in another thread. What's your current map for Cruz? No, Kasich is a moderate conservative, Rubio is close to very conservative, and Cruz is very conservative. Look at their policy positions. Kasich isn't that moderate when you look at his record.

Obama was highly popular, the Reagan administration had a gigantic scandal comparable to benghazi/emailgate with iran-contra, Bush Sr. had to pardon many Reagan officials upon re-election. Dukakis took the high ground, and refused to address the smears against him. There is parallel to that in how rubio always tries to be cautious and inoffensive in his campaign strategy.

[uti2]

Rubio probably would've won like HW in 1988 (as someone said earlier). I could see him winning Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, the rest of Maine, Virginia, and New Jersey (by a hair). He'd probably lose Michigan and Wisconsin though.

You also estimate Clinton-Cruz 279-259, rubio and cruz aren't that different. It's extremely hypocritical to see big contrasts like that for such similar candidates. The reality is that they wouldn't do that differently. Rubio is closer to Cruz than Kasich, and in a general election he'd have to either  acknowledge the nature of his right-wing platform, or he'd try to deflect it by going into repeat mode, which would be just as damaging or even worse. The irony of the Bush Sr.-Dukakis analogy is that Clinton is a better profile match for Bush Sr., and rubio is a better profile match for Dukakis. Bush Sr. being an out-of-touch northern 'WASP' elitist, and Dukakis being a child of immigrants who tries to be as cautiously inoffensive as possible.

They are both conservative, but Cruz is much more stridently conservative on social and cultural issues. I mean we're talking about a guy who announced his candidacy at Liberty University. Style also matters. Cruz comes across as arrogant and patronizing while Rubio is charismatic and likable. Now, Cruz was my first choice because I think he would've transformed the country in a way similar to Reagan. But even I have to admit that Rubio would have been a much more formidable general election candidate. My buddies who worked for Hillary were mortified of Rubio.

The HW Bush-Dukakis analogy is not too relevant here. Yes, Hillary and Bush are both WASP, and Rubio is also the son of immigrants, but that's a shallow comparison that doesn't shed any insight into the dynamics of the 2016 election.

There are also political parallels in that both Obama and Reagan were popular, both had huge scandals with iran-contra, benghazi/emailgate. Clinton was an established political figure who had a prominent role in the previous administration. The republicans were terrified of losing in 1988, they were afraid that many prominent republicans would go to jail, Bush Sr. was seen as the underdog. Bush Sr. had to pardon many people after he was elected.

On social issues, rubio and cruz are basically the same. The difference is that rubio tries to mask his positions with speeches and tries to not directly answer questions, whereas cruz is more blunt and open about his positions. Eventually, rubio would be pressured to answer questions instead of giving an ambiguously phrased stump speech, or he would have to repeat his stump speech, making him look just as bad or worse.

You need to remember, rubio is a guy who endorsed Huckabee in 2008.

[uti2]

Let's be clear, o.k., rubio is a Huckabee '08 endorser with a social platform about on par with cruz and an economic platform also pretty close to Cruz.


Rubio's tax plan called for reducing the capital gains tax rate, the dividend tax rate, the estate tax rate, and the gift tax rate all to 0. His tax plan isn't that different from Cruz's. That's not moderate, that's close to 'very conservative'.

[uti2]

I feel like without Trump's unique appeal and candidacy, Rubio would not have won the same kind of non-college educated whites that Trump won over Obama. The coalition would look a lot different, because both Clinton and Rubio were seen as appealing to college-educated upper-class suburban whites. He probably wouldn't have won MI, WI or PA. Probably his map would've looked closer to a Romney map +4-5 points everywhere. Clear popular vote victory though.

College-educated Suburban Whites voted for Senator Santorum in 2000, while Gore won PA. Just saying. Doesn't mean that those same suburban whites in PA would've voted for a President Santorum.

[uti2]

I feel like without Trump's unique appeal and candidacy, Rubio would not have won the same kind of non-college educated whites that Trump won over Obama. The coalition would look a lot different, because both Clinton and Rubio were seen as appealing to college-educated upper-class suburban whites. He probably wouldn't have won MI, WI or PA. Probably his map would've looked closer to a Romney map +4-5 points everywhere. Clear popular vote victory though.

I can see him pulling off PA with completely different demographics (probably focusing on the Philly suburbs rather than Western PA), but are you saying there's a potential for a reversal of the electoral and popular vote? As in, Clinton wins the electoral college but Rubio wins the popular vote?

That's what GWB did in PA, still didn't work for him. The GOP senate candidates (each being of very different stripes) won both times, the 2000 GOP PA senate candidate being hard-right, and the 2004 GOP senate candidate being a moderate (as in a real moderate, not a hardcore social conservative who also wants a hardcore fiscal conservative economic plan and is basically very close to Cruz policy-wise).

[uti2]

I feel like without Trump's unique appeal and candidacy, Rubio would not have won the same kind of non-college educated whites that Trump won over Obama. The coalition would look a lot different, because both Clinton and Rubio were seen as appealing to college-educated upper-class suburban whites. He probably wouldn't have won MI, WI or PA. Probably his map would've looked closer to a Romney map +4-5 points everywhere. Clear popular vote victory though.

I can see him pulling off PA with completely different demographics (probably focusing on the Philly suburbs rather than Western PA), but are you saying there's a potential for a reversal of the electoral and popular vote? As in, Clinton wins the electoral college but Rubio wins the popular vote?

That's what GWB did in PA, still didn't work for him. The GOP senate candidates (each being of very different stripes) won both times, the 2000 GOP PA senate candidate being hard-right, and the 2004 GOP senate candidate being a moderate (as in a real moderate, not a hardcore social conservative who also wants a hardcore fiscal conservative economic plan and is basically very close to Cruz policy-wise).

Will you stop talking about Ted Cruz? Ted Cruz is irrelevant in this thread. Also minority turnout was relatively low in PA this year, so if Rubio could use low turnout among blacks and garner more votes from Latinos, along with the suburban vote, he could pull the state to his side.

That's exactly what GWB did though. GWB got 40% of Latinos, and did better with 'college-educated' whites and still lost the state, while GOP senators won both times.

I feel like without Trump's unique appeal and candidacy, Rubio would not have won the same kind of non-college educated whites that Trump won over Obama. The coalition would look a lot different, because both Clinton and Rubio were seen as appealing to college-educated upper-class suburban whites. He probably wouldn't have won MI, WI or PA. Probably his map would've looked closer to a Romney map +4-5 points everywhere. Clear popular vote victory though.

I can see him pulling off PA with completely different demographics (probably focusing on the Philly suburbs rather than Western PA), but are you saying there's a potential for a reversal of the electoral and popular vote? As in, Clinton wins the electoral college but Rubio wins the popular vote?

I can see that happen. A GOP candidate who does fairly well with minorities but doesn't overperform with non college-educated whites can win the PV but lose the EC. But if you max out non college-educated whites you massively overperform in the EC. The electoral college basically was tailormade for a candidate like Trump. But I think Rubio would have won the PV by enough to defeat Clinton with over 300 EVs.

The main assumption here that can be fallacious is that rubio actually has a platform appealing to those college-educated whites. Independent and Crossover College-educated whites mostly voted for Kasich, and then (believe-it-or-not) Trump. Rubio's core supporters were dyed-in-the-wool conservatives.

Rubio is no moderate if you look at his outlined policies, therefore his electoral potential should be closer to Cruz than Kasich. What's ridiculous is when people try to group Rubio and Kasich together, when they're nothing alike. Kasich is the candidate that mostly did well with those centrist college-educated whites.

[uti2]

Rubio is actually to the right of Trump on many issues, so trying to use Trump as a baseline and then trying to pad additional numbers onto Rubio's potential performance is simplistic. Sure, some of Trump's characteristics damaged him, but rubio's characteristics would also damage him in different ways. Rubio's different style of radicalism would alienate different voters in different ways. Rubio is ultimately a type of radical like Cruz, not a moderate.

The baseline for 'Generic Republican' should be 'moderate conservative', not Tea Party radical.

An example of a moderate hispanic conservative with actual appeal to people in states like CO and NV is Susana Martinez.

Martinez, Kasich, Huntsman (or Christie without bridgegate), these are actual moderate conservatives who you might be able to argue would improve a baseline beyond Trump's performance (especially when you look and see how well Martinez/Sandoval have done with actual non-cuban latinos in their state races).