The most important thing re: Rubio’s chances of winning the nomination

[Mr. Morden]

I don’t actually buy the talk of “Rubio has to place at least 2nd or whatever in this or that state”.  IMHO, perhaps the most important thing that’ll determine Rubio’s chances of winning the nomination is whether he’s able to force Bush, Christie, and Kasich out of the race soon.  What is “soon”?  Well, it looks like they’re all going to be in through New Hampshire, so best case for him is if they all do so poorly in NH that they all immediately drop out.  But if one of them (Bush being the most likely) sticks it out through SC and maybe even NV, that’s not necessarily a killer, as long as they’re all out by Super Tuesday, when the real delegate race begins.

If Rubio is the lone remaining “establishment” candidate left, then maybe the party elites finally get off the sidelines, Rubio gets like $100 million for his Super PACs or something like that, plus governors across the country endorse him and put their state party machines to work for him, etc.  Also with a thinner field, he has fewer rivals to fight for media attention with, and voters in his “lane” have fewer alternatives to vote for.

So, bottom line, it doesn’t matter if Rubio gets second or third place in New Hampshire, as long as he crushes Bush/Christie/Kasich by so much that they all drop out.  If the order was:

1) Trump
2) Cruz
3) Rubio
(everyone else far behind)

it would probably be better for him than:

1) Trump
2) Rubio
3) Bush
(everyone else far behind)

even though he’s in third place in scenario 1 and second place in scenario 2.

Now, fortunately for him, it looks like Christie and Kasich don’t have the money for a long fight, so there’s a good chance that they both drop out after NH if they’re not in the top 3.  Bush, though, has enough money to continue, so much of this is up to him.  But it sounds like many of his donors are ready to dump him if he doesn’t produce results soon:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/marco-rubio-gop-establishment-new-hampshire-2016-218641

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyway, that’s my take.  Thoughts?

[Torie]

Totally agree, but Cruz is not going to be second in NH. He's abandoned the state. I don't think he would have done that if he thought he had a shot at coming in second. Now, he clearly won't.

The key in my view for Rubio is to minimize the drain of more mainstream candidates to other candidates in SC, so he can beat Cruz and Trump there. Reducing their viability vis a vis NH obviously helps with that. Cruz failing in NH is also helpful however, because it helps with the narrative, that Cruz can't win in the North outside a special situation like a caucus state that is 60% Evangelical voters, so Rubio can cut some into the Cruz vote in SC.

[Mr. Morden]

Totally agree, but Cruz is not going to be second in NH. He's abandoned the state.

No he didn't.  He's spending the majority of this coming week campaigning there.

[Torie]

Totally agree, but Cruz is not going to be second in NH. He's abandoned the state.

No he didn't.  He's spending the majority of this coming week campaigning there.

OK, I got that from the headline in this thread, which reading the article linked now, is obviously false. You might want to correct the headline Mr. Moderator, so that lazy posters like myself who don't bother to read the article, get themselves embarrassed.

[°Leprechaun]

If Christie and Kasich drop out, Rubio would probably beat Bush early. Bush needs to do well in NH, obviously, if he remains viable until Florida, it is a question of whether Rubio or Bush do better there, and one of them could come in first. Of course, there are a lot of other factors.
Since Rubio will probably remain viable thru March, the best Bush can hope for is to split the vote. I think that the fact that he is related to two presidents can only hurt him. I think that he is a very long shot for the nomination, even if the convention is brokered.
Endorsements and money haven't seemed to help him much if at all.
If Rubio can beat him early and if Christie and Kasich drop out before March 1, then he can become the only option to Cruz and Trump. That's a lot of ifs. I think that it will be close between Trump and Cruz if Rubio remains in third place. It would be a tossup between Cruz and Trump, but Trump seems to have the edge.

[jaichind]

Rubio actually needs Cruz and Trump to be viable for a while so neither takes off and he has time to consolidate the Establishment vote.   So in NH what he should want is

1) Trump
2) Rubio at close second
3) Cruz

rest fall below 10%

That way Trump and Cruz will continue to split the anti-establishment vote in the next few primaries.

[PresidentTRUMP]

Rubio actually needs Cruz and Trump to be viable for a while so neither takes off and he has time to consolidate the Establishment vote.   So in NH what he should want is

1) Trump
2) Rubio at close second
3) Cruz

rest fall below 10%

That way Trump and Cruz will continue to split the anti-establishment vote in the next few primaries.

Completely agee. In an ideal world for Rubio NH Plays out like you said:

1. Trump
2. Rubio
3. Cruz

[mencken]

Rubio is still going to need to get a few victories early on if he wants the establishment mantle to mean anything. If I recall, he was getting third in three-way polling prior to Iowa; that will continue to be the case if Trump and Cruz sweep the early contests. Fortunately for Rubio, South Carolina is relatively establishment friendly, so overtaking Trump there should not be as daunting as it appears. While he could always have Nevada rigged in his favor, I do not thing that will give him as much mileage as a bona fide primary win. The SEC primary is going to be brutal for him unless he comes in with unstoppable momentum; his next best hope there is to aim for a few victories to not come away a total loser (i.e. Vermont, Virginia, Minnesota), while winning enough urban congressional districts in the rest of the states to come close in the delegate count.

[Skye]

Rubio needs to get in second place with a good percentage to show that he can have momentum. Otherwise people will think Iowa didn't mean anything. I don't think coming in third place is going to do him any favors. Remember, the narrative is that he defied expectations in Iowa, that needs to happen again in NH.

[Averroës Nix]

Cruz is more of a political chameleon than most pundits realize - although veering from holy warrior mode in Iowa to the "liberty" candidate in New Hampshire in less than a week may strain credulity.

It looks as if he'll make the attempt, though, and he's made this work for him before. I wouldn't rule out a relatively strong (~20%) second place finish.

[Frodo]

Depends how vindictive Jeb Bush wants to be after being 'betrayed' by his one-time protégé.  He could stick it out for as long as it takes to cripple Rubio's chances in the general election.  

[Leinad]

Completely agreed.

Rubio can finish 3rd and still win the nomination, unless you think the establishment will back Trump or Cruz. Even after New Hampshire, most of the delegates will still be up for grabs--so if Jeb!, Kasich, and Christie are all gone, Rubio will get a large faction of the party by default.

And Cruz beating Trump in Iowa is big for him, too. That keeps conservatives from backing Trump and putting him ahead of Rubio. It ensures that, most likely, no one will win both of the first two states and start running away with it.

But if one of those guys (or I guess Fiorina, theoretically) does really well in NH and/or simply stays in without completely fizzling out, Rubio will be far more impeded than negative momentum from a 3rd-place finish in New Hampshire could ever give him.

[cinyc]

Totally agree, but Cruz is not going to be second in NH. He's abandoned the state.

No he didn't.  He's spending the majority of this coming week campaigning there.

OK, I got that from the headline in this thread, which reading the article linked now, is obviously false. You might want to correct the headline Mr. Moderator, so that lazy posters like myself who don't bother to read the article, get themselves embarrassed.

Cruz hasn't abandoned NH and is campaigning in the state, but he hasn't been advertising much on TV there.  Cruz is not really trying like he did in Iowa.  Granted, that can change in the next few days.  Fiorina just bought some ads on WMUR, for example.

The ad rates in the Boston market (which covers much of NH) compared to the Iowa markets are astronomical.  One of the SuperPACs are paying $300,000 a week on ads on just one station.

[Torie]

Totally agree, but Cruz is not going to be second in NH. He's abandoned the state.

No he didn't.  He's spending the majority of this coming week campaigning there.

OK, I got that from the headline in this thread, which reading the article linked now, is obviously false. You might want to correct the headline Mr. Moderator, so that lazy posters like myself who don't bother to read the article, get themselves embarrassed.

Cruz hasn't abandoned NH and is campaigning in the state, but he hasn't been advertising much on TV there.  Cruz is not really trying like he did in Iowa.  Granted, that can change in the next few days.  Fiorina just bought some ads on WMUR, for example.

The ad rates in the Boston market (which covers much of NH) compared to the Iowa markets are astronomical.  One of the SuperPACs are paying $300,000 a week on ads on just one station.

Isn't WMUR just the Manchester area, rather than the Boston media market? Why advertise in the Boston market? Because other stations reach NH, or at least up through Concord or something?

[cinyc]

Totally agree, but Cruz is not going to be second in NH. He's abandoned the state.

No he didn't.  He's spending the majority of this coming week campaigning there.

OK, I got that from the headline in this thread, which reading the article linked now, is obviously false. You might want to correct the headline Mr. Moderator, so that lazy posters like myself who don't bother to read the article, get themselves embarrassed.

Cruz hasn't abandoned NH and is campaigning in the state, but he hasn't been advertising much on TV there.  Cruz is not really trying like he did in Iowa.  Granted, that can change in the next few days.  Fiorina just bought some ads on WMUR, for example.

The ad rates in the Boston market (which covers much of NH) compared to the Iowa markets are astronomical.  One of the SuperPACs are paying $300,000 a week on ads on just one station.

Isn't WMUR just the Manchester area, rather than the Boston media market? Why advertise in the Boston market? Because other stations reach NH, or at least up through Concord or something?

WMUR is in Manchester, but Manchester is in the Boston TV market, which includes most of southern New Hampshire.  The Boston TV market has 2 ABC stations (WMUR in Manchester and WCVB in Boston), but all the other major network affiliates are based in Boston.  So if you want to reach New Hampshire viewers watching, say, the Today Show, you have to buy airtime on Boston's NBC affilaite, WHDH.  This is really inefficient, as most of the people watching will be from Massachusetts, and you're paying extra for it.  If you want to reach people who care more about NH news than Boston news, you can buy time on WMUR's newscasts, which, due to the popularity of candidates buying ads there, aren't exactly cheap, either.

The northern part of the state is split between the Burlington, VT and Portland, ME TV markets.   The well-funded major candidates also buy airtime in Burlington and Portland.  So there are three TV markets to buy if you want to reach all of the state.