Can Rubio win without New Hampshire?

[Mr. Morden]

I think Rubio still has a shot even if he loses all of the first four states.  Not necessarily a good shot, but a shot.  The scenario would be that one or more of Bush, Christie, Kasich (and maybe even Fiorina) hang on through Nevada, siphoning votes away from Rubio, but still with Rubio putting up a respectably strong second place finish in both NH and NV.  Then after Nevada, when it's clear that Bush or Christie or whoever is doomed to keep getting 4th and 5th place everywhere, with no hope of winning the nomination, they drop out.  In fact, it's spun by their handlers as a patriotic move to consolidate the vote around a single anti-Trump champion in Rubio.  They don’t want their political legacies to be that they secured the nomination for Donald Trump.

Furthermore, with the “donor class” in a panic over Cruz/Trump and no longer divided among three or four candidates of their own, the relevant billionaires drop an enormous sum on anti-Cruz and Trump negative ads in the remaining primary states, Rubio gets 100 new party endorsements and the GOP governors of the relevant states put their state party machines to work for him (a la Crist’s bailout of McCain in 2008), and he gets rolling.

But then, he’s got to show some results from that immediately on Super Tuesday.  Not necessarily win the most delegates on Super Tuesday, but at least score enough wins to give him something to build on for the remainder of March, when the calendar is more favorable.  Waiting until Florida on March 15 (after half the country has already voted) for his first victory seems ridiculous.

[Mr. Morden]

We got into this question back in the summer, (emphasizing Bush though) but I was taking Torie's argument that Bush or Rubio might not quit before Florida votes in mid-March.

Bush isn't going to win South Carolina after losing IA and NH, but he (or Rubio) could possibly, unlike Giuliani, win Florida despite not winning any previous states.

You do realize that the Florida primary will be March 15th, and more than 20 states will hold primaries or caucuses before that?  Why would either Bush or Rubio stay in the race after losing more than 20 states in a row?

Ftr, with the current "Trump/Cruz" landscape and "brokered convention" talk coming from party elites, I would now give Rubio some chance of sticking it out through March 15 even if he's won zero states to that point, but I'd still give him little chance of winning Florida if he's won absolutely nothing pre-March 15.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Despite all the talk about Rubio being the Republican Obama (young, charismatic, minority) the fact is that his nomination has created even less excitement among the Republican base than that of Mittens.

Rubio doesn't have "it", and has demonstrated neither the ability to fake "it" nor conveyed the impression that he particularly cares to. If I didn't know better - and I don't - I'd say that Rubio was running for VP or national exposure.

Rubio is essentially in the same position that Clinton ('92) and Obama ('08) found themselves in. A candidacy that was at best a long-shot and more focused on raising the candidates national profile than winning the nomination became, due to unforeseen events during the primary, a real shot at winning. Both Clinton and Obama seized their moment. Rubio doesn't seem particularly interested in seizing his.

If there's one thing Rubio's repeatedly demonstrated, it's that he doesn't want to do anything that actually requires work.

You are a very, very cold man.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but... damn.

[Bull Moose Base]

We got into this question back in the summer, (emphasizing Bush though) but I was taking Torie's argument that Bush or Rubio might not quit before Florida votes in mid-March.

Bush isn't going to win South Carolina after losing IA and NH, but he (or Rubio) could possibly, unlike Giuliani, win Florida despite not winning any previous states.

You do realize that the Florida primary will be March 15th, and more than 20 states will hold primaries or caucuses before that?  Why would either Bush or Rubio stay in the race after losing more than 20 states in a row?

Ftr, with the current "Trump/Cruz" landscape and "brokered convention" talk coming from party elites, I would now give Rubio some chance of sticking it out through March 15 even if he's won zero states to that point, but I'd still give him little chance of winning Florida if he's won absolutely nothing pre-March 15.

Although half or more states vote before Florida, Super Tuesday is only 2 weeks before Florida which isn't long to hang on for. I think there is a scenario where he's closed the gap on Tuesday states even without winning that makes a first win in Florida conceivable. It's conceivable another establishment candidate also hangs on until Super Tuesday, then quits helping the narrative Rubio has more chance in Florida.

OTOH, if Florida polls look bad for him, Rubio (or Bush?) might also have more incentive to drop out before embarrassing himself a la Santorum 2012, quitting before losing PA. I'm assuming Rubio has one eye on protecting his positioning for a 2020 run, even if he loses hope for 2016.

[Uhh_murican]

Yeah, Rubio just doesn't seem to want it. He doesn't want to be Senator any more and he doesn't really want to be President either, it seems. All he wants is to raise his profile so that he can pay his bills that he has racked up.

[Mr. Morden]

I don't think anyone cares about Nevada; it's been treated as a sideshow the last two times...

In 2008, Nevada got ignored by almost all the candidates, went on the same day as South Carolina, and got swallowed up by the South Carolina coverage.  In 2012, Romney winning NV just continued the "Romney is the frontrunner" narrative, and it was widely expected by everyone anyway.

In 2016, Nevada is the last state before Super Tuesday.  If Cruz/Trump win all of IA/NH/SC, then the media will be happy to look for the next twist in the narrative, being "establishment comeback".  So if an "establishment friendly" candidate wins Nevada, especially if it's a win not anticipated by the notoriously terrible Nevada polls in advance, then I think they latch onto that narrative, and it becomes a big deal, even if they weren't paying any attention to Nevada beforehand.

[Mr. Morden]

Btw, the thing that depresses me about Nevada this time is that, since the GOP caucuses will be on a Tuesday rather than a Saturday, no Adelson-funded MJC this time around.

[Lief 🗽]

Btw, the thing that depresses me about Nevada this time is that, since the GOP caucuses will be on a Tuesday rather than a Saturday, no Adelson-funded MJC this time around.

RIP Sweet Prince 😪

[Mr. Morden]

I don't think anyone cares about Nevada; it's been treated as a sideshow the last two times...

In 2008, Nevada got ignored by almost all the candidates, went on the same day as South Carolina, and got swallowed up by the South Carolina coverage.  In 2012, Romney winning NV just continued the "Romney is the frontrunner" narrative, and it was widely expected by everyone anyway.

In 2016, Nevada is the last state before Super Tuesday.  If Cruz/Trump win all of IA/NH/SC, then the media will be happy to look for the next twist in the narrative, being "establishment comeback".  So if an "establishment friendly" candidate wins Nevada, especially if it's a win not anticipated by the notoriously terrible Nevada polls in advance, then I think they latch onto that narrative, and it becomes a big deal, even if they weren't paying any attention to Nevada beforehand.

Another data point on the above: Remember the Feb. 7th contests in 2012?  The CO and MN caucuses, and the non-binding MO primary?  The media didn't care about them at all until about one day beforehand, and then once Santorum swept them it got tons of media attention and he went from trailing Romney by 10+ points to leading Romney in national polls overnight.  That's what I think will happen with Nevada if it's won by someone who hasn't won any primaries to that point.  If it's won by the existing frontrunner, no one will care.  But if it's not, then it'll get lots of hype.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I could see Rubio losing New Hampshire and winning South Carolina.

[Bull Moose Base]

I could see Rubio losing New Hampshire and winning South Carolina.

Many people here say this but I don't understand why. The establishment dropouts post-NH? I don't see it adding that much to his #s in South Carolina- not as much as the IA and NH winners gets from the momentum of winning those states. Since SC has been 3rd, we've seen 2 cases where it was won by a candidate who had not won IA or NH- Edwards and Gingrich, both SC neighbors, and in both cases, a patrician damn Yankee had swept IA and NH. (Romney's IA "win" was overturned between NH and SC but I think Gingrich had already surged into the SC lead.) Rubio doesn't fit the pattern and something would have to happen for momentum to shift to him ahead of SC. What?

[Likely Voter]

In theory this would be the path. Cruz wins Iowa, with Rubio second and Trump third. Then Trump wins NH with Rubio second and Cruz third. Then all the 'establishment' candidates (Bush, Christie, Kasich, Pataki, Graham, Fiorina, Gilmore) drop out and endorse Rubio while other candidates (Santorum, Huckabee, Paul, Carson) remain in the race. Also after NH the establishment money comes in big time for Rubio with anti-Trump and anti-Cruz TV spending and pro-Rubio spending. Also he surges with establishment endorsements, especially leaders in SC, NV and Super Tuesday states. On top of that Rubio has a great performance in the debate before SC.   Then yes I could see him winning SC and becoming the front-runner.

[Asian Nazi]

Many people here say this but I don't understand why.

Old white SC retirees + "lol SC is vaguely near Florida lol"

[Young Conservative]

Prediction: Cruz Iowa and Christie NH

[Averroës Nix]

The issue isn't so much that Rubio can't win without New Hampshire; it's that he's trying to win without campaigning much in early states, and he's running out of time in which he can change that. (Consider that Rubio has fewer paid operatives working in New Hampshire than Ben Carson, for instance.)

That said, I'm increasingly inclined to think that Christie will win New Hampshire, which is probably the worst thing that could happen to Rubio. Even a strong second-place finish behind Trump might be enough of a comeback for Christie to usurp Rubio's position in the field. At best, it would make it more difficult for Rubio to break through in South Carolina.

Maybe there's reporting out there that shows that Rubio's campaign is silently laying the groundwork for him to win in South Carolina, New Hampshire, or Nevada, but I haven't seen it. Every bit of journalism I've seen makes it sound like Rubio's following something like the Giuliani '08 strategy with a bit of social media outreach mixed in.

[Likely Voter]

Interesting exchange on MTP today with Rubio where Todd pressed him this issue of where he was going to try to win, and if he was trying to win Iowa:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is possible that Rubio is trying to implement the election version of the investment strategy "winning by not losing."  That a string of strong second place finishes in early (proportional) states can set him up as the delegate leader.

[The Mikado]

Interesting exchange on MTP today with Rubio where Todd pressed him this issue of where he was going to try to win, and if he was trying to win Iowa:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is possible that Rubio is trying to implement the election version of the investment strategy "winning by not losing."  That a string of strong second place finishes in early (proportional) states can set him up as the delegate leader.

The Romney 08 "Pair of silver medals" strategy?

[Lief 🗽]

Certainly there are examples of candidates who stay viable late into the primary season, even winning some critical states along the way, but how many actually went on to win? People point to Santorum in 2012, who suddenly won MN, CO and MO and then won a few states on Super Tuesday... but he still lost! Same with Gingrich who lost IA and NH and then surged in South Carolina. Or the "pair of silver medals" that Romney claimed in 2008, like Mikado said. Yeah he went on to still some states... but he still lost the nomination!! In 2004, Edwards and Clark were able to pick up Oklahoma and South Carolina (which was on Super Tuesday at the time, instead of before it) without winning any of the early states, but that didn't translate into the nomination, or even bring them anywhere close. People who win the nomination win the early states.

[RI]

Certainly there are examples of candidates who stay viable late into the primary season, even winning some critical states along the way, but how many actually went on to win? People point to Santorum in 2012, who suddenly won MN, CO and MO and then won a few states on Super Tuesday... but he still lost! Same with Gingrich who lost IA and NH and then surged in South Carolina. Or the "pair of silver medals" that Romney claimed in 2008, like Mikado said. Yeah he went on to still some states... but he still lost the nomination!! In 2004, Edwards and Clark were able to pick up Oklahoma and South Carolina (which was on Super Tuesday at the time, instead of before it) without winning any of the early states, but that didn't translate into the nomination, or even bring them anywhere close. People who win the nomination win the early states.

Bill Clinton's the archetypical example of someone who lost the first four states yet won the nomination. He only came in second in one of the four, even. He only won one of the first eleven states.

Other than that, you could include McGovern, but things were different back then.

[King]

Certainly there are examples of candidates who stay viable late into the primary season, even winning some critical states along the way, but how many actually went on to win? People point to Santorum in 2012, who suddenly won MN, CO and MO and then won a few states on Super Tuesday... but he still lost! Same with Gingrich who lost IA and NH and then surged in South Carolina. Or the "pair of silver medals" that Romney claimed in 2008, like Mikado said. Yeah he went on to still some states... but he still lost the nomination!! In 2004, Edwards and Clark were able to pick up Oklahoma and South Carolina (which was on Super Tuesday at the time, instead of before it) without winning any of the early states, but that didn't translate into the nomination, or even bring them anywhere close. People who win the nomination win the early states.

Bill Clinton's the archetypical example of someone who lost the first four states yet won the nomination. He only came in second in one of the four, even. He only won one of the first eleven states.

Other than that, you could include McGovern, but things were different back then.

Clinton was able to do that because all first four were won by different candidates.  If Trump goes 4 for 4, it's over.

[Bull Moose Base]

Certainly there are examples of candidates who stay viable late into the primary season, even winning some critical states along the way, but how many actually went on to win? People point to Santorum in 2012, who suddenly won MN, CO and MO and then won a few states on Super Tuesday... but he still lost! Same with Gingrich who lost IA and NH and then surged in South Carolina. Or the "pair of silver medals" that Romney claimed in 2008, like Mikado said. Yeah he went on to still some states... but he still lost the nomination!! In 2004, Edwards and Clark were able to pick up Oklahoma and South Carolina (which was on Super Tuesday at the time, instead of before it) without winning any of the early states, but that didn't translate into the nomination, or even bring them anywhere close. People who win the nomination win the early states.

Bill Clinton's the archetypical example of someone who lost the first four states yet won the nomination. He only came in second in one of the four, even. He only won one of the first eleven states.

Other than that, you could include McGovern, but things were different back then.

Clinton was able to do that because all first four were won by different candidates.  If Trump goes 4 for 4, it's over.

Not just that but Iowa was ignored as a gimme for a favorite son whereas Clinton winning the first Southern state was celebrated as momentum.

Anyway, the South, among other issues, prefers southern candidates over Yankees they view with suspicion. Clinton from Arkansas picked up his first win in the South, and, like I say above, so did John Edwards from North Carolina after Kerry swept Iowa and New Hampshire. So did Georgia's Gingrich, surging into first in SC after Romney was thought to have swept both. Rubio may be from the southernmost city in the continental US, but I'll be damned if he's southern. But Cruz is and even though he's from Queens, Trump is an honorary southerner on account of his racism.

[Pandaguineapig]

Certainly there are examples of candidates who stay viable late into the primary season, even winning some critical states along the way, but how many actually went on to win? People point to Santorum in 2012, who suddenly won MN, CO and MO and then won a few states on Super Tuesday... but he still lost! Same with Gingrich who lost IA and NH and then surged in South Carolina. Or the "pair of silver medals" that Romney claimed in 2008, like Mikado said. Yeah he went on to still some states... but he still lost the nomination!! In 2004, Edwards and Clark were able to pick up Oklahoma and South Carolina (which was on Super Tuesday at the time, instead of before it) without winning any of the early states, but that didn't translate into the nomination, or even bring them anywhere close. People who win the nomination win the early states.

Bill Clinton's the archetypical example of someone who lost the first four states yet won the nomination. He only came in second in one of the four, even. He only won one of the first eleven states.

Other than that, you could include McGovern, but things were different back then.

Clinton was able to do that because all first four were won by different candidates.  If Trump goes 4 for 4, it's over.

Trump won't win iowa or nevada, sorry

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Certainly there are examples of candidates who stay viable late into the primary season, even winning some critical states along the way, but how many actually went on to win? People point to Santorum in 2012, who suddenly won MN, CO and MO and then won a few states on Super Tuesday... but he still lost! Same with Gingrich who lost IA and NH and then surged in South Carolina. Or the "pair of silver medals" that Romney claimed in 2008, like Mikado said. Yeah he went on to still some states... but he still lost the nomination!! In 2004, Edwards and Clark were able to pick up Oklahoma and South Carolina (which was on Super Tuesday at the time, instead of before it) without winning any of the early states, but that didn't translate into the nomination, or even bring them anywhere close. People who win the nomination win the early states.

Bill Clinton's the archetypical example of someone who lost the first four states yet won the nomination. He only came in second in one of the four, even. He only won one of the first eleven states.

Other than that, you could include McGovern, but things were different back then.

Clinton was able to do that because all first four were won by different candidates.  If Trump goes 4 for 4, it's over.

Clinton was also, on paper, the most formidable candidate in the GE.  He had 12 years as Governor of a Southern state.  His top opponents included two (2) candidates who had been out of office for a long time, one of whom (Paul Tsongas) was a cancer survivor from liberal Massachusetts, and the other (Jerry Brown) lost California his last time out and was still viewed as Governor Moonbeam.  The Democratic Establishment NEEDED Clinton to emerge as the strongest candidate, and the National Democratic Party was more united in 1992 than it had been in a long time; they were willing to take a moderate in order to win the White House.

Rubio, on the other hand, isn't the most formidable candidate the GOP has for the GE.  He could be, but Jeb could be, and Kasich could be, and Christie could be, and even Cruz could be.  I certainly believe that the GOP Establishment will stop at nothing to keep Trump from being the nominee, but if that's the case, what evidence is there that Rubio will supplant Trump?  The most formidable candidate for the GOP in the GE will NOT be the one that "takes down Trump"; it's the one who brings the anti-Establishment Republicans to the table with the Establishment and makes the kind of deal that quiets all dissent from the anti-Establishment types.  As I see it, only Cruz can hope to fill that mold.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I could see Rubio losing New Hampshire and winning South Carolina.

Many people here say this but I don't understand why. The establishment dropouts post-NH? I don't see it adding that much to his #s in South Carolina- not as much as the IA and NH winners gets from the momentum of winning those states. Since SC has been 3rd, we've seen 2 cases where it was won by a candidate who had not won IA or NH- Edwards and Gingrich, both SC neighbors, and in both cases, a patrician damn Yankee had swept IA and NH. (Romney's IA "win" was overturned between NH and SC but I think Gingrich had already surged into the SC lead.) Rubio doesn't fit the pattern and something would have to happen for momentum to shift to him ahead of SC. What?

South Carolina is the only state where Rubio has any sort of campaign structure to speak of (I think), and he was the first to file there. He probably starts out with an advantage over any of the other elite-approved candidates in casting himself as the type of Everyman that southerners tend to like. The endorsement of Tim Scott also remains on the table. Scott is highly popular and, unlike Kelly Ayotte, can afford to endorse a candidate without worrying about losing his seat over it.

A win in South Carolina means more this time than it did in 2012 because of the South-heavy Super Tuesday primary occurring immediately afterward. The South Carolina winner could signal his breakaway from the pack as a viable candidate and amass a ton of delegates very quickly thereafter.

Then again, the March 1 primaries are not winner-take-all...

[The Mikado]

Scott's endorsement is still on the table precisely because he doesn't want to humiliate his Senate colleague Lindsey Graham, with whom he'll have to continue to work every day for years to come.