What would a Rubio electoral map have looked like?

[Vosem]

Let's dispel the notion that rubio has broad appeal amongst hispanics. He lost hispanics overall in his home state to a candidate the dems abandoned (murphy) in a senate race. Over two-thirds of non-cuban latinos voted for Murphy.

He had broad appeal compared to Trump, who he overperformed significantly among Hispanics, including non-Cubans. Look at Orange County, Florida, which has a very high Puerto Rican population -- Rubio got 42% there to Trump's 35%.

"Broad appeal" is kind of loaded terminology -- Rubio would've obviously lost non-Cuban Hispanics. But he would've done significantly better with them than Trump did.

So taking that into account, NV is gone. VA is not going for a social conservative, if there was one state consistently showing Clinton winning easily it was VA. By the way, ME-2 is basically 'working class white' Lepage land, so if you subtract boosed totals amongst working class whites, you can subtract that too. OH would still be a toss-up, it's full of non-college educated whites, the same kind that majorly flipped to Trump.

Let's not forget FL, in his home state of notoriety, he was constantly tied in the polls v. Clinton.

Let's go through these one by one. I ~more or less~ agree on NV, though I don't think it's Hispanic turnout so much as that the Democratic machine and distaste with the Republican-controlled state legislature in 2016 meant that no Republican was carrying it. As for VA, it's voted for plenty of social conservatives -- hell, Cuccinelli came within 2% when he was massively outspent right after the government shutdown; Rubio could've carried Loudoun County, even by a lot less than Comstock did, otherwise improved in NoVa, and carried the state, even though he would've run behind Trump's totals in Griffith's district.

Working-class, formerly Democratic-voting whites did trend towards Trump. But they also trended towards Republican candidates across the board in 2014, who were typically much more standard, non-Trumpy Republicans. Considering that ME-2 went for Trump by 11 points, I tend to think a standard Republican would've at least come close, though he may not have won it. As for OH, the working-class trend towards the Republicans there predates Trump. It would've voted for any Republican nominee, though I concede that Rubio would've run behind Trump's numbers.

Yes, Rubio was tied in the polls against Clinton in Florida. But Trump was consistently behind. Polls underestimated Republicans across the board. Rubio would've won.

Combine that with no russian released hacks depressing Dem turnout, it comes down to OH/CO/FL in a tight race with a Hillary had an electoral advantage, not that different from a race with Jeb.

Ohio and Florida would both have been tilt-Republican states. The election would've come down to Colorado, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

*The only reason MN is ever close is due to turnout issues, which wouldn't have happened to the extent that it did without the hacks.

Yeah, the magnitude of the WWC trend in Minnesota towards Trump would not have happened with a Rubio nomination, and even with that Trump lost the state. Minnesota would not have been particularly close. Neither would Michigan have been.

[Vosem]

The margin as you said with NV wouldn't have been enough to make a difference. Mid-term elections are different due to turnout issues. VA was consistently Hillary's strongest polling state.

CO is demographically very similar to NV, Hillary would keep it for the same reasons.

CO really isn't demographically similar to NV. CO is a much younger state and a much wealthier state. CO has a lot of suburban Republicans who left the party to vote Hillary or Johnson (who broke 5% here; those voters would've broken quite strongly Rubio had Trump not been the nominee), who would've stuck with Rubio had he been the candidate; also, Trump's improvement in the state was among rural, culturally conservative Hispanics who'd gotten fed up with the Democratic Party; unlike most other groups Trump improved with, Rubio would've been stronger, not weaker here.

I don't know if it adds up to a win for Rubio, or a very narrow loss. But he would've been much stronger than Trump in Colorado, whereas about the same in Nevada (though with a slightly different coalition there).

That's because the type of strategy Hillary engaged with republican courtship was specifically detrimental to the downballot, and this was something warned against by the DNC.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/137093/clinton-campaign-decision-made-may-doom-down-ballot-democrats

The democrats would've campaigned differently. As for VA, rubio did not perform well with R leaners at all in VA, the only reason he came close in the primary was due to hillary voters in NoVA confident that bernie was going to lose the VA primary going for him to 'stop trump'. It's similar to the democrats who voted for Santorum in the MI primary in 2012 to cause damage to Romney. This was a well-documented phenomenon at the time.

Primary performances don't correlate to the general. Trump bombed in the Iowa caucus and the Ohio primary, but won the Virginia primary. He massively improved over Romney in the general elections in Iowa and Ohio while cratering in Virginia. Rubio could've won in Virginia by holding Gillespie numbers in most of the state and improving slightly in Appalachia; even running a few percentage points behind Trump, but ahead of Gillespie there, would've been fine.

Dickenson County: Gillespie 56%, Trump 77%
Buchanan County: Gillespie 60%, Trump 79%

Rubio does not need to reach those heights in the 70s to carry Virginia if he wins Loudoun County (and generally hits Gillespie numbers in NoVa), as Gillespie narrowly did and as Trump utterly failed to do. The reason Gillespie was so weak in Appalachia was because of a favorite son effect for Warner, who was originally from there and in fact carried the area in most of his first races (in 1996, when Warner ran for the Senate for the first time, he lost 52/47 but broke 60% in both Dickenson and Buchanan Counties).

All of this is perfectly doable for a non-Trump Republican running in a tilt-Republican year, which Rubio was.

I agree that the strategy Hillary used was detrimental to the downballot. I'm assuming that Hillary would've used a different, more typical, more similar to Obama-'12 strategy against a more typical Republican, like Rubio, and would not have hit the heights she did hit in the suburbs.

[Vosem]

CO is a very different state than it used to be. The governor got re-elected after passing gun control measures. VA is also very different, they were states heavily impacted by transplants (also NV). Many dem transplants in these states are educated and wealthy and they quite literally have no other reasons for voting besides social issues, so the economic argument doesn't work well with them.

Sure, but the Republican candidate for Governor in Colorado in 2014 ran a very weak campaign. Republicans picked up the Senate seat there that year in a very nationalized race, and only failed to pick up the Senate seat in Virginia because of Warner's overperformance in Appalachia, hitting numbers no presidential Democratic nominee would be able to hit. The states have not changed that much between 2014 and 2016. Both were winnable in 2016 for a standard Republican. (There were states that weren't -- I suspect that only a Trump-style campaign, or a candidate very strong in the Rust Belt generally, could've won Michigan or Pennsylvania, and Rubio certainly wasn't cutting it for either state).

Trump's issues in iowa were due to ground game, Iowa was a caucus, remember. In Ohio, he was up against a well-liked Governor.

That explains part of the underperformance, but it doesn't explain all of it. Trump was weak in the rural Midwest before his mid-April surge. He just was. In the Illinois primary, Illinois minus Chicagoland voted for Cruz; Cruz lost the state because he wasn't able to do better than third in the suburban counties, where Trump and Kasich both ran far ahead of him. In Ohio, he was up against a popular Governor; in Wisconsin, he wasn't. In Michigan -- site of his most stunning general-election victory -- he won barely more than a third of the vote and only won a plurality because his opponents in the state were focusing their fire on each other.

Prior to the mid-April surge, four Midwestern states had primaries -- Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio. And Trump's performance in all states varied very little, always 35-39%. What did vary was how united, or not, his opponents were.

Notwithstanding this fact -- Trump improved massively in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio over previous Republicans (and also improved massively in Illinois minus Chicagoland). Primary results don't correlate with the general election. They just don't. They can't be used to project one or the other.

[Vosem]

The way for republicans to improve in those states in VA and CO is to win more wealthy, college educated voters than romney, which is unlikely, because again, their whole purpose for voting democratic is due to social issues. 2014 was supposed to be a wave election year. Even if your theory is that they were tilting R this year due to cyclical reasons, putting up someone even more socially conservative than romney would offset those numbers and alienate them. Maybe someone like Kasich would've been closer.

Trump got railroaded by the WI media market in the primary.

Their purpose for voting Democratic is social issues, but the correct sort of campaign, like the one waged by Cory Gardner (who, for the record, is much more socially conservative than Marco Rubio) is perfectly capable of getting them to switch. Donald Trump turned voters (wealthy social liberals; this doesn't apply to poorer secular voters in places like New England) like that off much more than other Republicans would've; certainly, much worse than Rubio. Rubio would only have needed a few percentage points improvement, also.

"Cyclical reasons" aren't part of the theory. I'm just looking at the national mood and the demographics. Cyclical reasons are bunk; American politics doesn't run on cycles. 2014 wasn't really a Republican wave, incidentally, just a tilt-Republican year that happened to be 6 years after a ludicrous Democratic landslide, so the Republican victory in 2014 looked exaggerated. 2010 was the wave. The two Senate elections held since 2012 -- 2014 and 2016 -- have both seen the vast majority of races, with only a few exceptions (KS/ME/AK 2014, MO 2016 being the very obvious ones) reduced to a proxy for presidential preference. My thesis is that Rubio v. Clinton would've been very, very similar to the 2014 Senate elections, since Rubio and Clinton are essentially Generic R and Generic D from that era. Trump changed the game.

Nah, the Wisconsin media didn't really damage Trump at all. They railroaded Kasich, by successfully building Cruz up as the only alternative to Trump. Had they not been able to do that, Cruz and Kasich would've split the vote and probably allowed to Trump to win the state. But they didn't actually convince anyone to vote for or against Trump who wouldn't have already done it anyway.

[Vosem]

About Gardner's social positions? Are you sure that just wasn't Udall exaggerating them in propaganda?

You talk about the libertarian vote in the state, but Johnson's support in the polls split pretty evenly between the 2 candidates. rubio's harsh support for federal drug laws would hurt him there in a state where a libertarian like GJ would do so well.

The media attacks there capped Trump's momentum. It wasn't a normal state for media.

Nah, Gardner really did have a very socially conservative record. He was a co-sponsor of the federal Life Begins At Conception Act and in the Colorado House introduced legislation to keep Medicare from paying for birth control. When Udall attacked him on it, it backfired.

Johnson's support would've broken evenly between Clinton and Trump. Considering the correlation that existed in most states between swing to Clinton and Johnson support, it seems pretty clear that Johnson was taking mostly from disaffected Republicans, who would've voted for a non-Trump candidate. Colorado is a state where that would've been a big deal.

Rubio personally opposes marijuana legalization but supports leaving it to the states. You'll notice this as the perfect position for Colorado; as long as other states don't legalize and tourists continue coming to Colorado for legal marijuana, Colorado makes a boatload of money; when other states legalize, Colorado loses possible revenue. Attacking him on this in Colorado would've backfired.

Is any state really "normal" for media? I agree that local conservatives in Wisconsin were unusually hostile to Trump, but compare his results there to IL/MI/OH, and they follow a logical, consistent pattern. I don't think an unusual media climate made a difference there. Arguably it did in Indiana, where it was favorable to Trump, but I kind of doubt that because Trump's surge at that time was national.

[Vosem]

Well, Gardner ran as a slightly different candidate and claimed Udall was using 'smears'.

Right, and this worked. No reason it couldn't also work for a more socially moderate candidate.

rubio is on record of stating that he supports enforcing federal drug laws in states like colorado.

No. He has repeatedly said that this is a states' rights issue -- that he personally feels that states which legalize marijuana are making a mistake, and that he thinks states shouldn't do it, but he recognizes they have a right to. This is a misrepresentation of his position.

Normal media is like fox and limbaugh, mostly neutral, WI was unique in which they were hostile to Trump. It matters when it comes to building momentum.

The fact that Trump wasn't meaningfully stronger or weaker in Wisconsin compared to Illinois/Michigan/Ohio shows that this is probably not the case.

So you have the support of federal drug law enforcement by rubio giving Hillary a win in libertarian-leaning CO.

And then you have NoVA which voted 60-40 for Obama and was upset over the government shutdown, which rubio, etc. supported. NoVA residents are also largely government workers and contractors most impacted by the shutdown. Maybe they would've been more comfortable with someone like Kasich to make it closer, like I said, but that's not rubio.

Gillespie supported the shutdown too, actually quite vocally. He lost Fairfax County, the heart of NoVa, 40/58. Rubio could've definitely hit those numbers. Trump lost 29/64; quite a different scenario.

A 60-40 defeat in NoVa for a Republican is OK; it can be made up with by other parts of the state. A 65-30 defeat, like the one Trump had, cannot be.

For the record, this is my Rubio v. Clinton map:

Rubio leads Hillary 259-247, with three states as arguable between the three candidates. My gut feeling is that Rubio would've carried Virginia while losing Colorado and Wisconsin, but all three would've been very close, very likely within a percentage point. Hillary wins if she could sweep all three, which I find doubtful. I gave NH & ME-2 to Hillary though the truth is we need more data before we can say what Trump did there is unique to him or a new part of the Republican coalition.

Cruz would've lost Colorado and Virginia but carried Wisconsin, and then either won the election in the House or used ME-2 to win 270-268. Hard to say, again, until we see how ME-2 will behave in the post-Trump world, which we won't see for many years, unfortunately.

[Vosem]

Well, Gardner ran as a slightly different candidate and claimed Udall was using 'smears'.

Right, and this worked. No reason it couldn't also work for a more socially moderate candidate.

rubio is on record of stating that he supports enforcing federal drug laws in states like colorado.

No. He has repeatedly said that this is a states' rights issue -- that he personally feels that states which legalize marijuana are making a mistake, and that he thinks states shouldn't do it, but he recognizes they have a right to. This is a misrepresentation of his position.

Normal media is like fox and limbaugh, mostly neutral, WI was unique in which they were hostile to Trump. It matters when it comes to building momentum.

The fact that Trump wasn't meaningfully stronger or weaker in Wisconsin compared to Illinois/Michigan/Ohio shows that this is probably not the case.

So you have the support of federal drug law enforcement by rubio giving Hillary a win in libertarian-leaning CO.

And then you have NoVA which voted 60-40 for Obama and was upset over the government shutdown, which rubio, etc. supported. NoVA residents are also largely government workers and contractors most impacted by the shutdown. Maybe they would've been more comfortable with someone like Kasich to make it closer, like I said, but that's not rubio.

Gillespie supported the shutdown too, actually quite vocally. He lost Fairfax County, the heart of NoVa, 40/58. Rubio could've definitely hit those numbers. Trump lost 29/64; quite a different scenario.

A 60-40 defeat in NoVa for a Republican is OK; it can be made up with by other parts of the state. A 65-30 defeat, like the one Trump had, cannot be.

For the record, this is my Rubio v. Clinton map:

Rubio leads Hillary 259-247, with three states as arguable between the three candidates. My gut feeling is that Rubio would've carried Virginia while losing Colorado and Wisconsin, but all three would've been very close, very likely within a percentage point. Hillary wins if she could sweep all three, which I find doubtful. I gave NH & ME-2 to Hillary though the truth is we need more data before we can say what Trump did there is unique to him or a new part of the Republican coalition.

Cruz would've lost Colorado and Virginia but carried Wisconsin, and then either won the election in the House or used ME-2 to win 270-268. Hard to say, again, until we see how ME-2 will behave in the post-Trump world, which we won't see for many years, unfortunately.

No, rubio's on record of explicitly favoring federal drug law enforcement in the states, his position is not like cruz/rand at all. He is only in favor of the states allowing medicinal marijuana, not recreational use.

No. Rubio supports legalizing medical marijuana outright, in the individual states. He does not support individual states legalizing recreational marijuana, but he recognizes their right to do so: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/marijuana-gop-114786

Well, you could see how Trump benefited from momentum as in the case of IN, not so much in WI, due to the media markets.

That was almost a month later. It hadn't begun yet by the time Wisconsin voted. If Indiana had voted on the same day as Wisconsin, Cruz would have won there too. If Wisconsin voted the same day as Indiana, Trump would have won there too. It was all a timing thing.

If your argument is that Warner won due to strength from other parts of the state, then Tim Kaine would've also been able to pull more support from other parts of the state to offset it.

The 2012 Senate race in Virginia reflected the presidential race almost perfectly; Kaine really wasn't meaningfully stronger than Obama everywhere. He is Generic D in Virginia. Warner has his own special strengths, which Kaine lacks. He comes from Richmond City; in 2012, Obama won 79% there, while Kaine won 80%. (Hillary Clinton won...the same 79%. Nothing changed).

That argument doesn't hold water.

[Vosem]

Well, Gardner ran as a slightly different candidate and claimed Udall was using 'smears'.

Right, and this worked. No reason it couldn't also work for a more socially moderate candidate.

rubio is on record of stating that he supports enforcing federal drug laws in states like colorado.

No. He has repeatedly said that this is a states' rights issue -- that he personally feels that states which legalize marijuana are making a mistake, and that he thinks states shouldn't do it, but he recognizes they have a right to. This is a misrepresentation of his position.

Normal media is like fox and limbaugh, mostly neutral, WI was unique in which they were hostile to Trump. It matters when it comes to building momentum.

The fact that Trump wasn't meaningfully stronger or weaker in Wisconsin compared to Illinois/Michigan/Ohio shows that this is probably not the case.

So you have the support of federal drug law enforcement by rubio giving Hillary a win in libertarian-leaning CO.

And then you have NoVA which voted 60-40 for Obama and was upset over the government shutdown, which rubio, etc. supported. NoVA residents are also largely government workers and contractors most impacted by the shutdown. Maybe they would've been more comfortable with someone like Kasich to make it closer, like I said, but that's not rubio.

Gillespie supported the shutdown too, actually quite vocally. He lost Fairfax County, the heart of NoVa, 40/58. Rubio could've definitely hit those numbers. Trump lost 29/64; quite a different scenario.

A 60-40 defeat in NoVa for a Republican is OK; it can be made up with by other parts of the state. A 65-30 defeat, like the one Trump had, cannot be.

For the record, this is my Rubio v. Clinton map:

Rubio leads Hillary 259-247, with three states as arguable between the three candidates. My gut feeling is that Rubio would've carried Virginia while losing Colorado and Wisconsin, but all three would've been very close, very likely within a percentage point. Hillary wins if she could sweep all three, which I find doubtful. I gave NH & ME-2 to Hillary though the truth is we need more data before we can say what Trump did there is unique to him or a new part of the Republican coalition.

Cruz would've lost Colorado and Virginia but carried Wisconsin, and then either won the election in the House or used ME-2 to win 270-268. Hard to say, again, until we see how ME-2 will behave in the post-Trump world, which we won't see for many years, unfortunately.

No, rubio's on record of explicitly favoring federal drug law enforcement in the states, his position is not like cruz/rand at all. He is only in favor of the states allowing medicinal marijuana, not recreational use.

No. Rubio supports legalizing medical marijuana outright, in the individual states. He does not support individual states legalizing recreational marijuana, but he recognizes their right to do so: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/marijuana-gop-114786

Well, you could see how Trump benefited from momentum as in the case of IN, not so much in WI, due to the media markets.

That was almost a month later. It hadn't begun yet by the time Wisconsin voted. If Indiana had voted on the same day as Wisconsin, Cruz would have won there too. If Wisconsin voted the same day as Indiana, Trump would have won there too. It was all a timing thing.

If your argument is that Warner won due to strength from other parts of the state, then Tim Kaine would've also been able to pull more support from other parts of the state to offset it.

The 2012 Senate race in Virginia reflected the presidential race almost perfectly; Kaine really wasn't meaningfully stronger than Obama everywhere. He is Generic D in Virginia. Warner has his own special strengths, which Kaine lacks. He comes from Richmond City; in 2012, Obama won 79% there, while Kaine won 80%. (Hillary Clinton won...the same 79%. Nothing changed).

That argument doesn't hold water.

That's what his spokesman said, that's not what he said, he only favors allowing states to legalize marijuana medicinally, not recreationally. He would enforce federal laws in states.

seehttp://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Marco_Rubio_Drugs.htm

If you think it's going to be a close race, then Kaine would've boosted her enough the way Graham would've boosted Gore in 2000.

I disagree when you say that the exact circumstances were the same, very possible Trump still loses WI due to the media market against him there, and Trump wins IN by a similar margin he did with MO

Bob Graham had served Florida much longer in 2000 than Tim Kaine had served Virginia in 2016, and also had a much more impressive electoral record (Kaine has 2 hard-fought prominent victories, against Kilgore and Allen; Graham had 5 statewide victories, all against fairly touted opponents, only 2 of which were even single-digits). I don't think they're comparable. Kaine would not have made much of a difference for Hillary in VA. Even if he had, Rubio could still have won CO or WI, and thereby the Presidency. He needs one of those three. I personally think VA is likeliest, but the odds of him winning any one of them would've been quite high.

I don't think the media market in WI is that powerful. Maybe Trump would've eked out a win in an earlier Indiana primary, certainly, but he wouldn't have had the 15-point win he had in reality. A Missouri-style victory is a plausible result too.

[Vosem]

People underestimate Rubio's unlikability.  2016 was an anti-establishment year, and Rubio reeks of the establishment.  He owes his career to powerful special interests, and until 2016, he had never won FL with a majority (he won with under 50% against two candidates running to the left of him in 2010).  He was a first term Senator with a horrible attendance record who came off as the Establishment's favorite Management Trainee, and who served the purpose of advancing a kind of false sense of "diversity".  A smarmy little puke.  2016 wasn't the year of smarmy little pukes; it was the year of rebellion against national elites of all kinds, and Rubio was not destined to do well in this environment, period.

Setting aside whether Rubio would've come off as more establishment than Clinton or not, and how much it might've mattered, 2016 really wasn't any sort of rebellion against national elites. Both gubernatorial and congressional reelection rates, normally sky-high, surged in 2016. Approval of the incumbent President reached the highest level at a presidential election since 2000. Anti-establishment candidates won far from a majority in both primaries (43% in the Democratic one, 39% in the Republican one), with the weaker anti-establishment candidate being nominated due to vote-splitting, and then losing the general election popular vote fairly decisively, in fact receiving less support than Mitt Romney.

Indeed, the evidence points to 2016 being an atypically establishment year -- probably the most establishment year since ~2004 or 2002 -- where Trump, through a combination of some canny strategy, lots of pure luck, and an extremely favorable distribution of supporters in the primary and general, was able to win anyway. It won't be remembered that way historically (the Trump victory is going to be what's discussed in the historical record, which is pretty logical), but that's what happened.

Also, even at his nadir in March when his campaign had collapsed Rubio was still seen as more likable than Clinton or Trump by pretty much everyone. Likability was not going to be a hindrance for him in 2016.

[Vosem]

People underestimate Rubio's unlikability.  2016 was an anti-establishment year, and Rubio reeks of the establishment.  He owes his career to powerful special interests, and until 2016, he had never won FL with a majority (he won with under 50% against two candidates running to the left of him in 2010).  He was a first term Senator with a horrible attendance record who came off as the Establishment's favorite Management Trainee, and who served the purpose of advancing a kind of false sense of "diversity".  A smarmy little puke.  2016 wasn't the year of smarmy little pukes; it was the year of rebellion against national elites of all kinds, and Rubio was not destined to do well in this environment, period.

Setting aside whether Rubio would've come off as more establishment than Clinton or not, and how much it might've mattered, 2016 really wasn't any sort of rebellion against national elites. Both gubernatorial and congressional reelection rates, normally sky-high, surged in 2016. Approval of the incumbent President reached the highest level at a presidential election since 2000. Anti-establishment candidates won far from a majority in both primaries (43% in the Democratic one, 39% in the Republican one), with the weaker anti-establishment candidate being nominated due to vote-splitting, and then losing the general election popular vote fairly decisively, in fact receiving less support than Mitt Romney.

Indeed, the evidence points to 2016 being an atypically establishment year -- probably the most establishment year since ~2004 or 2002 -- where Trump, through a combination of some canny strategy, lots of pure luck, and an extremely favorable distribution of supporters in the primary and general, was able to win anyway. It won't be remembered that way historically (the Trump victory is going to be what's discussed in the historical record, which is pretty logical), but that's what happened.

Also, even at his nadir in March when his campaign had collapsed Rubio was still seen as more likable than Clinton or Trump by pretty much everyone. Likability was not going to be a hindrance for him in 2016.

Cruz's unfavs was very similar to Rubio's initially, it didn't collapsed until Apr/May when he got more media attention, a lot of it is built in due to political polarization. And Cruz's likability overall was similar to Jeb's and Hillary's.

Cruz's unfavorables were lower than Rubio's all through the cycle, though you're right that they were similar to Jeb's and Hillary's. What this misses is that all these candidates had significantly better unfavorables than Donald Trump, who went on to be elected, so clearly unfavorables aren't exactly an all-important, determining factor.

[Vosem]

Isakson in his GA senate race won the same percentage of blacks, he performed the usual percentage that republicans normally get with non-hispanic cubans, his main advantage is in FL particular demographic with cubans, by the way his senate opponent was abandoned by the dems who used the money for that race to use in other races, had they given him the full-support they originally intended, those margins would've been reduced for him. Burr 'outperformed' by a similar margin.

Keep in mind that the reason the Democrats pulled support from their nominee was because of how strong Rubio was; it wasn't any sort of Paul Babeu or Jason Lewis scenario where the national party decided this was a competitive seat they wanted to punt because they didn't like the candidate. Polling had him favored in an open seat with Rubio as the only Republican who could've won.

I don't really get the point of the comparison with Isakson, who is also a popular/competent Senator, but who faced a much weaker Democratic opponent and has never tried to sell himself as a presidentiable.

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.

ME-2 is sort of unique in that we need to wait, probably for a few more cycles actually, to see if what happened there was purely Trump or if it transfers to other Republicans. The absolutely monstrous margin Trump won there (11 points -- it is more Republican than Texas now -- it is right of the median Trump electoral vote) makes me suspect any Republican would've won, though I'm unsure. I think anybody who really hammered the anti-establishment line, like Ted Cruz, would've carried it, while Bush and Rubio would probably have come close but fallen short.

Rubio would not have had problems in CO because that wasn't his position. His position was that states have the power to legalize marijuana, but shouldn't, and he reiterated this multiple times in the 2016 campaign. Many years before the campaign, he had a single remark where he said what you're suggesting was his position. Considering most supporters of marijuana legalization probably flipped over the last 10-15 years, I doubt anyone would hold it against him.

Rubio would not have won NV. Nor would his victory have depended on NV. I've laid this out multiple times.

[Vosem]

Rubio would not have won NV. Nor would his victory have depended on NV. I've laid this out multiple times.

They pulled support, because the FL media market was expensive, so they tried to pay for other races, otherwise his margin would've been the same as burr & co, and he did similar in the end anyway, so it wasn't that special.

It is his position, his only position with regards to state's rights on marijuana was in the context of medicinal marijuana, he has remained 100% opposed to recreational marijuana at the federal level and supports enforcing those laws in the states, as I showed you in the links. He has the same exact position as Santorum and Christie on the issue, open to states legalizing medicinal marijuana, but not for recreational use.  His position is not like rand's or cruz's, which is state's rights.

They pulled support because Patrick Murphy was doing significantly worse in polls than Deborah Ross and Jason Kander; when Hillary had an 8/9-point lead in early October, Ross was narrowly leading and Kander was at least tied, while Murphy was still down 5 points. This is notwithstanding the fact that Florida is a more Democratic state than North Carolina and Missouri, and has been in every election since 1992 (1996-2000-2004-2008-2012-2016). The reason Rubio won by more is because he's a stronger candidate.

Anyway, I've sent you links as well. Your links date from 2013/2014, before he ran for President. My links date from during the campaign. His position changed. During the campaign, it was the same as Rand Paul's and Ted Cruz's. I don't think a flip-flop here would be that big a deal, since lots of Americans' positions on this issue have changed over the last decade. You're free to disagree.

[Vosem]

Rubio would not have won NV. Nor would his victory have depended on NV. I've laid this out multiple times.

They pulled support, because the FL media market was expensive, so they tried to pay for other races, otherwise his margin would've been the same as burr & co, and he did similar in the end anyway, so it wasn't that special.

It is his position, his only position with regards to state's rights on marijuana was in the context of medicinal marijuana, he has remained 100% opposed to recreational marijuana at the federal level and supports enforcing those laws in the states, as I showed you in the links. He has the same exact position as Santorum and Christie on the issue, open to states legalizing medicinal marijuana, but not for recreational use.  His position is not like rand's or cruz's, which is state's rights.

They pulled support because Patrick Murphy was doing significantly worse in polls than Deborah Ross and Jason Kander; when Hillary had an 8/9-point lead in early October, Ross was narrowly leading and Kander was at least tied, while Murphy was still down 5 points. This is notwithstanding the fact that Florida is a more Democratic state than North Carolina and Missouri, and has been in every election since 1992 (1996-2000-2004-2008-2012-2016). The reason Rubio won by more is because he's a stronger candidate.

Anyway, I've sent you links as well. Your links date from 2013/2014, before he ran for President. My links date from during the campaign. His position changed. During the campaign, it was the same as Rand Paul's and Ted Cruz's. I don't think a flip-flop here would be that big a deal, since lots of Americans' positions on this issue have changed over the last decade. You're free to disagree.

Yes, because they put more money into those candidates towards the end.

No, it's also from what he said in interviews in 2015, the only quote you're hanging in something his EX-spokesman suggested. He has the same exact position as Christie and Santorum with regards to federal marijuana laws that Obama was not enforcing in states like colorado with regards to recreational marijuana. Medicinal marijuana is different.

...they put more money into those candidates at the end because they were doing better. Money goes to where candidates are doing well and backs off from where they're doing poorly. You're confusing cause and effect.

Anyway, I've given you quotes from his spokesman during the campaign. You've given me things from years and years ago. Even if we accept your point as fact (which it's not), this is ancillary. Give Colorado to Hillary. She still needs to sweep Virginia and Wisconsin, both of which I suspect Rubio would win.

(Cruz, incidentally, could not win CO or VA. Probably not MI or PA either. But he would still've flipped IA/OH/FL/ME-2. So the whole thing would've come down to WI, the decisive state.)

I must have missed the part where Putin's agents forced Hillary to make the deplorable comment

By the way, I'm just going to reiterate how it's hilarious that you think making a comment about 'deplorables' made or broke the election, but refuse to look at the actual impact that lehman brothers collapsing had on the 2008 race, in which Mccain was ahead of Obama, right up until the day of the collapse.

The fact is that these outside events do matter and they add up.

I actually agree with the basis of your argument here (I doubt anyone was swayed to vote a different way by the 'deplorables' comment, it just made people who already supported Trump even angrier), but I do want to note: Obama led in 2008 for most of the year; McCain took the lead in late August when he picked Sarah Palin (who was, very initially, received very well and became a broadly popular figure), but once Palin started flunking his poll numbers were dropping, and in fact Obama regained the lead just before the Lehman Brothers collapse. (The collapse, of course, led his support to increase from within-the-margin-of-error to overwhelming, but he was already winning by the time it happened).