If someone had shown you the current primary map in 2013...

[Crumpets]

...but didn't include the names of the candidates, who would you have guessed were the candidates based on the states they had won?

This assumes I hadn't seen the win margins, just the overall color of the state:

I would have probably guessed Bush had won the Trump states - states with big Hispanic populations, the south, and pro-business northern states would have seemed like Bush country to me. I would have guessed Rand Paul for the Cruz states - Iowa, Maine and the Western Libertarian states would have seemed like prime Paul states in 2013. Kasich would have made sense - only Ohio. Minnesota, DC, and Puerto Rico would have been harder to guess. Maybe Pawlenty? (edit: actually probably Christie. I forgot how popular he was in 2013)

For the Democrats, I probably would have guessed Clinton for the Clinton states. I might have guessed Hickenlooper or Schweitzer for the Sanders states, since he's been doing well out west and in working-class white states. If I had considered Bernie a candidate at the time, I might have thought it would be him, but I'd have been surprised he had done so well. It obviously wouldn't have been Warren, since she almost definitely would have dropped out after a MA loss.

[Wisconsin+17]

I would have guessed Santorum/Bush election. I would have been very sad to hear it was Trump not Bush.

[Mehmentum]

I might have guessed Paul for Cruz's states.  Caucus victories + libertarianish Maine and Alaska would have pointed me in that direction.  I might have also guessed Cruz correctly, or might have gone with Huckabee instead.  (For Paul and Huckabee, I'd just assume that their home state contests were held after the primary became non-competitive).

Ohio is pretty obviously a favorite son state, which would really narrow it down to 2 people (Portman and Kasich).

Winning DC and Puerto Rico would be a huge sign that Rubio's states were from an Establishment candidate.  I probably would have gone with Bush, and guessed Trump's states as Rubio's.

Edit: Oh yeah, for the Democrats I probably would have gone with Feingold.  Obviously not Warren because of Massachusetts, but clearly some sort of progressive hero.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

For the Republicans: Probably Bush for the Rubio states (a scenario where Bush would win DC but not much else would have made more sense than one where he lost DC but won the nomination), Rubio for the Trump states, Paul, Cruz, Ryan, or Walker for the Cruz states, and honestly probably Rob Portman for Ohio.

For the Democrats: Hillary for the Hillary states. Maybe Feingold or Klobuchar for the Bernie states? Though that makes explaining Iowa difficult. If I knew the margins I probably would have guessed Bernie, given the size of his win in Vermont, or else Howard Dean.

Edit: Not Paul, given the Kentucky result.

[Figueira]

I'm thinking Rubio, Paul, Walker, and Portman for the Republicans, although I'd be confused about why Paul lost his home state while doing well elsewhere.

For the Democrats, I didn't really think that Clinton would face a competitive nomination, so I'd assume that she stayed out this time. So, maybe Gillibrand vs. Schweitzer or something like that.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Christe for Trump states
Paul for Cruz States
Kasich for Kasich States
Pawlenty for Rubio States


On Dem side

Hillary for Hillary States
Biden for Sanders states

[JRoby]

Pence is an idiot, but in theory, I think I could have seen (at least in 2013) him doing well enough to get the Trump states on the map. With Cruz still being Cruz, Kasich still being Kasich, and Bush getting the Rubio states

I think vermont being 80+ would have been a dead give away to Sanders.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

I guess if it was early 2013 (pre-corruption investigation) I may have guessed Bob McDonnell for the Trump states?

[IceSpear]

I'm thinking Rubio, Paul, Walker, and Portman for the Republicans, although I'd be confused about why Paul lost his home state while doing well elsewhere.

For the Democrats, I didn't really think that Clinton would face a competitive nomination, so I'd assume that she stayed out this time. So, maybe Gillibrand vs. Schweitzer or something like that.

That's a pretty good point on the Dems. Even in 2013 I wouldn't have been particularly surprised by Hillary losing a bunch of caucuses considering how poorly they went for her in 2008, but Michigan in particular would've given me pause. Still, the coalition still looked similar enough (knowing she'd likely have the black vote this time, just as she did for most of 2007) that I'd still say it was her.

[IceSpear]

Interesting question. After thinking about it some more...

On the Democratic side, Clinton and Schweitzer. Nobody had any clue Bernie would run in 2013. Though like someone else said, if I saw >80% in Vermont, that would make it pretty obvious it was him. Michigan would've made me question if Hillary actually ran, but with that being the only real massive outlier, I would've stuck with it.

Kasich - Now that I think about it, I actually would've thought this was Portman. He was fresh coming off his 2012 VP speculation and just recently came out for gay marriage. Plus, it was uncertain at this point if Kasich would even win re-election (lol). So yeah, Portman here.

Rubio - Minnesota and DC strikes me as Pawlenty to the core, even though very few people thought he'd run. Maybe I'd guess that it was Christie, and he flamed out for being too "liberal." Conflicted between these two. Since Christie was such a big "thing" in 2013, I guess I'd say him.

Cruz - Paul is the first inclination here due to all the caucus wins, but looking closer at the map...I probably would've guessed Cruz actually. There's major inconsistencies on both picks though. It seems extremely unlikely that Paul would dominate among Mormons, win the Texas and Oklahoma primaries, but lose Kentucky. On the other hand, it would be really hard to see Cruz winning Maine or getting shut out across most of the South in a scenario where he's competitive nationally. Still, it seems easier to swallow as Cruz rather than Paul. His type of people would clearly dominate caucuses as well. It was also pretty clear he intended to run after shutting down the government.

Trump...probably Rubio. I mean, he was the "Republican savior" in 2013 after all! And who else could it have been? Not Walker or Ryan because of Wisconsin. Not Romney because of Utah. Very few people thought Jeb would run in 2013. There's no way any of the SoCons would do so well in the Northeast.

[RR1997]

Interesting question.

Donald John Trump: I would've guessed Bush for the same reasons the OP mentioned.
John Kasich: I would've guessed either Portman or Kasich himself lol.
Ted Cruz: I would've guessed Rand Paul.
Marco Rubio: Christie, certainly. I would've guessed that Christie imploded due to some gaffe and only won a few liberal states.

[Wells]

Trump - Bush
Cruz - Paul
Rubio - Christie
Kasich - Kasich

Clinton - Clinton
Sanders - Warren

I wasn't paying as much attention to the election then. Those would have been completed guesses based on what I knew (or hoped).

[Hydera]

For the GOP side: Somebody would of thought a GOP canridate from the South that was able to break into the North after winning big in his home region. No friggin way would somebody guess a Nontherner like Trump could do great there outside of being the presumptive nominee already like McCain or Romney a month into the campaign. Lots of people where still into the idea of a North vs South frictional divide when it came to candidates. As for the suburban counties that Rubio won, probably Paul Ryan since he's usually the face of economic conservatism which resonates a lot with suburbsn conservatives. .

Cruz states would probably been a santorum like candidate who did better with evangelicals as cruz is, although winning maine would require an awakrd explanation which would of been.... oh its french socially conservative catholics?

For the Democratic side: A lot of people actually thought that Hillary would of done great amongst white voters so she won states that was more white. And the only logical conclusion for somebody winning so many states that were diverse and had lots of African americans in the South and Hispanics in the Southwest. This obviously had to be a aspiring Black candidate once again. In reality shes doing worse amongst whites but great with states with lots of minorities.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I honestly am not surprised Cruz has done well. The way the GOP primary voters have been in the last few cycles led me to believe he or someone like him would make waves.

As much as I love Jeb! and supported his candidacy, I thought he would have a hard time in today's environment, and the chances he rose to the top like Romney or McCain did after the initial crazies surge was less likely.

I never saw the rise of Trump. I thought he'd collapse through the summer or at least after the first debate. Boy was I wrong

[Crumpets]

I also forgot about Walker. I could imagine guessing that he got either Rubio's or Cruz's states.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Maybe people would guess Schweitzer vs Patrick for the Democratic map.

[Mr. Morden]

Here is a “Who will win the Republican nomination?” poll from April 2013:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=172417.0

Rubio was first, followed by Christie, followed by Paul, followed by Bush.  No one picked Cruz, while Trump and Kasich weren’t listed.

Of course, “Who will win?” is different from “Who will win a bunch of states?”  Cruz coming in second place nationally wouldn’t have been too surprising back then, given that we’ve seen candidates like Santorum and Huckabee do well in past cycles.  OTOH, if we’re talking April or May 2013, that’s only a few months into Cruz’s first term as Senator.  It was really later in the year that he started making a big name for himself.  Though yes, even by the spring it looked like he might run for president, which is why I included him in that poll.

Nobody had any clue Bernie would run in 2013.

Ftr, the very first indication that Sanders gave about a ’16 run was in November 2013:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=164982.msg3945881#msg3945881

Though back then, he said it was more likely than not that he would run 3rd party.

[RR1997]

I'd like to bump this thread.

I remember in 2013 when everyone thought that Christie was going to be the GOP nominee. He seemed inevitable. His main challenger seemed to be Rand Paul.

I would've actually guessed Christie for the Trump states and Rand for the Cruz states. I know that Christie was hated by southern Republicans at the time for being a northern RINO, but I would've assumed that that changed.

If someone has shown me the map in 2013, I would've assumed that the main focus of the primary was national security/defense issues. I would've assumed that Christie won over southern Republicans due to his hardline stance on national security issues and the northeastern states due to being a moderate. I would've assumed that Rand would do well in the west due to being weak on national security issues and being a true conservative.

However, if someone has shown me the map in May of 2015, I would've certainly guessed Jeb for the Trump states because of the reasons the OP mentioned.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Trump - Bush
Cruz - Paul
Rubio - Christie
Kasich - Kasich

Clinton - Clinton
Sanders - Biden?  (I figured Clinton was just going to have it handed to her)

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

I would have guessed Santorum/Bush election. I would have been very sad to hear it was Trump not Bush.

LOL, Santorum. I swear the only supporter he has are on this forum.