If Rubio had won

[uti2]

Let's be clear, o.k., rubio is a Huckabee '08 endorser with a social platform about on par with cruz and an economic platform also pretty close to Cruz.


Rubio's tax plan called for reducing the capital gains tax rate, the dividend tax rate, the estate tax rate, and the gift tax rate all to 0. His tax plan isn't that different from Cruz's. That's not moderate, that's close to 'very conservative'.

[catographer]

I feel like without Trump's unique appeal and candidacy, Rubio would not have won the same kind of non-college educated whites that Trump won over Obama. The coalition would look a lot different, because both Clinton and Rubio were seen as appealing to college-educated upper-class suburban whites. He probably wouldn't have won MI, WI or PA. Probably his map would've looked closer to a Romney map +4-5 points everywhere. Clear popular vote victory though.

[uti2]

I feel like without Trump's unique appeal and candidacy, Rubio would not have won the same kind of non-college educated whites that Trump won over Obama. The coalition would look a lot different, because both Clinton and Rubio were seen as appealing to college-educated upper-class suburban whites. He probably wouldn't have won MI, WI or PA. Probably his map would've looked closer to a Romney map +4-5 points everywhere. Clear popular vote victory though.

College-educated Suburban Whites voted for Senator Santorum in 2000, while Gore won PA. Just saying. Doesn't mean that those same suburban whites in PA would've voted for a President Santorum.

[Lord Admirale]

I feel like without Trump's unique appeal and candidacy, Rubio would not have won the same kind of non-college educated whites that Trump won over Obama. The coalition would look a lot different, because both Clinton and Rubio were seen as appealing to college-educated upper-class suburban whites. He probably wouldn't have won MI, WI or PA. Probably his map would've looked closer to a Romney map +4-5 points everywhere. Clear popular vote victory though.

I can see him pulling off PA with completely different demographics (probably focusing on the Philly suburbs rather than Western PA), but are you saying there's a potential for a reversal of the electoral and popular vote? As in, Clinton wins the electoral college but Rubio wins the popular vote?

[uti2]

I feel like without Trump's unique appeal and candidacy, Rubio would not have won the same kind of non-college educated whites that Trump won over Obama. The coalition would look a lot different, because both Clinton and Rubio were seen as appealing to college-educated upper-class suburban whites. He probably wouldn't have won MI, WI or PA. Probably his map would've looked closer to a Romney map +4-5 points everywhere. Clear popular vote victory though.

I can see him pulling off PA with completely different demographics (probably focusing on the Philly suburbs rather than Western PA), but are you saying there's a potential for a reversal of the electoral and popular vote? As in, Clinton wins the electoral college but Rubio wins the popular vote?

That's what GWB did in PA, still didn't work for him. The GOP senate candidates (each being of very different stripes) won both times, the 2000 GOP PA senate candidate being hard-right, and the 2004 GOP senate candidate being a moderate (as in a real moderate, not a hardcore social conservative who also wants a hardcore fiscal conservative economic plan and is basically very close to Cruz policy-wise).

[mvd10]

I feel like without Trump's unique appeal and candidacy, Rubio would not have won the same kind of non-college educated whites that Trump won over Obama. The coalition would look a lot different, because both Clinton and Rubio were seen as appealing to college-educated upper-class suburban whites. He probably wouldn't have won MI, WI or PA. Probably his map would've looked closer to a Romney map +4-5 points everywhere. Clear popular vote victory though.

I can see him pulling off PA with completely different demographics (probably focusing on the Philly suburbs rather than Western PA), but are you saying there's a potential for a reversal of the electoral and popular vote? As in, Clinton wins the electoral college but Rubio wins the popular vote?

I can see that happen. A GOP candidate who does fairly well with minorities but doesn't overperform with non college-educated whites can win the PV but lose the EC. But if you max out non college-educated whites you massively overperform in the EC. The electoral college basically was tailormade for a candidate like Trump. But I think Rubio would have won the PV by enough to defeat Clinton with over 300 EVs.

[peterthlee]

The US government will try to play the Hong Kong card instead of Trump's trade card.
He might occassionally go to a tug-of-war in words with China, but it might end up as what a usual Republican president did.

[Lord Admirale]

I feel like without Trump's unique appeal and candidacy, Rubio would not have won the same kind of non-college educated whites that Trump won over Obama. The coalition would look a lot different, because both Clinton and Rubio were seen as appealing to college-educated upper-class suburban whites. He probably wouldn't have won MI, WI or PA. Probably his map would've looked closer to a Romney map +4-5 points everywhere. Clear popular vote victory though.

I can see him pulling off PA with completely different demographics (probably focusing on the Philly suburbs rather than Western PA), but are you saying there's a potential for a reversal of the electoral and popular vote? As in, Clinton wins the electoral college but Rubio wins the popular vote?

That's what GWB did in PA, still didn't work for him. The GOP senate candidates (each being of very different stripes) won both times, the 2000 GOP PA senate candidate being hard-right, and the 2004 GOP senate candidate being a moderate (as in a real moderate, not a hardcore social conservative who also wants a hardcore fiscal conservative economic plan and is basically very close to Cruz policy-wise).

Will you stop talking about Ted Cruz? Ted Cruz is irrelevant in this thread. Also minority turnout was relatively low in PA this year, so if Rubio could use low turnout among blacks and garner more votes from Latinos, along with the suburban vote, he could pull the state to his side.

[uti2]

I feel like without Trump's unique appeal and candidacy, Rubio would not have won the same kind of non-college educated whites that Trump won over Obama. The coalition would look a lot different, because both Clinton and Rubio were seen as appealing to college-educated upper-class suburban whites. He probably wouldn't have won MI, WI or PA. Probably his map would've looked closer to a Romney map +4-5 points everywhere. Clear popular vote victory though.

I can see him pulling off PA with completely different demographics (probably focusing on the Philly suburbs rather than Western PA), but are you saying there's a potential for a reversal of the electoral and popular vote? As in, Clinton wins the electoral college but Rubio wins the popular vote?

That's what GWB did in PA, still didn't work for him. The GOP senate candidates (each being of very different stripes) won both times, the 2000 GOP PA senate candidate being hard-right, and the 2004 GOP senate candidate being a moderate (as in a real moderate, not a hardcore social conservative who also wants a hardcore fiscal conservative economic plan and is basically very close to Cruz policy-wise).

Will you stop talking about Ted Cruz? Ted Cruz is irrelevant in this thread. Also minority turnout was relatively low in PA this year, so if Rubio could use low turnout among blacks and garner more votes from Latinos, along with the suburban vote, he could pull the state to his side.

That's exactly what GWB did though. GWB got 40% of Latinos, and did better with 'college-educated' whites and still lost the state, while GOP senators won both times.

I feel like without Trump's unique appeal and candidacy, Rubio would not have won the same kind of non-college educated whites that Trump won over Obama. The coalition would look a lot different, because both Clinton and Rubio were seen as appealing to college-educated upper-class suburban whites. He probably wouldn't have won MI, WI or PA. Probably his map would've looked closer to a Romney map +4-5 points everywhere. Clear popular vote victory though.

I can see him pulling off PA with completely different demographics (probably focusing on the Philly suburbs rather than Western PA), but are you saying there's a potential for a reversal of the electoral and popular vote? As in, Clinton wins the electoral college but Rubio wins the popular vote?

I can see that happen. A GOP candidate who does fairly well with minorities but doesn't overperform with non college-educated whites can win the PV but lose the EC. But if you max out non college-educated whites you massively overperform in the EC. The electoral college basically was tailormade for a candidate like Trump. But I think Rubio would have won the PV by enough to defeat Clinton with over 300 EVs.

The main assumption here that can be fallacious is that rubio actually has a platform appealing to those college-educated whites. Independent and Crossover College-educated whites mostly voted for Kasich, and then (believe-it-or-not) Trump. Rubio's core supporters were dyed-in-the-wool conservatives.

Rubio is no moderate if you look at his outlined policies, therefore his electoral potential should be closer to Cruz than Kasich. What's ridiculous is when people try to group Rubio and Kasich together, when they're nothing alike. Kasich is the candidate that mostly did well with those centrist college-educated whites.

[uti2]

Rubio is actually to the right of Trump on many issues, so trying to use Trump as a baseline and then trying to pad additional numbers onto Rubio's potential performance is simplistic. Sure, some of Trump's characteristics damaged him, but rubio's characteristics would also damage him in different ways. Rubio's different style of radicalism would alienate different voters in different ways. Rubio is ultimately a type of radical like Cruz, not a moderate.

The baseline for 'Generic Republican' should be 'moderate conservative', not Tea Party radical.

An example of a moderate hispanic conservative with actual appeal to people in states like CO and NV is Susana Martinez.

Martinez, Kasich, Huntsman (or Christie without bridgegate), these are actual moderate conservatives who you might be able to argue would improve a baseline beyond Trump's performance (especially when you look and see how well Martinez/Sandoval have done with actual non-cuban latinos in their state races).