How would Clinton be doing against Marco Rubio?

[uti2]

I think he would be up 4 or 5 points. MN, WI, VA and CO would be very close.

If he could get Kasich to be his VP, he likely wins.

Why do people keep putting VA, MN, NV, and FL in the column for rubio? That actually makes no sense whatsoever. VA is solid blue at this cycle, not even the strongest republican, kasich could even scratch Hillary's big lead in VA, and MN is not going to happen, if VA isn't.

FL was actually one of rubio's weakest states, he was consistently tied with Hillary there, contrary to the myths of rubio appealing to minorities, there is no evidence for that, he did better in polls in white states like Iowa, than in diverse states like FL.

For all those who talk about 'immigration policy' as appealing to hispanics, that is barely a significant issue for hispanics, most minorities vote on economic policy. That's why Kasich and Jeb performed the best with minorities who don't like hard-right policies.

[uti2]

Do people here realize that rubio's policy platform is essentially identical to mccain '08? Mccain also backed amnesty, favored legal status a tax credit for healthcare, was a hawk, highly favored tax cuts, wanted ss/medicare privatized, etc.


Ultimately, the same minorities who voted for the obama coalition, would likely stay on with clinton, hence the tight polls in minority-rich FL between them, what it comes down to is what the 'angry white voters' (i.e. berniebros + angry trump supporters) decide to do. If they see hillary as a lesser evil on foreign policy/economics/trade, they might go for her, but either way, if you look at what happened in Bush v. Gore, I think the numbers would be similar with either rubio or jeb up against hillary, it would be a tight race that could go either way, but the dems would have the demographic advantages of va, nm, nv and nh in their columns vs. 2000.

Only Kasich had enough broad appeal to easily win.  With rubio as others have pointed out, he's open to being exposed at another debate which would destroy his numbers, Jeb would actually be less of a risk factor, since he would be a pure policy-wonk like he was in the iowa debate.

[uti2]

Continuing my hypothetical 2016 series, now I'll ask you to imagine an alternate, (somewhat more) sane universe, in which Marco Rubio clinches the GOP nomination. How do the polls look? Who does Rubio select as his running mate? Does Clinton decide to go with someone more adventurous than Tim Kaine?

He wouldn't be doing that much better, it would be a close race similar to 2000 though, not a landslide. Dems would also have EV and demo advantages they didn't have in 2000. Keep in mind that rubio's unfavorables were spiking just as he dropped out. Cruz's unfavorables spiked at the same time.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/ted-cruz-favorable-rating

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/marco-rubio-favorable-rating

For most of the election cruz was only slightly trailing rubio in favorability, and in polls too. Rubio was +3 in the cnn/orc poll on super tuesday that was advertised everywhere, while cruz was +1, meanwhile, by early may, cruz was down by as much as trump was, -10. Cruz's numbers started to fall when people paid more attention to his actual policies, which were not moderate but hard-right for the most part, rubio would've likely followed cruz's trajectory considering how close the 2 otherwise were and would've gone down polling wise.

Interestingly, only kasich was able to keep his favorables relatively flat:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/john-kasich-favorable-rating

You know, people always talk about what ifs, if trump hadn't been the nominee on the republican side, but that game goes both ways. What if the dems had run a strong candidate capable of uniting the base like biden or warren?, they would be in a much better position than any of the republicans because they would get the berniebros/left-wing indie obama voters coming out for them in droves.

[MATTROSE94]

I think that "Little Marco" would have been a much stronger nominee that Donald Trump and that he would have ultimately defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election by winning all the Romney 2012 plus Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and ME-2.

[uti2]

I think that "Little Marco" would have been a much stronger nominee that Donald Trump and that he would have ultimately defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election by winning all the Romney 2012 plus Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and ME-2.

But that takes for granted that all the far-right voters would vote for him, which they wouldn't, remember, bush lost the popular vote in 2000. Why would blue collar workers who vote democratic in PA vote for him, when economically they're better off with Hillary?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Right now, Rubio would probably be doing a bit better than Drumpf, and would be slightly ahead. The election would probably be a true toss-up.

[CatoMinor]

If Marco had come out on top in the primaries then he would probably come out slightly ahead so far but would be pulled back under by a relentless negative campaign by Clinton supporters highlighting how Rubio has been a terrible Senator by almost any measure.