Cuban says that if he runs, it will be as a Republican

[RINO Tom]

Why do you think Trump is still a God-emperor in the base's eyes whereas they hate everyone else?

Because he's president and they're not.  Just like Bush was popular among Republicans when he was president, and Cruz or Rubio or whoever would be popular with Republicans if they were president right now instead of Trump.

Umm, no. If that's what GOP voters wanted, Cruz or Rubio would have been the nominee.

No, I don't think so.  The GOP primary electorate "wanted" Trump in the sense that a plurality of them had him as their first choice, but that's not the same as him being some kind of consensus choice.  Up until the last month or so of the primary campaign, Trump did worse than Cruz and Rubio in favorability ratings of Republican voters, and was consistently near the top or at the top of "who is your least favorite candidate" polls of Republican voters.  He had poor numbers in "Would you be satisfied if he was the nominee?" polls:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-voters-kind-of-hate-all-their-choices/

But then, towards the end of the primary campaign, the ground started to shift in his direction, simply because he was becoming the de facto nominee.  If any other candidate had been in a similar position, they also would have become more popular among Republican voters.

Cruz & Rubio did well with party regulars. Trump specifically did well with the type of Independent that tends to learn R and thus determines elections for Rs. These voters don't have any party loyalty, compared to Cruz/Rubio voters. Think about this carefully, how would cruz/rubio be significantly more electable after alienating the literal exact type of independent voter they would need to count on to win?

I didn't say whether they would be electable in the general election or not.  I said that they would be roughly as popular among Republican voters as Trump is currently if they were president instead of him.

To follow up on this, here's a poll from as late as August of last year, in which 52% of Republicans said that they wished that someone besides Trump was the nominee:

http://news.gallup.com/poll/194738/less-half-republicans-pleased-trump-nominee.aspx

Heck, here's a poll of Florida from October of last year:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=249392.0

in which Republican voters were asked who they'd vote for in a Florida primary re-do, and Trump just managed a 35% plurality.  So even last year after he became the nominee, it's not like the majority of the party was in love with Trump, and wanted him over any other figure in the party.  Which again, leads me to suspect that pretty much any president with an R next to their name would be roughly as popular among Republicans as Trump currently is, and the support for him isn't specific to Trump qua Trump.

For the rank and file Republicans who'd vote for anyone with an R next to their name (rather than the whole group of Republican voters which would include voters who lean R) I think you're right. But obviously without those lean R voters (who wouldn't show up to vote for Rubio or Cruz), the GOP would lose.

The GOP arguably would have won different Lean R voters.  A "America first conservative" and a "country club Republican" each count as one at the ballot box.

[heatcharger]

The GOP arguably would have won different Lean R voters.  A "America first conservative" and a "country club Republican" each count as one at the ballot box.

Country club Republicans are increasingly in states Republicans no longer win, while America-first types are much more present in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and even Florida. So no, their votes don’t count the same in our retarded electoral system.

[RINO Tom]

The GOP arguably would have won different Lean R voters.  A "America first conservative" and a "country club Republican" each count as one at the ballot box.

Country club Republicans are increasingly in states Republicans no longer win, while America-first types are much more present in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and even Florida. So no, their votes don’t count the same in our retarded electoral system.

Don't you think the GOP could have won Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida with better suburban numbers, too?

[Lechasseur]

The GOP arguably would have won different Lean R voters.  A "America first conservative" and a "country club Republican" each count as one at the ballot box.

Country club Republicans are increasingly in states Republicans no longer win, while America-first types are much more present in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and even Florida. So no, their votes don’t count the same in our retarded electoral system.

Don't you think the GOP could have won Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida with better suburban numbers, too?

Ohio and Florida yes, Pennsylvania no, Philadelphia's suburbs have been solidly Democratic for a while now, and that's why the GOP wasn't capable of winning the state for a quarter of a century until Trump increased the margins elsewhere in the state, but I agree that there was more than one path to victory in Ohio and Florida.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The GOP arguably would have won different Lean R voters.  A "America first conservative" and a "country club Republican" each count as one at the ballot box.

Country club Republicans are increasingly in states Republicans no longer win, while America-first types are much more present in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and even Florida. So no, their votes don’t count the same in our retarded electoral system.

Don't you think the GOP could have won Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida with better suburban numbers, too?

Ohio and Florida yes, Pennsylvania no, Philadelphia's suburbs have been solidly Democratic for a while now, and that's why the GOP wasn't capable of winning the state for a quarter of a century until Trump increased the margins elsewhere in the state, but I agree that there was more than one path to victory in Ohio and Florida.

I disagree.  I think Toomey's map shows how.  The key is really just winning Chester and Bucks, racking up margins in Lancaster and possibly Berks, and keeping down margins in Delaware and Montgomery.

[uti2]

The GOP arguably would have won different Lean R voters.  A "America first conservative" and a "country club Republican" each count as one at the ballot box.

Country club Republicans are increasingly in states Republicans no longer win, while America-first types are much more present in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and even Florida. So no, their votes don’t count the same in our retarded electoral system.

Don't you think the GOP could have won Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida with better suburban numbers, too?

Ohio and Florida yes, Pennsylvania no, Philadelphia's suburbs have been solidly Democratic for a while now, and that's why the GOP wasn't capable of winning the state for a quarter of a century until Trump increased the margins elsewhere in the state, but I agree that there was more than one path to victory in Ohio and Florida.

I disagree.  I think Toomey's map shows how.  The key is really just winning Chester and Bucks, racking up margins in Lancaster and possibly Berks, and keeping down margins in Delaware and Montgomery.

Santorum easily won his senate race in 2000, while Gore simultaneously easily carried the state.
Same goes for Specter in 2004. That pattern has not historically translated to top of the ticket voting where there is a different calculation, voters in PA were turned off by Bush's social conservatism, so you're suggesting someone more conservative than Bush would pick up those voters, on what basis? In terms of absolute votes, Trump actually won more votes than Toomey.

[Mr. Morden]

As I mentioned in the Tea Leaves thread, Cuban actually clarified that he'd more likely run as an Independent, but that he'd go Republican if forced to pick between the two major parties:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/opinion/sunday/mark-cubans-not-done-trolling-donald-trump.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[foxh8er]

I think he's being pragmatic - he doesn't want to run to win right now, he wants to run for the issues. It's a terrible idea to run for the issues in a clown-car Democratic primary.

This hypothetical is better for Democrats too for what its worth.

[Maxwell]

well that's good to know and it makes much more sense.

[beaver2.0]

Probably wants to challenge Trump.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obviously the 2020 election will be Castro vs. Cuban.

[beaver2.0]

Obviously the 2020 election will be Castro vs. Cuban.

Raul Castro is nominated at the DNC*, leading to Joaquin Castro running independent.  It's obvious how Cuban fits into this.

* = for precedent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Democratic_National_Convention#Running_mate

[HisGrace]

GOP base is only interested in electing people president who they know from their favorite reality TV shows, so I'd be interested to see how Cuban would do vs Trump.

There's no way Cuban wins the nomination but if he does he'd lose the general election pretty badly because the GOP base would not turn out to vote for him.

Everyone said that about Trump last time. I think the GOP base would turn out to vote for a plastic bag full of feces for president as long as Sean Hannity was going on TV every night saying electing the bag of feces president was "the last chance to save America" or something like that.