What would a Rubio electoral map have looked like?

[Arbitrage1980]

I think Rubio would have defeated Hillary Clinton; he also would have won the national popular vote. But the electoral map would have looked different since Rubio would have outperformed Trump with minorities and college whites but underperformed with working class whites. He probably would have won NV, CO, VA, NH, NC, MN, and obviously FL, but lost IA, WI, MI, ME02. The tough ones are PA and OH. He would have done better in the philly suburbs although I'm not sure if it would have been enough to carry the state. In OH he would have crushed it in affluent delaware county and Cleveland suburbs as well as win Hamilton County but would have done far worse in the rural areas, especially the traditional democratic strongholds in the eastern part of the state.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

[AGA]

I think that Rubio would have beaten Clinton. The electoral margin may not have been as large, but he would have won the popular vote because he would not have done a lot better in California and Texas than Trump. Third party voting would be lower because Republicans would have an easier time getting behind Rubio.

Rubio: 288
Clinton: 250

His appeal amongst affluent voters gives him Virginia, and his appeal amongst Hispanics gives him Colorado and Nevada. However, he would be weaker amongst white working class voters than Trump, so he would not win Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. He would still win Ohio and Iowa.

[uti2]

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. 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.

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.

*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.

[Arbitrage1980]

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. 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.

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.

*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.

Laughable if you think the DNC hacks is the reason Hillary lost. She was a terrible candidate with no compelling message, running on an ultra-liberal democratic platform that the voters did not want.

[Arbitrage1980]

I think that Rubio would have beaten Clinton. The electoral margin may not have been as large, but he would have won the popular vote because he would not have done a lot better in California and Texas than Trump. Third party voting would be lower because Republicans would have an easier time getting behind Rubio.

Rubio: 288
Clinton: 250

His appeal amongst affluent voters gives him Virginia, and his appeal amongst Hispanics gives him Colorado and Nevada. However, he would be weaker amongst white working class voters than Trump, so he would not win Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. He would still win Ohio and Iowa.

Isn't Rubio far more likely to lose Iowa since that state has a higher % of working class whites than WI or PA?

[uti2]

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. 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.

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.

*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.

Laughable if you think the DNC hacks is the reason Hillary lost. She was a terrible candidate with no compelling message, running on an ultra-liberal democratic platform that the voters did not want.

The hacks hurt dem turnout at the margins. Without that, Dem turnout is boosted and she holds the blue wall fine. Her problem is that the base thought she was too right-wing, same with Gore. On the other hand, rubio was running on a canned message his handlers ordered to him on a Bush-era PNAC slogan that voters did not want.

By the way, you still haven't explained why if rubio is so appealing to hispanics, why he lost over two-thirds of non-cuban hispanics and lost hispanics overall against a weak candidate the dems abandoned in his senate race.

Hillary was polling better in OH and a number of swing states than Obama was v. Mccain in '08 (until lehman), she is about equal to Obama.

[AGA]

I think that Rubio would have beaten Clinton. The electoral margin may not have been as large, but he would have won the popular vote because he would not have done a lot better in California and Texas than Trump. Third party voting would be lower because Republicans would have an easier time getting behind Rubio.

Rubio: 288
Clinton: 250

His appeal amongst affluent voters gives him Virginia, and his appeal amongst Hispanics gives him Colorado and Nevada. However, he would be weaker amongst white working class voters than Trump, so he would not win Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. He would still win Ohio and Iowa.

Isn't Rubio far more likely to lose Iowa since that state has a higher % of working class whites than WI or PA?

Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, however, have more African-Americans than Iowa, making them easier for Rubio to lose. Trump won Iowa by such a large margin that almost any Republican would have beaten Clinton there.

[catographer]

Clinton did have a compelling message; she won the popular vote.

[ElectionsGuy]

I think that Rubio would have beaten Clinton. The electoral margin may not have been as large, but he would have won the popular vote because he would not have done a lot better in California and Texas than Trump. Third party voting would be lower because Republicans would have an easier time getting behind Rubio.

Rubio: 288
Clinton: 250

His appeal amongst affluent voters gives him Virginia, and his appeal amongst Hispanics gives him Colorado and Nevada. However, he would be weaker amongst white working class voters than Trump, so he would not win Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. He would still win Ohio and Iowa.

Definitely agree with something like this, and no guarantee he would've won. Those who think he would've won all Trump voters and then some clearly didn't get the message of this election.

[SWE]

He'd lose in an unprecedented landslide in light of allegations that, as he is not a human being, he is most likely not qualified for the job.

[UWS]

I agree with this map. I would probably have flipped Michigan to Rubio.

If Rubio won the nomination and made the rumors true by selecting Nikki Haley as his running mate, he probably would have won more rural voters as Trump did. It would also had boosted him among African-American voters since Haley removed the Confederate flag from South Carolina's Capitol Hill after the shooting in Charleston in 2015, which would have made Rubio competitive in Detroit, thus helping him winning Michigan.

[Young Conservative]

In retrospect, he would've won massively. Kasich  would've won a Bush '88 electoral blowout.

[Arbitrage1980]

I agree with this map. I would probably have flipped Michigan to Rubio.

If Rubio won the nomination and made the rumors true by selecting Nikki Haley as his running mate, he probably would have won more rural voters as Trump did. It would also had boosted him among African-American voters since Haley removed the Confederate flag from South Carolina's Capitol Hill after the shooting in Charleston in 2015, which would have made Rubio competitive in Detroit, thus helping him winning Michigan.

Despite historic turnout and support from working-class whites, Trump's margin in MI, WI, PA were pretty thin (below 1% and just 1.2% in FL). This is because he underperformed with college whites. Rubio would have done better than even Romney with this group. The fact that Trump beat Hillary by just 9% in Texas, 3.6% in Arizona, and 5.1% in Georgia, is indicative of Trump's weakness with college whites in suburbs.

[Arbitrage1980]

Clinton did have a compelling message; she won the popular vote.

The national popular vote is a totally meaningless statistic, akin to total yards gained by a football team in a game. Hillary did not "win" anything because the national popular vote is not how we select our president.

[uti2]

I agree with this map. I would probably have flipped Michigan to Rubio.

If Rubio won the nomination and made the rumors true by selecting Nikki Haley as his running mate, he probably would have won more rural voters as Trump did. It would also had boosted him among African-American voters since Haley removed the Confederate flag from South Carolina's Capitol Hill after the shooting in Charleston in 2015, which would have made Rubio competitive in Detroit, thus helping him winning Michigan.

Keep in mind that UWS is is the same poster who thinks that Haley would cause the ticket to win Washington state due to the 'asian vote'. He still hasn't explained how rubio could not even win the hispanic vote in his own home state in a senate race against an abandoned dem opponent.

[uti2]

Despite historic turnout and support from working-class whites, Trump's margin in MI, WI, PA were pretty thin (below 1% and just 1.2% in FL). This is because he underperformed with college whites. Rubio would have done better than even Romney with this group. The fact that Trump beat Hillary by just 9% in Texas, 3.6% in Arizona, and 5.1% in Georgia, is indicative of Trump's weakness with college whites in suburbs.

Rubio was polling in a statistical tie v. Clinton in the first place in FL.

[uti2]

By the way, one more comment, many of the people on here hyping rubio will say that Bernie had zero chance, despite Bernie polling better in hypothetical polls than every republican. You can't have it both ways.

Either accept that people didn't know much about the candidates in the first place, and thus their numbers and favorables were inflated (cruz originally polled within the margin of error w/ rubio, only collapsed in apr/may), or accept that Bernie would've beaten all the republicans going by the logic of hypothetical polling matchups.

[UWS]

I agree with this map. I would probably have flipped Michigan to Rubio.

If Rubio won the nomination and made the rumors true by selecting Nikki Haley as his running mate, he probably would have won more rural voters as Trump did. It would also had boosted him among African-American voters since Haley removed the Confederate flag from South Carolina's Capitol Hill after the shooting in Charleston in 2015, which would have made Rubio competitive in Detroit, thus helping him winning Michigan.

Keep in mind that UWS is is the same poster who thinks that Haley would cause the ticket to win Washington state due to the 'asian vote'. He still hasn't explained how rubio could not even win the hispanic vote in his own home state in a senate race against an abandoned dem opponent.

And yet it was tied : Rubio got 48 % of the Latino vote, that's high enough to win Florida.

And 48 % of the Hispanic vote in Florida is clearly better than Mitt Romney's record in 2012 when he got only 39 % of the local Latino vote and lost Florida to Barack Obama by less than one point of percentage.

[uti2]

I agree with this map. I would probably have flipped Michigan to Rubio.

If Rubio won the nomination and made the rumors true by selecting Nikki Haley as his running mate, he probably would have won more rural voters as Trump did. It would also had boosted him among African-American voters since Haley removed the Confederate flag from South Carolina's Capitol Hill after the shooting in Charleston in 2015, which would have made Rubio competitive in Detroit, thus helping him winning Michigan.

Keep in mind that UWS is is the same poster who thinks that Haley would cause the ticket to win Washington state due to the 'asian vote'. He still hasn't explained how rubio could not even win the hispanic vote in his own home state in a senate race against an abandoned dem opponent.

And yet it was tied : Rubio got 48 % of the Latino vote, that's high enough to win Florida.

And 48 % of the Hispanic vote in Florida is clearly better than Mitt Romney's record in 2012 when he got only 39 % of the Latino vote and lost Florida to Barack Obama by less than one point of percentage.

Yes, FL, a heavily cuban state, which means being cuban wouldn't help or prevent him from losing NV, etc. Romney did worse with working class whites, which is what cost him.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Guys, Trump won because he wasn't a conventional "politician" like Rubio or Cruz. Both of them would lose.

The only other GOP contender I could see winning was Kasich thanks to a regional appeal.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I actually made a map for a scenario I'm working on:

FBM : 51.2%, 297 EV
HRC: 46.5%, 241 EV


FBM does a lot better than T***p in Atlas-red States, as well as in big States like FL and TX, hence the narrower EV win despite a nearly 5-point popular vote lead.

[uti2]

FBM does a lot better than T***p in Atlas-red States, as well as in big States like FL and TX, hence the narrower EV win despite a nearly 5-point popular vote lead.

rubio was always polling as tied to Hillary in FL.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Clinton/Kaine (D) 279 EV
Rubio/Kasich (R) 259 EV

Rubio is nerdy and smarmy.  At no time did Rubio come off as anything other than the Estabishment's Favorite Management Trainee.  He had no experience, yet he was still very much viewed as an insider.  And rightly so; there is nothing "outsider" about Marco Rubio's career, which has, at every step, been advanced by powerful insiders.

[uti2]

Clinton/Kaine (D) 279 EV
Rubio/Kasich (R) 269 EV

Rubio is nerdy and smarmy.  At no time did Rubio come off as anything other than the Estabishment's Favorite Management Trainee.  He had no experience, yet he was still very much viewed as an insider.  And rightly so; there is nothing "outsider" about Marco Rubio's career, which has, at every step, been advanced by powerful insiders.

Wait, how did you get those numbers 279-269?  That would mean both candidates could hit 270?

He meant 279-259