Who had a worse night- Rubio NH or Cruz SC?

[Matty]

GO!

[Mike Thick]

Cruz didn't do very well, but was a reasonably close (to second ) third.

Rubio finished behind Jeb Bush, and essentially killed the establishment's chances of coalescing around a single candidate before South Carolina.

[Matty]

that's true, BUT NH wasn't nearly as "fitting" a state for rubio as SC is for cruz.

[Maxwell]

If we're being honest? Rubio in New Hampshire should've been devastating. But Cruz will end up looking weaker because of his 3rd place in South Carolina.

Also the idea that New Hampshire didn't "fit" Rubio is pretty weird considering Florida is full of carpet baggers from New England. 10% isn't just a bad fit, it's weak sh**t.

[Illiniwek]

Rubio could have stolen the show and knocked out Kasich and Jeb for the most part if he had done well in NH. Cruz' result tonight is a tough pill to swallow, but his numbers moving forward should not change too much.

[Xing]

Rubio in NH. He was poised to get second, and got fifth instead. Cruz nearly missing out on second isn't good for his chances, but imagine if Cruz finished below Bush or Kasich in SC...

[SillyAmerican]

that's true, BUT NH wasn't nearly as "fitting" a state for rubio as SC is for cruz.

Yes. Based on this, I have to believe it's a bigger concern for Cruz, especially for momentum going into Super Tuesday. His evangelical support does not appear to be that strong.

[jaichind]

Cruz in SC because SC is a very good fit for Cruz and he has less time to recover from it than Rubio in NH.

[President Johnson]

A tie with a slight tilt toward Rafael. He was expected a strong second. Some even gave him shot for win. Expectations for Rubio went down after his debate gaffe, just before the election.

[Cruzcrew]

Cruz was in 3rd by 0.2% and didn't actually do much worse than expected percentage wise. Rubio in some polls hit nearly 20% in New Hampshire with some people saying he had a chance to get a close second in New Hampshire and fell below 10%.

[Torie]

What was significant was not Cruz coming in second or third in SC, but the fact that he did so poorly in a state where 70% of the voters were evangelical. So in most states, he's slated to be under 20%. IN SC, among non-evangelical voters, he got slaughtered. His base seems educated evangelical voters. They are not that large of a slice of the Pub voters obviously.

[Brittain33]

It took a full court press from the Republican establishment in South Carolina to push Rubio just a bit past Cruz. It remains to be seen if this boost in SC also carries over into other southern states where Cruz is leading and where there is no time and probably no inclination for the governor to intervene.

[Torie]

It took a full court press from the Republican establishment in South Carolina to push Rubio just a bit past Cruz. It remains to be seen if this boost in SC also carries over into other southern states where Cruz is leading and where there is no time and probably no inclination for the governor to intervene.

You are assuming that the Rubio uptick mostly came from Trump voters. Their respective demographic bases are quite different. I suspect most of his uptick came out of the hides of Jeb and Kasich myself.

[DS0816]

Ted Cruz actually had it worse in South Carolina. This was the type of state where he should have had better numbers than Marco Rubio. Rubio's robotic debate performance came very close to scheduled New Hampshire primary. His placement was him having taken a self-inflicted hit. But, Cruz labored hard to upset in South Carolina. So, his performance in the Palmetto State tells us all how limited he is in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries. (Hey, maybe he can win a second state!)

[Classic Conservative]

If Cruz continues to suck, like last night. I will be supporting Rubio.

[DS0816]

If Cruz continues to suck, like last night. I will be supporting Rubio.

You will eventually be supporting Donald Trump.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Cruz was in 3rd by 0.2% and didn't actually do much worse than expected percentage wise. Rubio in some polls hit nearly 20% in New Hampshire with some people saying he had a chance to get a close second in New Hampshire and fell below 10%.

Cruz did worse because he lost leverage.  Cruz, with a strong second, could have given the Establishment pause as to whether or not he would be the Trump-stopper (assuming the Establishment wants to stop Trump more than Cruz).  At this point, the Establishment is mostly All In with Rubio.  Last night confirmed that Rubio dodged Christie's bullet, and the danger from any of that has passed.

Rubio will get more of Jeb's supporters than anyone else, but not to the point where it makes him The Frontrunner.  Trump's The Frontrunner, and a very impressive one.  Rubio will have to re-establish his Movement Conservative credentials and take support from Cruz in order to stop Trump.  He's not going to take votes from Trump because of his immigration track record, but he COULD hurt Cruz, as more of Cruz's supporters (as opposed to Trump's) are concerned with electability and view Rubio as sufficiently conservative to support in November.  The trick for Marco is to do it while not trashing his standing with independents.

[Sec. of State Superique]

Ted Cruz actually had it worse in South Carolina. This was the type of state where he should have had better numbers than Marco Rubio. Rubio's robotic debate performance came very close to scheduled New Hampshire primary. His placement was him having taken a self-inflicted hit. But, Cruz labored hard to upset in South Carolina. So, his performance in the Palmetto State tells us all how limited he is in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries. (Hey, maybe he can win a second state!)

I fully agree. I would add that Rubio was fighting for moderate votes against 4 other candidates,  Fiorina, Bush, Kasich and Christie. It was trully difficult to win and I tend to believe that polis overestimate the effect of Momentum. Kasich was doing an incredible ground work with his town halls ; that worked pretty well for him in New Hampshire.

[LLR]

Rubio's disappointing finish there off his campaign

Cruz really didn't have a chance to begin with, considering that he over performed and came in third.

[Gustaf]

I think the answer is very clearly Rubio. His NH result seems likely to be the difference between being the nominee and not.

Had Rubio gotten 2nd there Kasich would have dropped out. Maybe Bush too and even if not, Bush would have been even more sidelined. In that scenario Rubio may well have won SC or at least been a pretty close 2nd.

[pho]

Still Rubio in my opinion. It's one thing to lose NH, it's another thing to come in 5th. Has anyone in the history of the modern primary system ever done that poorly in NH and won the nomination?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Cruz because he won't have the media to push him along like they did Rubio after NH. Rubio should've been done after that weak 5th place finish

[Asian Nazi]

Rubio's was more humiliating, Cruz's had a greater political effect.

[Lyin' Steve]

Rubio's was more humiliating, Cruz's had a greater political effect.

Yeah, what was the worst that would happen to Rubio?  The establishment vote would coalesce around Bush?  Of course not.  Kasich was going to become the guy?  Come on.
It was inevitable that he would get back on his feet after a few humiliating news cycles.

Cruz, however, may have been permanently crippled tonight.  His team talks up their ground game and strength with evangelicals, yet even with those advantages in a perfect state he's only able to get 20%, and without those advantages he gets 10%.  It gets much easier now to dismiss him as just a weaker Huckabee who pulls 10-20% of the vote.  At least Huckabee won a dozen or so states and pulled 30s in some of them.

[IceSpear]

Cruz because he won't have the media to push him along like they did Rubio after NH. Rubio should've been done after that weak 5th place finish