Rubio vs Clinton

[PresidentTRUMP]

Rubio / Martinez

vs

Clinton / Castro

Who wins and maps? Clinton is the dems best bet with a weak bench for 2016 despite being much more conservative than warren or obama. Rubio would be the perfect contrast for republicans if the dems nominate clinton. A young hispanic senator from the biggest swing state in America. Many of the attacks used on Romney wouldn't work at all against Rubio.

I could also see the Rubio going with  Kasich and Clinton may go with someone with a little more experience than Castro.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm not so sure Rubio will run in the end, given he'd have to give up what appears to be safe Senate seat.

[PresidentTRUMP]

I truly believe he's the republicans best shot at taking down hillary and its not really that close, for several reasons.

[Blair]

Post 2012 Rubio no, before everybody knew that he was a crap politician. Seems to be a myth that hispanics/young/blacks/gays/women would vote on mass for Rubio because he's not an old white guy

[PresidentTRUMP]

Crap politician? I would disagree and have no question he poses the greatest threat to a clinton presidency for numerous reasons. Tough to be a crap politician when your the speaker of the house in Florida one of the biggest states in America in your thirties, a senator now and will win re-election if he decides to go that route and has a VERY good chance to become governor of Florida in 2018 if he decides to go that route before running for president. Setting him up for a serious run in 2020 or 2024. I believe he can win now and is republicans best chance, with walker not far behind.

I still believe deep down most Democrats wont admit it but they realize hes a serious threat way more so than a cruz, romney, bush, santorum, huckabee, or paul who would all 99% likely lose a GE to Hilary.

[Suburbia]

Rubio would increase the GOP share of Latino voters, and could make inroads with working class voters in the Midwest, with Tim Pawlenty as his running mate. A safe, bland choice, will keep Rubio in the news, but not enough.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton/Virginia Senator Tim Kaine-294 EV
Florida Senator Marco Rubio/Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty-244 EV

[IceSpear]

Rubio has proven he's a lightweight time and time again. Hillary wins easily, Obama 08 + MO.

Clinton - 369
Rubio - 169

[Württemberger]

Rubio has proven he's a lightweight time and time again. Hillary wins easily, Obama 08 + MO.

Clinton - 369
Rubio - 169

Can you at least TRY to be a bit more objective? I mean, seriously, but... Indiana? Nebraska's 2nd CD? Missouri? North Carolina? Colorado? ... Indiana was only a narrow victory for Obama because Obama was from neighboring IL and African American turnout was SKY HIGH... Obama lost the state by 10 points (!) in 2012. I can't see Hillary winning a state that Obama lost by 10 points despite the Obama coalition turning out for him in large numbers...

[IceSpear]

Rubio has proven he's a lightweight time and time again. Hillary wins easily, Obama 08 + MO.

Clinton - 369
Rubio - 169

Can you at least TRY to be a bit more objective? I mean, seriously, but... Indiana? Nebraska's 2nd CD? Missouri? North Carolina? Colorado? ... Indiana was only a narrow victory for Obama because Obama was from neighboring IL and African American turnout was SKY HIGH... Obama lost the state by 10 points (!) in 2012. I can't see Hillary winning a state that Obama lost by 10 points despite the Obama coalition turning out for him in large numbers...

Yes, it's completely unbelievable that Democrats could potentially win states that they won 6 years ago again. But believing the GOP can win states they haven't won since 1988 is perfectly reasonable! Seems like a double standard to me. Indiana and Missouri were easy Republican wins in 2012 because unlike 2008, Obama didn't try to contest them. If Hillary (who is a better fit for the states than Obama) seriously contests them, they could certainly be winnable.
 
The only people who need to try to be more objective are the people who see Obama 2012 as some type of Democratic ceiling when that obviously isn't the case. I see Rubio as a weak candidate, so my map makes perfect sense. I've posted maps with her doing worse than Obama against Walker/Kasich, if that makes you feel better.

[Württemberger]

Rubio has proven he's a lightweight time and time again. Hillary wins easily, Obama 08 + MO.

Clinton - 369
Rubio - 169

Can you at least TRY to be a bit more objective? I mean, seriously, but... Indiana? Nebraska's 2nd CD? Missouri? North Carolina? Colorado? ... Indiana was only a narrow victory for Obama because Obama was from neighboring IL and African American turnout was SKY HIGH... Obama lost the state by 10 points (!) in 2012. I can't see Hillary winning a state that Obama lost by 10 points despite the Obama coalition turning out for him in large numbers...

Yes, it's completely unbelievable that Democrats could potentially win states that they won 6 years ago again. But believing the GOP can win states they haven't won since 1988 is perfectly reasonable! Seems like a double standard to me. Indiana and Missouri were easy Republican wins in 2012 because unlike 2008, Obama didn't try to contest them. If Hillary (who is a better fit for the states than Obama) seriously contests them, they could certainly be winnable.
 
The only people who need to try to be more objective are the people who see Obama 2012 as some type of Democratic ceiling when that obviously isn't the case. I see Rubio as a weak candidate, so my map makes perfect sense. I've posted maps with her doing worse than Obama against Walker/Kasich, if that makes you feel better.

Alright, I get your point. However, let me add some thoughts to that:
1.) I think that Hillary will not be able to get a bigger minority turnout than Obama did, even against a weak Republican candidate.
2.) Even WITH a high Democratic turnout, she will not be able to win IN or NC, in my opinion. Just take a look at Kay Hagan: She got the African American turnout she wanted and still lost the state (despite the Libertarian candidate taking almost 4% of the votes and her better (than Obama's) performance among white voters). Even if African American/Hispanic/Asian turnout is down slightly, NC will not be in Hillary's bag. And I guarantee you: She won't win more Hispanics than Obama against Rubio. Yes, she may be doing a little bit better among whites, but Rubio will compensate that with his better performance among Hispanics.
3.) Why do so many people assume that Hillary is a better fit for these Republican states because she is white and a Clinton? This is not 1996 anymore! I mean... just look at Mark Pryor or Mary Landrieu. They still lost badly, even though the Clintons campaigned heavily for them. Many Democrats still don't realize how many Whites they have alienated (WV is the best proof of that). The Obama Coalition really never included working-class whites.
4.) You're right, Obama didn't contest IN or MO in 2012. BUT: Democratic turnout was STILL very high. Why do I say that with such certainty? Take a look at Mississippi (a state Obama also didn't contest): The black vote share went up by 3 points and Obama almost lost the state by the same margin as Indiana! Yet I am sure that Hillary will do worse in MS than Obama did. And honestly: Obama would have lost Indiana 58-41 if Democratic turnout was THAT down.
5.) Many Democrats still overestimate Hillary's strength and the fact that it is quite difficult for a party to win three straight elections.
6.) "The only people who need to try to be more objective are the people who see Obama 2012 as some type of Democratic ceiling when that obviously isn't the case: I don't agree with that. It is REALLY, REALLY unlikely that the party in power would win even more states than it won in the last two elections. Yes, even with Hillary on the ticket. Demographics are not destiny!

[Württemberger]

Wurttemberger, just stop complaining. Clinton is inevitable.

She's taking Mississippi, no questions asked.

I am so sorry! How could I even DARE questioning Madame President Hillary's strength.

[IceSpear]

Rubio has proven he's a lightweight time and time again. Hillary wins easily, Obama 08 + MO.

Clinton - 369
Rubio - 169

Can you at least TRY to be a bit more objective? I mean, seriously, but... Indiana? Nebraska's 2nd CD? Missouri? North Carolina? Colorado? ... Indiana was only a narrow victory for Obama because Obama was from neighboring IL and African American turnout was SKY HIGH... Obama lost the state by 10 points (!) in 2012. I can't see Hillary winning a state that Obama lost by 10 points despite the Obama coalition turning out for him in large numbers...

Yes, it's completely unbelievable that Democrats could potentially win states that they won 6 years ago again. But believing the GOP can win states they haven't won since 1988 is perfectly reasonable! Seems like a double standard to me. Indiana and Missouri were easy Republican wins in 2012 because unlike 2008, Obama didn't try to contest them. If Hillary (who is a better fit for the states than Obama) seriously contests them, they could certainly be winnable.
 
The only people who need to try to be more objective are the people who see Obama 2012 as some type of Democratic ceiling when that obviously isn't the case. I see Rubio as a weak candidate, so my map makes perfect sense. I've posted maps with her doing worse than Obama against Walker/Kasich, if that makes you feel better.

Alright, I get your point. However, let me add some thoughts to that:
1.) I think that Hillary will not be able to get a bigger minority turnout than Obama did, even against a weak Republican candidate.
2.) Even WITH a high Democratic turnout, she will not be able to win IN or NC, in my opinion. Just take a look at Kay Hagan: She got the African American turnout she wanted and still lost the state (despite the Libertarian candidate taking almost 4% of the votes and her better (than Obama's) performance among white voters). Even if African American/Hispanic/Asian turnout is down slightly, NC will not be in Hillary's bag. And I guarantee you: She won't win more Hispanics than Obama against Rubio. Yes, she may be doing a little bit better among whites, but Rubio will compensate that with his better performance among Hispanics.
3.) Why do so many people assume that Hillary is a better fit for these Republican states because she is white and a Clinton? This is not 1996 anymore! I mean... just look at Mark Pryor or Mary Landrieu. They still lost badly, even though the Clintons campaigned heavily for them. Many Democrats still don't realize how many Whites they have alienated (WV is the best proof of that). The Obama Coalition really never included working-class whites.
4.) You're right, Obama didn't contest IN or MO in 2012. BUT: Democratic turnout was STILL very high. Why do I say that? Take a look at Mississippi (a state Obama also didn't contest): The black share went up by 3 points and Obama almost lost the state by the same margin as Indiana! Yet I am sure that Hillary will do worse in MS than Obama did.
5.) Many Democrats still overestimate Hillary's strength and the fact that it is quite difficult for a party to win three straight elections.
6.) "The only people who need to try to be more objective are the people who see Obama 2012 as some type of Democratic ceiling when that obviously isn't the case: I don't agree with that. It is REALLY, REALLY unlikely that the party in power would win even more states than it won in the last two elections. Yes, even with Hillary on the ticket. Demographics are not destiny!

1) Possibly with AAs, it's certainly plausible she could get better turnout among Hispanics.
2) Hagan got the numbers she wanted with AAs, but that was because she already factored in that it was a midterm, and therefore hoping for presidential year turnout was just completely implausible. Even a small improvement with whites would more than make up for a drop among Hispanics considering Hispanics are such a small segment of the population in NC. And I never said that I thought "NC would be in the bag for Hillary", all I said was that I think she'd win it against Marco Rubio.
3) Because she simply is, and all emprical evidence shows it. From the 2008 primary results to the polls to common sense. Nobody's saying she's going to match Bill's numbers among whites, but it doesn't take an enormous improvement to win them. And remember, Obama won these states in 08 despite this! It's not like this is some wild fantasy that has never happened. As for Pryor/Landrieu, there's a reason all the "Hillary will sweep Appalachia!" talk stopped after the midterms. There's no reason to lump those states in with IN/MO, they're entirely different. If you need proof of that, just look at the 2008 results.
4) Turnout isn't the only thing that matters though. We've already established that her winning these states depends upon how many white voters she can swing. You and many others seem to think that the 39% of the white vote the Democrats got in 2012 is their ceiling. Some people on the other side think it's actually the Democratic floor. I happen to think it's not the floor, but it's certainly towards the lower end of what Democrats can expect. And it doesn't make any sense to say that just because Rubio is a Hispanic that he'll improve among Hispanics, but Hillary won't improve among whites just because she's white.
5/6) Rules like this was meant to be broken. It was also extremely unlikely for a president to be re-elected with less electoral votes than he won originally, until Obama did it. It was also extremely unlikely for an incumbent Pennsylvania governor to lose re-election, until Corbett just did. It was extremely unlikely for the party that holds the White House to win the Virginia governorship, until McAuliffe won. "Evidence" such as this guarantees absolutely nothing. http://xkcd.com/1122/

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I agree with IceSpear's map though I think Rubio might just pull off Indiana. Missouri if it's somehow simultaneously a good year for Republicans.

Rubio might not even win re-election to the Senate! There's no way he's toppling Hillary in her current state.

[IceSpear]

Wurttemberger, just stop complaining. Clinton is inevitable.

She's taking Mississippi, no questions asked.

This is about as relevant as me quoting a map showing Republicans winning PA and posting: "Wow, so delusional. I bet you think Republicans will win Vermont too? LOLOL"

[Württemberger]

Rubio has proven he's a lightweight time and time again. Hillary wins easily, Obama 08 + MO.

Clinton - 369
Rubio - 169

Can you at least TRY to be a bit more objective? I mean, seriously, but... Indiana? Nebraska's 2nd CD? Missouri? North Carolina? Colorado? ... Indiana was only a narrow victory for Obama because Obama was from neighboring IL and African American turnout was SKY HIGH... Obama lost the state by 10 points (!) in 2012. I can't see Hillary winning a state that Obama lost by 10 points despite the Obama coalition turning out for him in large numbers...

Yes, it's completely unbelievable that Democrats could potentially win states that they won 6 years ago again. But believing the GOP can win states they haven't won since 1988 is perfectly reasonable! Seems like a double standard to me. Indiana and Missouri were easy Republican wins in 2012 because unlike 2008, Obama didn't try to contest them. If Hillary (who is a better fit for the states than Obama) seriously contests them, they could certainly be winnable.
 
The only people who need to try to be more objective are the people who see Obama 2012 as some type of Democratic ceiling when that obviously isn't the case. I see Rubio as a weak candidate, so my map makes perfect sense. I've posted maps with her doing worse than Obama against Walker/Kasich, if that makes you feel better.

Alright, I get your point. However, let me add some thoughts to that:
1.) I think that Hillary will not be able to get a bigger minority turnout than Obama did, even against a weak Republican candidate.
2.) Even WITH a high Democratic turnout, she will not be able to win IN or NC, in my opinion. Just take a look at Kay Hagan: She got the African American turnout she wanted and still lost the state (despite the Libertarian candidate taking almost 4% of the votes and her better (than Obama's) performance among white voters). Even if African American/Hispanic/Asian turnout is down slightly, NC will not be in Hillary's bag. And I guarantee you: She won't win more Hispanics than Obama against Rubio. Yes, she may be doing a little bit better among whites, but Rubio will compensate that with his better performance among Hispanics.
3.) Why do so many people assume that Hillary is a better fit for these Republican states because she is white and a Clinton? This is not 1996 anymore! I mean... just look at Mark Pryor or Mary Landrieu. They still lost badly, even though the Clintons campaigned heavily for them. Many Democrats still don't realize how many Whites they have alienated (WV is the best proof of that). The Obama Coalition really never included working-class whites.
4.) You're right, Obama didn't contest IN or MO in 2012. BUT: Democratic turnout was STILL very high. Why do I say that? Take a look at Mississippi (a state Obama also didn't contest): The black share went up by 3 points and Obama almost lost the state by the same margin as Indiana! Yet I am sure that Hillary will do worse in MS than Obama did.
5.) Many Democrats still overestimate Hillary's strength and the fact that it is quite difficult for a party to win three straight elections.
6.) "The only people who need to try to be more objective are the people who see Obama 2012 as some type of Democratic ceiling when that obviously isn't the case: I don't agree with that. It is REALLY, REALLY unlikely that the party in power would win even more states than it won in the last two elections. Yes, even with Hillary on the ticket. Demographics are not destiny!

1) Possibly with AAs, it's certainly plausible she could get better turnout among Hispanics.
2) Hagan got the numbers she wanted with AAs, but that was because she already factored in that it was a midterm, and therefore hoping for presidential year turnout was just completely implausible. Even a small improvement with whites would more than make up for a drop among Hispanics considering Hispanics are such a small segment of the population in NC. And I never said that I thought "NC would be in the bag for Hillary", all I said was that I think she'd win it against Marco Rubio.
3) Because she simply is, and all emprical evidence shows it. From the 2008 primary results to the polls to common sense. Nobody's saying she's going to match Bill's numbers among whites, but it doesn't take an enormous improvement to win them. And remember, Obama won these states in 08 despite this! It's not like this is some wild fantasy that has never happened. As for Pryor/Landrieu, there's a reason all the "Hillary will sweep Appalachia!" talk stopped after the midterms. There's no reason to lump those states in with IN/MO, they're entirely different. If you need proof of that, just look at the 2008 results.
4) Turnout isn't the only thing that matters though. We've already established that her winning these states depends upon how many white voters she can swing. You and many others seem to think that the 39% of the white vote the Democrats got in 2012 is their ceiling. Some people on the other side think it's actually the Democratic floor. I happen to think it's not the floor, but it's certainly towards the lower end of what Democrats can expect. And it doesn't make any sense to say that just because Rubio is a Hispanic that he'll improve among Hispanics, but Hillary won't improve among whites just because she's white.
5/6) Rules like this was meant to be broken. It was also extremely unlikely for a president to be re-elected with less electoral votes than he won originally, until Obama did it. It was also extremely unlikely for an incumbent Pennsylvania governor to lose re-election, until Corbett just did. It was extremely unlikely for the party that holds the White House to win the Virginia governorship, until McAuliffe won. "Evidence" such as this guarantees absolutely nothing. http://xkcd.com/1122/

1.) Very, very unlikely. Rubio is pro immigration reform and not for self-deportation. People underestimate his appeal among Hispanics.
2.) Yes, but Hillary will not win THAT more whites than Obama in 2012 to be able to offset the drop among Hispanics and AAs. NC is just not a Clinton state (Bill lost it by five points in 1996).  And the South is not Appalachia.
3.) But again, even if she does improve among whites, it will (probably) not be enough to carry those states for her. And whether she loses WV by 56-42 and KY by 54-45 instead of 62-37 and 60-38 really does not matter. These states are safe Republican anyway.
4.) That depends on how many whites she can flip. Honestly: I don't think she can flip enough white voters to expand the Obama 2008 (and probably 2012) map or even match it.
5.)/6.) True. Especially if the GOP nominates a nutjob, which I don't think it will.

[IceSpear]

Rubio has proven he's a lightweight time and time again. Hillary wins easily, Obama 08 + MO.

Clinton - 369
Rubio - 169

Can you at least TRY to be a bit more objective? I mean, seriously, but... Indiana? Nebraska's 2nd CD? Missouri? North Carolina? Colorado? ... Indiana was only a narrow victory for Obama because Obama was from neighboring IL and African American turnout was SKY HIGH... Obama lost the state by 10 points (!) in 2012. I can't see Hillary winning a state that Obama lost by 10 points despite the Obama coalition turning out for him in large numbers...

Yes, it's completely unbelievable that Democrats could potentially win states that they won 6 years ago again. But believing the GOP can win states they haven't won since 1988 is perfectly reasonable! Seems like a double standard to me. Indiana and Missouri were easy Republican wins in 2012 because unlike 2008, Obama didn't try to contest them. If Hillary (who is a better fit for the states than Obama) seriously contests them, they could certainly be winnable.
 
The only people who need to try to be more objective are the people who see Obama 2012 as some type of Democratic ceiling when that obviously isn't the case. I see Rubio as a weak candidate, so my map makes perfect sense. I've posted maps with her doing worse than Obama against Walker/Kasich, if that makes you feel better.

Alright, I get your point. However, let me add some thoughts to that:
1.) I think that Hillary will not be able to get a bigger minority turnout than Obama did, even against a weak Republican candidate.
2.) Even WITH a high Democratic turnout, she will not be able to win IN or NC, in my opinion. Just take a look at Kay Hagan: She got the African American turnout she wanted and still lost the state (despite the Libertarian candidate taking almost 4% of the votes and her better (than Obama's) performance among white voters). Even if African American/Hispanic/Asian turnout is down slightly, NC will not be in Hillary's bag. And I guarantee you: She won't win more Hispanics than Obama against Rubio. Yes, she may be doing a little bit better among whites, but Rubio will compensate that with his better performance among Hispanics.
3.) Why do so many people assume that Hillary is a better fit for these Republican states because she is white and a Clinton? This is not 1996 anymore! I mean... just look at Mark Pryor or Mary Landrieu. They still lost badly, even though the Clintons campaigned heavily for them. Many Democrats still don't realize how many Whites they have alienated (WV is the best proof of that). The Obama Coalition really never included working-class whites.
4.) You're right, Obama didn't contest IN or MO in 2012. BUT: Democratic turnout was STILL very high. Why do I say that? Take a look at Mississippi (a state Obama also didn't contest): The black share went up by 3 points and Obama almost lost the state by the same margin as Indiana! Yet I am sure that Hillary will do worse in MS than Obama did.
5.) Many Democrats still overestimate Hillary's strength and the fact that it is quite difficult for a party to win three straight elections.
6.) "The only people who need to try to be more objective are the people who see Obama 2012 as some type of Democratic ceiling when that obviously isn't the case: I don't agree with that. It is REALLY, REALLY unlikely that the party in power would win even more states than it won in the last two elections. Yes, even with Hillary on the ticket. Demographics are not destiny!

1) Possibly with AAs, it's certainly plausible she could get better turnout among Hispanics.
2) Hagan got the numbers she wanted with AAs, but that was because she already factored in that it was a midterm, and therefore hoping for presidential year turnout was just completely implausible. Even a small improvement with whites would more than make up for a drop among Hispanics considering Hispanics are such a small segment of the population in NC. And I never said that I thought "NC would be in the bag for Hillary", all I said was that I think she'd win it against Marco Rubio.
3) Because she simply is, and all emprical evidence shows it. From the 2008 primary results to the polls to common sense. Nobody's saying she's going to match Bill's numbers among whites, but it doesn't take an enormous improvement to win them. And remember, Obama won these states in 08 despite this! It's not like this is some wild fantasy that has never happened. As for Pryor/Landrieu, there's a reason all the "Hillary will sweep Appalachia!" talk stopped after the midterms. There's no reason to lump those states in with IN/MO, they're entirely different. If you need proof of that, just look at the 2008 results.
4) Turnout isn't the only thing that matters though. We've already established that her winning these states depends upon how many white voters she can swing. You and many others seem to think that the 39% of the white vote the Democrats got in 2012 is their ceiling. Some people on the other side think it's actually the Democratic floor. I happen to think it's not the floor, but it's certainly towards the lower end of what Democrats can expect. And it doesn't make any sense to say that just because Rubio is a Hispanic that he'll improve among Hispanics, but Hillary won't improve among whites just because she's white.
5/6) Rules like this was meant to be broken. It was also extremely unlikely for a president to be re-elected with less electoral votes than he won originally, until Obama did it. It was also extremely unlikely for an incumbent Pennsylvania governor to lose re-election, until Corbett just did. It was extremely unlikely for the party that holds the White House to win the Virginia governorship, until McAuliffe won. "Evidence" such as this guarantees absolutely nothing. http://xkcd.com/1122/

1.) Very, very unlikely. Rubio is pro immigration reform and not for self-deportation. People underestimate his appeal among Hispanics.
2.) Yes, but Hillary will not win THAT more whites than Obama in 2012 to be able to offset the drop among Hispanics and AAs. NC is just not a Clinton state (Bill lost it by five points in 1996).  And the South is not Appalachia.
3.) But again, even if she does improve among whites, it will (probably) not be enough to carry those states for her. And whether she loses WV by 56-42 and KY by 54-45 instead of 62-37 and 60-38 really does not matter. These states are safe Republican anyway.
4.) That depends on how many whites she can flip. Honestly: I don't think she can flip enough white voters to expand the Obama 2008 (and probably 2012) map or even match it.
5.)/6.) True. Especially if the GOP nominates a nutjob, which I don't think it will.

1) He was pro immigration reform. He now opposes his own bill because the Tea Party got mad at him. Stuff like this is why I think he's a lightweight and a poor candidate.
2) Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Minority turnout could drop, but whites make up a large enough segment of the electorate that even a small swing toward Hillary could have her outperforming Obama anyway.
3) I already agree with you there, there's no way she's winning states like WV/KY.
4) See #2

[Xing]

Hillary wins easily. She wins the states Obama won in 2012+NC.

[pbrower2a]

Rubio has proven he's a lightweight time and time again. Hillary wins easily, Obama 08 + MO.

Clinton - 369
Rubio - 169

Can you at least TRY to be a bit more objective? I mean, seriously, but... Indiana? Nebraska's 2nd CD? Missouri? North Carolina? Colorado? ... Indiana was only a narrow victory for Obama because Obama was from neighboring IL and African American turnout was SKY HIGH... Obama lost the state by 10 points (!) in 2012. I can't see Hillary winning a state that Obama lost by 10 points despite the Obama coalition turning out for him in large numbers...

Barack Obama stayed away from Indiana and Missouri because of Senate races that were worth more than the 21 electoral votes of those two states marginal in 2008.

(Really I think that Arizona is more likely to go for Hillary Clinton in 2016 than either Indiana or Missouri. Rubio is the wrong sort of Hispanic to win Arizona as a Republican). Nebraska's Second Congressional District? It voted out a Republican incumbent in the House in a wave election that went for the Republican Party.

This time Indiana and Missouri both have incumbent Republican Senators, one of whom might be vulnerable to defeat in the general election. Should either of those two be vulnerable and Hillary Clinton be have the near-lock that Obama had late in 2012, then you might expect Democrats to challenge them -- and Hillary Clinton will not avoid the state. Unlike President Obama she will not likely have the same political liabilities.   

[Devils30]

Hillary has led Rubio in every Florida poll. She can win NC too, it only takes a small demographic chane from 2012 plus maybe 33% whites rather than 31%.

[MATTROSE94]

Rubio has proven he's a lightweight time and time again. Hillary wins easily, Obama 08 + MO.

Clinton - 369
Rubio - 169

Can you at least TRY to be a bit more objective? I mean, seriously, but... Indiana? Nebraska's 2nd CD? Missouri? North Carolina? Colorado? ... Indiana was only a narrow victory for Obama because Obama was from neighboring IL and African American turnout was SKY HIGH... Obama lost the state by 10 points (!) in 2012. I can't see Hillary winning a state that Obama lost by 10 points despite the Obama coalition turning out for him in large numbers...

Barack Obama stayed away from Indiana and Missouri because of Senate races that were worth more than the 21 electoral votes of those two states marginal in 2008.

He gave up 21 electoral votes... for no reason?

Are you daft?

It's not that unusual for Presidential candidates to ignore states that they have a legitimate chance to carry. For example, Bill Clinton actually did the same thing in 1996 that Obama did in 2012. Polling from Septemb er of that year had him ahead in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, South Dakota, Colorado and Montana, but Clinton instead decided to focus on winning Florida and Arizona, two states that he wanted to win badly and also to help several Democratic Senate candidates in tight races.

[pbrower2a]

Rubio has proven he's a lightweight time and time again. Hillary wins easily, Obama 08 + MO.

Clinton - 369
Rubio - 169

Can you at least TRY to be a bit more objective? I mean, seriously, but... Indiana? Nebraska's 2nd CD? Missouri? North Carolina? Colorado? ... Indiana was only a narrow victory for Obama because Obama was from neighboring IL and African American turnout was SKY HIGH... Obama lost the state by 10 points (!) in 2012. I can't see Hillary winning a state that Obama lost by 10 points despite the Obama coalition turning out for him in large numbers...

Barack Obama stayed away from Indiana and Missouri because of Senate races that were worth more than the 21 electoral votes of those two states marginal in 2008.

He gave up 21 electoral votes... for no reason?

Are you daft?

He gave up on 21 electoral votes so that he would do nothing to hurt the chances of Democrats winning two Senate seats.  Someone challenging or running for an open Presidency usually tries to expand the map of possible wins until he has a reasonably sure thing. Trying to win re-election he was more intent on getting a surer win than a bigger win. He played "Beat the Cheat" in 2008 to make sure that there was no single state into which the Republicans could apply every effort to win on the assumption that that would be enough (Gore losing Florida and Kerry losing Ohio). In 2012 he played a nickel defense against the Republican Party. He let the Republicans make easy but meaningless gains on the map while using the calendar as his ally.

He was going to win without them; he was going to do nothing to hurt the chances of Democrats winning the Senate seats in question.  If he was going to win either Indiana or Missouri he was also going to win Ohio anyway, which would have been enough.

Remember: Barack Obama is one of the shrewdest campaigners ever in American history. He has to be, for obvious reasons. In 2016 the Democratic nominee will not have quite the same set of skills -- and detriments. How many votes do you think he lost because people couldn't imagine voting for a black man as President?

[Jerseyrules]

How many votes do you think he lost because people couldn't imagine voting for a black man as President?

It continues to amaze me that posters on this thread continue to see America as a country where racists comprise a majority or at least a substantial minority of the voting population.  I'm not going to say that racism doesn't exist anymore, but as a Republican born to a multiracial family I'm getting really tired of this narrative that it's enough to swing an election significantly today.

Obama won decisively in 2008, not because he was black nor in spite of his being black.  He won because he captivated America's hearts and minds with a message of optimism and transcending partisanship to build a better nation for all Americans.

[Mister Mets]

Rubio's probably the best match for Clinton from a Republican POV. He's younger, also represents a major milestone (giving voters an excuse to go against the first female President) and seems to have superior political chops. He would also represent change more than someone who has been a national figure since 2008.

I think Clinton would need tailwinds to win.

The default map would be...
Rubio- 282 Electoral Votes
Clinton- 256 Electoral Votes

As long as the running mates avoid major gaffes, I'd imagine the bottom of the ticket won't be a major issue.

[pbrower2a]

How many votes do you think he lost because people couldn't imagine voting for a black man as President?

It continues to amaze me that posters on this thread continue to see America as a country where racists comprise a majority or at least a substantial minority of the voting population.  I'm not going to say that racism doesn't exist anymore, but as a Republican born to a multiracial family I'm getting really tired of this narrative that it's enough to swing an election significantly today.

Obama won decisively in 2008, not because he was black nor in spite of his being black.  He won because he captivated America's hearts and minds with a message of optimism and transcending partisanship to build a better nation for all Americans.

There were huge regional differences in the vote. Barack Obama won like Reagan in many Northern and Western states but lost like McGovern in many Southern states. There were big differences in white voting patterns between the South and other parts of the country.

Whatever the explanation he won firmly enough. I simply say that Republicans aren't going to win the Deep South by margins like those of Nixon against McGovern in the South again.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Rubio's probably the best match for Clinton from a Republican POV. He's younger, also represents a major milestone (giving voters an excuse to go against the first female President) and seems to have superior political chops. He would also represent change more than someone who has been a national figure since 2008.

I think Clinton would need tailwinds to win.

The default map would be...
Rubio- 282 Electoral Votes
Clinton- 256 Electoral Votes

As long as the running mates avoid major gaffes, I'd imagine the bottom of the ticket won't be a major issue.

Clinton's not gonna lose PA but win VA & IA. If Rubio wins, this map is far more likely.

Rubio- 281 EVs
Clinton- 257 EVs

But Marco Rubio is far more of a paper tiger than Clinton. Yeah, he's young and (kinda) hispanic, but he just doesn't have that spark. He's no Senator Obama. I see Hillary winning against Rubio with all the Obama 2012 states sans Florida.