Why is Marco Rubio and John Kasich struggling in Virginia and Massachusetts?

[Suburbia]

Virginia and Massachusetts were two Super Tuesday states that Mitt Romney won in March 2012, on his way to the Republican nomination. These are moderate-friendly states, I suppose, and candidates like Marco Rubio and John Kasich should be doing well in these two states. Why is a candidate like Trump dominating in VA and MA?

[YaBoyNY]

Because neither Marco Rubio nor John Kasich are "moderates" despite the memes.

TRUMP is an actual moderate, however.

[Maxwell]

Because Trump is more moderate than either of them - I mean Rubio and Cruz were criticizing Trump for saying that he wouldn't let people die in the streets because of a lack of healthcare! Let's face the facts - Rubio is no moderate. There's a reason why users like ExtremeRepublican, with near +10 on economic and social issues, are backing Rubio. He's a marketable Ted Cruz. And as for Kasich, I'd say even he adheres far more to traditional conservatism than Trump does.

[RR1997]

Trump does best with voters who are working-class, white, secular/non-religious, moderate-to-liberal (especially on economic issues), and are northern.

MA has a ton of those. It's why it's one of his best states.

[Cassius]

Romney's only opponent on the ballot in Virginia (if I recall correctly) was Ron Paul, who's, well, Ron Paul, and even he didn't get totally crushed. Regarding Massachusetts, maybe Santorum's overt religiosity and Gingrich's general southernness were a little off-putting to them, whereas in Trump's case he's a genuine bona fide Northeasterner. Also, the electorate's priorities seem to have been significantly reordered from 2012; back then, 'electability' (well, purported electability) was the most pressing concern, even for a significant number of conservative voters, but this time the 'electability' argument really doesn't seem to be going anywhere (perhaps as a result of what happened in 2012).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Regarding Massachusetts, maybe Santorum's overt religiosity and Gingrich's general southernness were a little off-putting to them,

Also because it's (one of) Romney's home state(s).

[P123]

Rubio is not a moderate LOL. He's just pro-amnesty. Kasich is running to be TRUMPS VP.

[Frodo]

Rubio is not a moderate LOL. He's just pro-amnesty. Kasich is running to be TRUMPS VP.

I thought it was Chris Christie.  Wasn't that the whole point of his endorsement of Donald Trump?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Rubio is not a moderate LOL. He's just pro-amnesty. Kasich is running to be TRUMPS VP.

Kasich has been pretty adamant that he won't be a VP candidate. I especially can't see him joining up with Trump.

[Ljube]

Rubio is not a moderate LOL. He's just pro-amnesty. Kasich is running to be TRUMPS VP.

I thought it was Chris Christie.  Wasn't that the whole point of his endorsement of Donald Trump?

Both of them would like to be TRUMP's VP.

[politicallpd]

Here's the deal with Massachusetts-- there is no single factor that explains Trump's dominance. The first leg of the stool here comes from his support among white, lower middle class, blue collar voters. There are a lot of them in Massachusetts, and I'll expect TRUMP to rack up a lot of votes in and around cities like Lowell, Lawrence, Fall River, and down through the Blackstone River valley.

The second leg is Charlie Baker's fault. He and his allies have come under intense pressure in the last few weeks for trying to push their supported candidates into the state committee, dumping in tons of money. It's been in the news quite a bit, and has ruffled the feathers of local activists who are disappointed in his very moderate-ivness.

Finally, Massachusetts Republicans aren't nearly as consistently conservative as you think. If you recall in 2014, our-Lord-and-Savior Charlie Baker won his primary with 75% of the vote, losing the remaining percentage to a no-name candidate by the name of Mark Fisher, who was notable simply for the fact that he was challenging Charlie, while spending little money and rarely campaigning.

That's why TRUMP is doing well here.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Because Trump does well with the demographics as mentioned previously, although I contest the notion of Trump's moderateness along with his supporters.

[Adam Griffin]

People are being silly here: it has nothing to do with the supposed "moderate" credentials of any of the candidates (or the lack thereof). It has everything to do with the fact that these states are only made "moderate" by the non-Republicans who live there - especially in the case of Virginia. By and large, the Republican electorate from state to state is nationalized and Southronized at this point (whether or not those uppity Northeastern moderate Republicans - who make up next to nothing in their parties - want to admit it or not).

However, in the case of Massachusetts, it's highly likely that injecting all of those racist Irish Catholic Democrats into the Republican primary would only make Trump's lead even larger (and not from a tactical/saboteur standpoint).