How would Rubio/Kasich be doing against Clinton/Kaine?

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Honestly, Hillary would be toast. I remember hearing somewhere that this is the ticket Clinton campaign feared.

[amdcpus]

Kasich yes, idk about Rubio.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Honestly, Hillary would be toast. I remember hearing somewhere that this is the ticket Clinton campaign feared.

Assuming no major gaffes, this looks about right.

[ProudModerate2]

Better than trump, any day of the week.

[Hilldog]

Clinton and Trump both would be lucky to get 100 EV against any other candidate besides each other.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Rubio/Kasich (R) 274 EV
Clinton/Kaine (D) 264 EV

Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa would be the states Clinton needed to flip to win.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Rubio/Kasich (R) 274 EV
Clinton/Kaine (D) 264 EV

Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa would be the states Clinton needed to flip to win.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Honestly, Hillary would be toast. I remember hearing somewhere that this is the ticket Clinton campaign feared.

Assuming no major gaffes, this looks about right.

Honestly, with Rubio you can never tell

[7,052,770]

It would depend on how/why Rubio got the nomination, but I think he'd be the favorite over Hillary right now. Hillary would have a shot if she could recreate the Christie/dispel moment in the GE debates.

[Arbitrage1980]

One of my good friends from college works for the Clinton campaign. He told me that the team was terrified of a Rubio-Kasich ticket and could not believe their luck when the GOP actually nominated Trump. He's more nervous now obviously but is confident that Hillary will win.

[Maxwell]

how many of these threads do we need?

[tmthforu94]

Assuming he won the nomination 2008/2012 style (a bit of a challenge, but not too difficult) and hasn't made any major gaffes, I think he'd be winning fairly comfortably. Both sides would probably have higher favorables. Atlas Polling Map right now would look something like this:

[Roronoa D. Law]

Tired of all these Republicans upset because their dream ticket Rubio/Kasich can't get past their primary voters. Somebody do a thread about a Booker/Heinrich ticket vs Trump/Pence.

[Maxwell]

Rubio was never going to win the primary.

And Rubio wouldn't be doing that much better - unlike Trump, Rubio's backwards and gross statements would actually hurt him. Unlike Trump, being an embarrassing lightweight would hurt him. Rubio has a backlog of people who worked with him who think he's an emptyheaded over-ambitious backstabbing fool, and those people would come out of the shadows quickly. Rubio also has plenty of dirt on him, which could be properly utilized against him. His voting record is as conservative as Ted Cruz's, and true conservatism is god damn toxic with the general electorate.

Rubio is just not ready for prime time.

I'd say Rubio would be up in the polling right now by 2-3, with the map looking similar to what it is now except a lot of state margins would be different (i.e. Florida, Colorado, Texas, Iowa in the wrong direction, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania). 

[evergreenarbor]

We'd be headed for a close election.

260-43-235

[Vosem]

Rubio was never going to win the primary.

The polling conducted right after Iowa pretty clearly showed Rubio gaining directly at Trump's expense. Even if you assume none of that happens, both Kasich and Bush had pledged to quit if they didn't make the threshold in New Hampshire (which they wouldn't have without Rubio's gaffe in the debate), and Rubio was clearly on track to win South Carolina without the gaffe, even if you assume there is no leakage from Trump directly.

Without Rubio wounded, Rubio clearly fights Trump to a draw in the South and after that even if his support from the establishment was as lukewarm as Cruz's was (and it would've been much more full-throated), it's very difficult to see Rubio not carrying most of the Midwest and then the nomination. Would've been funny if Trump still carried FL though, which he might've depending on what strategy Cruz would've taken after Super Tuesday (hard to see him not winning Texas, but also hard to see him winning anything of too much import afterwards).

And Rubio wouldn't be doing that much better - unlike Trump, Rubio's backwards and gross statements would actually hurt him. Unlike Trump, being an embarrassing lightweight would hurt him.

Why would any of these things hurt Rubio if they didn't hurt Trump? Especially considering how much the media obviously loved Rubio.

Rubio has a backlog of people who worked with him who think he's an emptyheaded over-ambitious backstabbing fool, and those people would come out of the shadows quickly. Rubio also has plenty of dirt on him, which could be properly utilized against him.

So do, I mean, every recent presidential nominee ever. Including Hillary Clinton.

His voting record is as conservative as Ted Cruz's, and true conservatism is god damn toxic with the general electorate.

If this year didn't make clear to you that voters don't care about ideology, I don't know what will.

Rubio is just not ready for prime time.

I'd say Rubio would be up in the polling right now by 2-3, with the map looking similar to what it is now except a lot of state margins would be different (i.e. Florida, Colorado, Texas, Iowa in the wrong direction, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania). 

And, in the end, even you admit that Rubio would be winning. And, yeah, my assessment of the general election isn't really much different from yours. Kasich at the top of the ticket might be doing even better, but I don't think, after the final lineup of candidates for this year had been determined, anyone other than Rubio, Trump, and Cruz (in that order) ever had a shot.

[Hilldog]

http://

[Kingpoleon]

322: Marco Rubio/John Kasich - 52.0%
216: Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine - 45.0%
Others - 3.0%

[uti2]

First of all, Kasich wasn't going to be VP, so you can take out Kasich out of that slot, second of all, the polling showed that in terms of swing states Kasich was the only one beating her comfortably in all of them, rubio was behind in oh,va, etc, and only tied in FL.

[uti2]

Rubio was never going to win the primary.

The polling conducted right after Iowa pretty clearly showed Rubio gaining directly at Trump's expense. Even if you assume none of that happens, both Kasich and Bush had pledged to quit if they didn't make the threshold in New Hampshire (which they wouldn't have without Rubio's gaffe in the debate), and Rubio was clearly on track to win South Carolina without the gaffe, even if you assume there is no leakage from Trump directly.

Without Rubio wounded, Rubio clearly fights Trump to a draw in the South and after that even if his support from the establishment was as lukewarm as Cruz's was (and it would've been much more full-throated), it's very difficult to see Rubio not carrying most of the Midwest and then the nomination. Would've been funny if Trump still carried FL though, which he might've depending on what strategy Cruz would've taken after Super Tuesday (hard to see him not winning Texas, but also hard to see him winning anything of too much import afterwards).

And Rubio wouldn't be doing that much better - unlike Trump, Rubio's backwards and gross statements would actually hurt him. Unlike Trump, being an embarrassing lightweight would hurt him.

Why would any of these things hurt Rubio if they didn't hurt Trump? Especially considering how much the media obviously loved Rubio.

Rubio has a backlog of people who worked with him who think he's an emptyheaded over-ambitious backstabbing fool, and those people would come out of the shadows quickly. Rubio also has plenty of dirt on him, which could be properly utilized against him.

So do, I mean, every recent presidential nominee ever. Including Hillary Clinton.

His voting record is as conservative as Ted Cruz's, and true conservatism is god damn toxic with the general electorate.

If this year didn't make clear to you that voters don't care about ideology, I don't know what will.

Rubio is just not ready for prime time.

I'd say Rubio would be up in the polling right now by 2-3, with the map looking similar to what it is now except a lot of state margins would be different (i.e. Florida, Colorado, Texas, Iowa in the wrong direction, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania).  

And, in the end, even you admit that Rubio would be winning. And, yeah, my assessment of the general election isn't really much different from yours. Kasich at the top of the ticket might be doing even better, but I don't think, after the final lineup of candidates for this year had been determined, anyone other than Rubio, Trump, and Cruz (in that order) ever had a shot.

No, Rubio was only able to stay in so long because Trump's primary opponent was ted cruz and the establishment hated Ted Cruz, if it have been anyone else, walker/perry, even jeb, the party would've ordered everyone else out to stop trump 1-on-1. That's why rubio was consistently artificially rehabilitated.  Bush's #s would've made no difference dropping out, as NV proved. The only midwestern states he would've done well in would've been the same ones that cruz did and didn't do well in, so it wouldn't have been much of a difference.

Because those things did hurt Rubio, his unfavorables soared in March right before he dropped out, just like Cruz's did. Trump had many other things going for him that a normal gop candidate wouldn't have in a trumpless race, like bernie weakening her by staying in so long, dnc leaks by russians, etc. that only happened in the context of Trump.

Actually, they do, many moderates in the GOP refused to back either Trump or Cruz or backed Trump instead, precisely because they saw Cruz as too extreme. Now, you might say, 'well those moderates would've backed rubio,' no, because that would've been offset by some of cruz's conservatives refusing to vote for either trump or rubio, same as what happened to cruz with moderates. Furthermore, because of social issues, a sizable number of moderates still would've voted for trump over rubio, so the effect evens out. The reality is that rubio had no chance, but he played a role in demonizing ted cruz, so that moderates would think of cruz as 'unbearable', but cruz did the same thing to rubio with conservatives, calling him a 'traitor, etc.

No, it was always going to be either Trump or Jeb outright, or cruz at the convention with delegate games, rubio/cruz artificially inflated their numbers in the beginning with their refusal to attack Trump, then they were exposed later on when they started to attack, and their unfavorables went up.

Rubio never had a shot at 1237, Trump and Jeb were the only 2 candidates who did, Cruz would've had a more likely chance of stealing it at the convention.

So, Trump, Jeb (outright), and Cruz (convention play) were the contenders this year.

[uti2]

322: Marco Rubio/John Kasich - 52.0%
216: Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine - 45.0%
Others - 3.0%

MN flips before WI, lol? For someone promoting social conservatism at that? lol

http://

PA before NV?

This is the kind of fantasy talk that makes it unreal, you assume all those trump voters would go into the column of another republican, when many of those republicans are only with trump and not necessarily any other republican.

Working class union types who are with trump and vote dem for economic reasons wouldn't vote for a 'union busting koch puppet', someone like kasich who at least tries to act more moderate is another story.

Rubio/Kasich (R) 274 EV
Clinton/Kaine (D) 264 EV

Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa would be the states Clinton needed to flip to win.

Flip NV to lean D and put FL tossup, and OH lean-D, and that would be the map, rubio would have EV problems, Clinton would be favored in terms of the EV. It would be a reverse 2000 election. Why do people keep ignoring Clinton's strong polling in FL v. Rubio, she did very well with consolidating the Dem base there + minority women. Only Kasich actually had enough appeal with FL dems to be ahead of her by large margins as the polls showed.

Clinton and Trump both would be lucky to get 100 EV against any other candidate besides each other.

No, that's just due to political polarization. It's like people trying to ignore Bernie beating Cruz by double digits in the polling averages, because they have an agenda.

Rubio was never going to win the primary.

I'd say Rubio would be up in the polling right now by 2-3, with the map looking similar to what it is now except a lot of state margins would be different (i.e. Florida, Colorado, Texas, Iowa in the wrong direction, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania).  

He would've done worse in OH, and slightly worse in NV due to the types of working class voters in those states who normally back Dems going for Trump. It would've been like a reverse of 2000, except Hillary wouldn't have to focus on blue states like Gore did, which hurt Gore in swing states like FL.

One of my good friends from college works for the Clinton campaign. He told me that the team was terrified of a Rubio-Kasich ticket and could not believe their luck when the GOP actually nominated Trump. He's more nervous now obviously but is confident that Hillary will win.

Kasich never would've accepted VP nod, and Rubio was only played up by the media due to their dislike of Ted Cruz, in a GE that goodwill would've gone anyway. What caused Hillary damage was Bernie, and it was especially charged in the year of 'the outsider' due to Trump. Bernie wouldn't have damaged her as much without Trump feeding him that narrative. Hillary's team would've been better off listening to Bernie's concerns instead of ignoring them, rather than listening to republican propaganda, that's the reason for her whole weakness with left-wing voters in the first place. Obama at least reached out to the left, Hillary's silly focus on republican suburbs is what additionally alienates the traditional dem base. That they are now beginning to realize that after such a long time, shows the delusion of the Clinton campaign, they think it's the 1990s, not 2016, but anyway circumstances would've been a bit different if Clinton had hit a republican from the left with bernie out of the way early on, and rubio wouldn't have been pushed by the media as hard without cruz in the way. Any other #2 runner up to Trump, Walker/Perry, etc. they would've played them up to stop Trump and ordered the rest of the field to clear early on, that's also why the media gave Kasich a break, their hatred of Ted Cruz.

Anyway, overall, Rubio wouldn't have done any differently from Jeb, Jeb's name baggage, would've been offset by rubio's social conservatism and foreign policy that would've angered the anti-war crowd/bernie left on multiple counts. Bush ran as a relative isolationist to keep the latter more split in 2000 while still trying to keep the former column in his ranks, and Jeb would've tried to make the same play here.

Kasich at the top of the ticket, would've been the only assured winner, anything else would've been a tight race.

[uti2]

I've changed my mind on this, considering how poorly she is doing against Trump.

Rubio/Kasich vs. Clinton/Kaine would be one of the closest elections ever:

269-269

Kasich/Rubio would probably beat Clinton.

299 - 239

Again you need to assume that Trump had multiple different factors going for him, like bernie doing additional damage to hillary, russian hackers with dnc emails, etc. that have benefited him asymmetrically which wouldn't have happened with any other candidate, that being said we agree on the similar template.


Kasich v Clinton would've been like Mccain v. Gore or Bush v. Kerry '04, easy win for Mccain/Kasich/Bush '04, but not by a super large margin some people think due to polarization. Only changes for Kasich is that I'd give him NH and NV, and take out PA. Still in the similar ball-park of an 04 level margin of victory.

Rubio or Jeb would've been like Bush v. Gore, with the EV map shifting to the Dems favor compared to 16 years ago.

Due to changes in the EV map, rubio would need kasich to even be competitive similar to bush, but considering that Kasich has ruled out VP status, without Kasich, it's very likely Rubio loses ME-2 and more likely he loses OH giving Clinton the election.

[uti2]

In any event Bush/Rubio would've performed more or less the same on the EV map. A Bush v. Clinton would've caused a 'dynasty fight', that would've lowered turnout overall, and low turnout helps Republicans, rubio would've caused a more polarized atmosphere with slightly higher turnout on both sides evenly, but more or less the same result. If Bush or Rubio were to win, they would need a super-strong VP who can appeal to moderates in a close race in a swingable state, someone like Kasich or Sandoval (don't think the latter would get approved at the convention, and the former has already ruled out VP, but oh well) on the ticket (same way Gore would've won with Shaheen or Graham on his ticket). Barring that (as I mentioned those VP picks would be unlikely), Clinton skates by with a close victory due to demographic shifts on the electoral map v. 2000.

It's somewhat ironic, but rubio running when he wasn't supposed to and then artificially inflating his own numbers by refusing to attack Trump and then cracking under pressure due to his lack of readiness in actually attacking Trump is exactly what led to Trump by splitting the anti-turmp opposition.

Rubio never thought he would have to do any real work, he thought everything would be handed to him and that he would be given affirmative action, precisely due to all the media hype, that was only artificially generated on the back of anti-cruz sentiment. Cruz was actually ready to fight a serious campaign, rubio never was.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/12/14/joe_scarborough_where_is_marco_rubio.html



If it was just Bush attacking Cruz, his attacks against Cruz wouldn't be that effective, and Walker, Cruz mostly got along. Cruz originally had sky-high favorables amongst republicans as the 'not trump' candidate back in Jan, Rubio 's attacks in Feb, by coopting Trump's 'lyin ted' narrative, shows the incompetence of the rubio campaign, they couldn't make any original attacks other than juvenile jokes, they had to resort to copying others. In a way, Rubio's campaign was even weaker than the Clinton Campaign, this is another thing that people overlook that causes them to overestimate his chances.

If if had simply been Cruz and Trump, Kasich and Jeb after NH, with Jeb/Kasich polling as distant laggards, the establishment probably would've swallowed the hard pill and endorsed Cruz much earlier, just like they eventually did (too late) in WI, giving Cruz a more competitive chance against Trump from the beginning. It's very possible, he might've been able to deny Trump 1237, if he had overperformed in the southern states with his competition out of the way, because Cruz had special appeal to Trump's populists which didn't really sour until after March 15, when it looked like Cruz 'tried to steal the election with the establishment at the convention'. Cruz initially employed that delegate strategy with the intention of Jeb as his mark, knowing that his base wouldn't care if Jeb Bush was screwed over.

The alternative in a trumpless race, is that if Jeb were smart he would've either worked with Christie, etc. to take him out early, as the risk of not doing that is that it would've simply had him splitting the vote with Jeb again, to help Cruz's chances of taking it at the convention by hurting Jeb's chances at getting 1237, unless Jeb's people tried to use brute-force at the convention, in which case he'd be heavily weakened for the general anyway, again, thanks to rubio.

In a trumpless race with no rubio, it would've given the more honorable candidates who wouldn't play games and try to use other candidates as foils and suck up breathing room, e.g. someone like Walker more of a chance to win instead.

So, there was pretty much no bigger enabler of both Trump and Cruz than Rubio. Any other conservative like walker/perry, etc. would've been acceptable enough to the establishment, and they would've been easily backed them provided they generated momentum, rubio knew that, so he took the risks with playing footsie with trump and cruz, and ended up dividing the party for his own attempted treasonous political coup against his own mentor that failed.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Rubio is an empty suit and would have collapsed by now: he'd be trailing worse than Trump. Kasich would be leading by 5-7.

[President Johnson]

I agree, Kasich would beat her pretty easily. Rubio's profile as running mate would fit well, though he's an empty suit. Nikki Haley would be a better VP for Johnny.

Governor John Kasich (R-OH)/Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL): 309 EV. (51.25%)
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA): 229 EV. (47.04%)