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

[Lachi]

My question is how would Rubio do in the debates? It was an absolute disaster during the primary season.

[JJC]

Landslide victory for Republicans - just no way to deny that.

Both Hillary and Trump are lucky. These two need each other to win.

[Shadows]

When there were head to head match-ups Trump would always lose & the best poll was him squeezing ahead by 1-2% at best when Clinton would have scam while Kasich would be ahead by 6-7% & same with Rubio.

If Kasich is at the top of the ticket (with Rubio), then NC, CO, OH & FL (with Iowa) is going to GOP & surely they are winning the White House. Additionally PA, MI, VI, NH could go GOP.

I think Kasich will cross the 300 mark safely with a 4-5% win, the map would be similar to what Obama vs Romney or McCain was with a little change here & there.

Both Kasich & Rubio will do incredibly strong among non-white, Clinton's strongest group & could crack Bush's 40% Hispanic vote odd. Look at what Rubio is doing now in Florida Senate race among non-whites vs other GOP guys. Kasich is also doing strong in his state.

In the end Clinton has too much baggage & corruption & that would catch up to her despite the attacks agaisnt Kasich. He is a moderate face, people would not be forced to vote for Clinton to keep Trump out. I mean that is what Clinton's whole campaign all about!

[uti2]

Landslide victory for Republicans - just no way to deny that.

Both Hillary and Trump are lucky. These two need each other to win.

No, otherwise Bush would've landslided Gore. Trump being in the race changed many things, including on the democratic side, with Bernie, russian dnc leaks, etc. That would not happen in a normal race.

When there were head to head match-ups Trump would always lose & the best poll was him squeezing ahead by 1-2% at best when Clinton would have scam while Kasich would be ahead by 6-7% & same with Rubio.

If Kasich is at the top of the ticket (with Rubio), then NC, CO, OH & FL (with Iowa) is going to GOP & surely they are winning the White House. Additionally PA, MI, VI, NH could go GOP.

I think Kasich will cross the 300 mark safely with a 4-5% win, the map would be similar to what Obama vs Romney or McCain was with a little change here & there.

Both Kasich & Rubio will do incredibly strong among non-white, Clinton's strongest group & could crack Bush's 40% Hispanic vote odd. Look at what Rubio is doing now in Florida Senate race among non-whites vs other GOP guys. Kasich is also doing strong in his state.

In the end Clinton has too much baggage & corruption & that would catch up to her despite the attacks agaisnt Kasich. He is a moderate face, people would not be forced to vote for Clinton to keep Trump out. I mean that is what Clinton's whole campaign all about!

No, that has to do with FL cubans, and that's a senate race, Hillary was always polling strong against Rubio in FL, neck and neck, because she also did very well with minorities. Rubio was only polling at 31% with Hispanics overall against Hillary, and that was with his peak polling with all those polls in mid-Feb. Bush got 35% in 2000 in line with Reagan's 35% in 1980, and Mccain's 31% in 2008, he did better with all races in 2004, due to post-9/11 terror and panic.

Keep in mind though, that Cruz was always barely trailing Rubio in those same polls, Cruz eventually collapsed due to polarization as his unfavorables went up starting in March, and the same trend was happening to Rubio right before he dropped out.

Rubio wouldn't have helped Kasich, when Kasich was getting 7+ in FL v. Clinton, while Rubio was only tied.

There was a huge world of difference in swing state polling, kasich was up 7+ and big in the bulk of them, rubio was down in OH, VA, he was electorally looking otherwise very similar to Bush.  Like cruz, he overperformed in red states, while not so much in purple states. Kasich was doing the opposite.

By the way, the last 2 nat. polls, were yougov and nbc, that had clinton +2 and tied respectively v. rubio.

[Sir Mohamed]

Better than the orange-skinned clown but still lose narrowly in the end.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

Lmao at Kasich getting anything under 320 electoral votes vs Hillary

[Young Conservative]

[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

Lmao at Kasich getting anything under 320 electoral votes vs Hillary

BernieBros and Left-Wingers are not going to be ecstatic to see 'lehman brothers kasich' if he was attacked harder on that angle and his history, his numbers would've gone down and his favorables would've gone up with more attacks, just like cruz's did, and rubio's were starting to right before he dropped out. Considering Kasich had such a comfortably buffer by polling so high, he still would've won, just in a tighter margin.

Trump hogging all the media attention was a double edged sword, he also took all the negatives for himself. This was not a normal primary season where the candidates actually discussed issues.

People who think Cruz would be in a tight race with Clinton are the ones who make crazy maps like this. LOL @ NM, PA, making OH and FL dark blue and putting MI and MN in green. It would be the opposite rubio/jeb would be in a tight race, and cruz would be comfortably behind.

[uti2]

By the way I should point out that bernie was beating cruz by double digits in the polling averages, yet the same people (not saying he would've beaten him by that margin) like to pretend that never happened or make excuses/rationalizations. They're trying to have it both ways.

[Vosem]

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.

Rubio surged in Iowa before Jeb dropped out, and he was taking support directly from Trump in national polls immediately after Iowa. Rubio was constantly artificially rehabilitated (this happened once, after NH, but whatever) because Kasich never had a shot and because the establishment hated Cruz too much to give him their backing.

 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.

I have no idea why Nevada proved that Bush made no difference dropping out; polling before Bush dropped out forecast Trump in the mid-40s there, which was exactly what he got. Rubio would've done well in Midwestern states by pushing out Kasich in New Hampshire, so there would've been three candidates, not four, which almost certainly leads to victories for Rubio in KY/MI/IL/OH even if he doesn't take any support at all directly from Trump, which, I cannot emphasize enough, he was doing after Iowa.

Because those things did hurt Rubio, his unfavorables soared in March right before he dropped out, just like Cruz's did.

Presidential candidate unfavorables always soar when they're losing. The cause was in the dynamics of the race, not really in Rubio's personal characteristics.

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.

Sure, but Trump also has many, many, many weaknesses that no other GOP candidate would have. It's not a controversial conclusion, and it's backed up by polling, that pretty much any of Trump's opponents, even including Ted Cruz, were meaningfully stronger than Trump in the general election polling.

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.

Cruz would almost certainly have remained a candidate at least through the 3/15 states, so the very conservative ideological people would still have voted for him. Regardless, Trump was losing support net to Rubio when Rubio was strong, and this effect was unnecessary in any case if Kasich was gone. Rubio+Kasich+Cruz people who are simply NeverTrump rather than having any attachment to Cruz is more than Trump in pretty much all of the Midwest and most of the South.

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.

Objectively, looking at polling early in the race, Rubio probably had a better chance at the nomination than Trump did. Cruz was always dependent on the "contested convention" scenario and was probably incapable of winning outright (certainly, when Rubio stayed in after NH, Cruz became incapable of winning outright), though Cruz did have the advantage that he would've been the overwhelming favorite in any contested convention scenario.

No, it was always going to be either Trump or Jeb outright

Now Jeb, in fact, almost certainly never had a shot, and certainly had no shot after Trump entered. He may have had a shot in a Trump-less race by following the Trump playbook (of having the largest fragment of support and keeping his opposition from unifying), but considering how much the race was dominated by Trump's personality it's very difficult to speculate what would've happened in Trump's absence.

Amusingly, Rubio probably actually wouldn't have had a shot in a Trump-less race; his niche was that he was the only candidate acceptable to every group that was opposed to Trump (I like to phrase the would-be coalition as "southwest Missouri and Manhattan"; the candidate had to be somebody both places would vote for). Makes your point a tad ironic, I guess.

, 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.

Jeb never had a shot after Trump's campaign took off. Rubio, by contrast, only had a shot after Trump's campaign took off.

[Vosem]

My question is how would Rubio do in the debates? It was an absolute disaster during the primary season.

This is a little over-the-top; Rubio lost one poorly-timed debate in February and was otherwise fine throughout. You can just as easily say Hillary in the debates is a disaster because she lost a debate to Obama in October 2008.

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.

There is no prominent politician within the Republican Party (not passing judgment on other non-politician figures like Carson and Fiorina, though I suspect this applies to them as well) who would be doing worse than Trump. Rubio against Clinton would have the favorable dynamic of a likable candidate facing an unlikable candidate (see Obama v. Clinton 2008), as opposed to our current dynamic of two unlikable candidates facing each other.

[uti2]

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.

Rubio surged in Iowa before Jeb dropped out, and he was taking support directly from Trump in national polls immediately after Iowa. Rubio was constantly artificially rehabilitated (this happened once, after NH, but whatever) because Kasich never had a shot and because the establishment hated Cruz too much to give him their backing.

 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.

I have no idea why Nevada proved that Bush made no difference dropping out; polling before Bush dropped out forecast Trump in the mid-40s there, which was exactly what he got. Rubio would've done well in Midwestern states by pushing out Kasich in New Hampshire, so there would've been three candidates, not four, which almost certainly leads to victories for Rubio in KY/MI/IL/OH even if he doesn't take any support at all directly from Trump, which, I cannot emphasize enough, he was doing after Iowa.

Because those things did hurt Rubio, his unfavorables soared in March right before he dropped out, just like Cruz's did.

Presidential candidate unfavorables always soar when they're losing. The cause was in the dynamics of the race, not really in Rubio's personal characteristics.

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.

Sure, but Trump also has many, many, many weaknesses that no other GOP candidate would have. It's not a controversial conclusion, and it's backed up by polling, that pretty much any of Trump's opponents, even including Ted Cruz, were meaningfully stronger than Trump in the general election polling.

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.

Cruz would almost certainly have remained a candidate at least through the 3/15 states, so the very conservative ideological people would still have voted for him. Regardless, Trump was losing support net to Rubio when Rubio was strong, and this effect was unnecessary in any case if Kasich was gone. Rubio+Kasich+Cruz people who are simply NeverTrump rather than having any attachment to Cruz is more than Trump in pretty much all of the Midwest and most of the South.

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.

Objectively, looking at polling early in the race, Rubio probably had a better chance at the nomination than Trump did. Cruz was always dependent on the "contested convention" scenario and was probably incapable of winning outright (certainly, when Rubio stayed in after NH, Cruz became incapable of winning outright), though Cruz did have the advantage that he would've been the overwhelming favorite in any contested convention scenario.

No, it was always going to be either Trump or Jeb outright

Now Jeb, in fact, almost certainly never had a shot, and certainly had no shot after Trump entered. He may have had a shot in a Trump-less race by following the Trump playbook (of having the largest fragment of support and keeping his opposition from unifying), but considering how much the race was dominated by Trump's personality it's very difficult to speculate what would've happened in Trump's absence.

Amusingly, Rubio probably actually wouldn't have had a shot in a Trump-less race; his niche was that he was the only candidate acceptable to every group that was opposed to Trump (I like to phrase the would-be coalition as "southwest Missouri and Manhattan"; the candidate had to be somebody both places would vote for). Makes your point a tad ironic, I guess.

, 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.

Jeb never had a shot after Trump's campaign took off. Rubio, by contrast, only had a shot after Trump's campaign took off.

Kasich's shot was the same as Rubio, neither had a path to 1237, if it was always going to be convention play the establishment should've backed Cruz. His numbers were inflated, then he got attacked, after hiding, simple to see what happened.

Kasich was the only one who could've beaten Trump in OH, in the rest of the states you mentioned he would've done exactly the same as Cruz, just flip the 2 in how they performed.

Kasich's net favorables were flat, despite his 'losing'. Cruz's went down dramatically after following a similar trajectory with Rubio with their declines in March.

And you shouldn't assume that all those Trump voters would back another Republican candidate, so you shouldn't put them in that column, if after all 'they're not conservative'. There is no proof of Kasich bleeding support from Rubio anymore than vice versa, Kasich got closer in VT to Trump, than Rubio did in VA, and Kasich lost VT by the same logic, again you shouldn't put all Kasich voters in candidate x's column, that's the same mistake with saying Trump would've gotten less than 1237, because 100% of rubio/jeb people would've gone to cruz, that didn't happen. Rubio has the similar social conservative nature that would let him bleed some moderates to Trump, + some conservative cruz supporters would sit out or back Trump just the same, as what happened to Cruz in reverse.

Early in the race it was Jeb and Walker who were ahead, rubio was hovering around consistently lower than cruz and carson. He objectively never had a real chance, cruz did, if the establishment had backed him immediately after iowa, but because they hated him, they gambled and lost.

The reason Jeb suffered was due to Rubio/Cruz enabling Trump and refusing to attack him, had they done so in the beginning, their weaknesses would've been exposed and fleshed out earlier.

First they came for Jeb, I did not speak out...

My question is how would Rubio do in the debates? It was an absolute disaster during the primary season.

This is a little over-the-top; Rubio lost one poorly-timed debate in February and was otherwise fine throughout. You can just as easily say Hillary in the debates is a disaster because she lost a debate to Obama in October 2008.

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.

There is no prominent politician within the Republican Party (not passing judgment on other non-politician figures like Carson and Fiorina, though I suspect this applies to them as well) who would be doing worse than Trump. Rubio against Clinton would have the favorable dynamic of a likable candidate facing an unlikable candidate (see Obama v. Clinton 2008), as opposed to our current dynamic of two unlikable candidates facing each other.

Because the debates this cycle were not about issues, had they been about issues, rubio would've looked out of his grasp, he was just repeating memorized lines, he could've been taken out like that at any time. Hillary or Obama or Cruz wouldn't have IQs low enough to regurgitate memorized lines. they're all ivy league educated.  Rubio really does crack under pressure, in the week after NH, he also got nervous and broke his tooth, then he went desperation juvenile insults in the end after NV, because he knew he had no chance.

Obama only beat Clinton in a super-tight race due to winning over left-wing independents/greens those are the exact people who would hate rubio enough to back Clinton, hence Clinton beating Rubio in that scenario.  Gore beat Bush in the Popular vote dispite his lack of 'likability'.  Besides due to less polarization, obama's favorables were actually way higher as were politicians in general, rubio's numbers were creeping up in march just like cruz's did. The 2 most well-known GOP politicians, cruz and jeb had comparable favorables to Clinton.

[Figueira]

He'd be doing fine now, but then he'd get crushed in the debates.

[Vosem]

Kasich's shot was the same as Rubio, neither had a path to 1237, if it was always going to be convention play the establishment should've backed Cruz. His numbers were inflated, then he got attacked, after hiding, simple to see what happened.

No; Rubio built up a nationwide campaign and Kasich camped out in New Hampshire and floundered afterward. Rubio got 23% to Kasich's 2% in Iowa, and then (even after Rubio massively under-performed in NH and Kasich massively over-performed) still beat Kasich in South Carolina, 23%-8%. Rubio had an appeal to the socially conservative voter, whose first choice was Cruz but who wanted to stop Trump, an appeal that Kasich totally lacked.

Kasich was the only one who could've beaten Trump in OH, in the rest of the states you mentioned he would've done exactly the same as Cruz, just flip the 2 in how they performed.

Early Ohio polling had Kasich narrowly losing to Ohio with Cruz and Rubio in the low 20s; both of them declined and bled to Kasich. What happened in Ohio (and Wisconsin, but not Illinois or Michigan) was that the anti-Trump forces managed to coalesce around a single person. In the absence of Kasich in the race, that person would've been Rubio in every Midwestern state, and Ohio would not even have been competitive for Trump.

Kasich's net favorables were flat, despite his 'losing'. Cruz's went down dramatically after following a similar trajectory with Rubio with their declines in March.

Yes, being in a negative race hurts your favorables. Go take a look at Trump's.

And you shouldn't assume that all those Trump voters would back another Republican candidate, so you shouldn't put them in that column, if after all 'they're not conservative'.

This is true, of course, but that doesn't negate the fact that every serious non-Trump candidate did better in general election polling than Trump. They would've won other voters, and wouldn't be in danger of losing places like (in my home state of Ohio) Delaware or Warren County, which voted >60% for Romney in 2012.

There is no proof of Kasich bleeding support from Rubio anymore than vice versa, Kasich got closer in VT to Trump, than Rubio did in VA, and Kasich lost VT by the same logic, again you shouldn't put all Kasich voters in candidate x's column, that's the same mistake with saying Trump would've gotten less than 1237, because 100% of rubio/jeb people would've gone to cruz, that didn't happen. Rubio has the similar social conservative nature that would let him bleed some moderates to Trump, + some conservative cruz supporters would sit out or back Trump just the same, as what happened to Cruz in reverse.

The proof here is in polling trajectories. I can send you some RCP links if you would like.

Early in the race it was Jeb and Walker who were ahead, rubio was hovering around consistently lower than cruz and carson. He objectively never had a real chance, cruz did, if the establishment had backed him immediately after iowa, but because they hated him, they gambled and lost.

Early in the race Trump wasn't a candidate and the coalitions were totally different from what they ended up being. Polling conducted during the early states, both national and on the state-level, shows that Rubio was on track to be the nominee if not for his poor performance in a single debate (which, for want of a nail, was caused by the fact that CNN invited a candidate who didn't qualify). Cruz was polling lower than Rubio in May, before Trump entered, by the way. It didn't affect his eventual performance. How you're doing months and months before any votes are cast is meaningless.

The reason Jeb suffered was due to Rubio/Cruz enabling Trump and refusing to attack him, had they done so in the beginning, their weaknesses would've been exposed and fleshed out earlier.

First they came for Jeb, I did not speak out...

This is true on some level, but Jeb counter-struck completely unsuccessfully. As our nominee Donald Trump likes to put it, it's not a one-way street. Jeb falling apart and Marco/Ted rising goes to show that the two of them were stronger.

My question is how would Rubio do in the debates? It was an absolute disaster during the primary season.

This is a little over-the-top; Rubio lost one poorly-timed debate in February and was otherwise fine throughout. You can just as easily say Hillary in the debates is a disaster because she lost a debate to Obama in October 2008.

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.

There is no prominent politician within the Republican Party (not passing judgment on other non-politician figures like Carson and Fiorina, though I suspect this applies to them as well) who would be doing worse than Trump. Rubio against Clinton would have the favorable dynamic of a likable candidate facing an unlikable candidate (see Obama v. Clinton 2008), as opposed to our current dynamic of two unlikable candidates facing each other.

Because the debates this cycle were not about issues, had they been about issues, rubio would've looked out of his grasp, he was just repeating memorized lines, he could've been taken out like that at any time.

Rubio was attacked repeatedly in debates many times; I invite you to go watch any of multiple exchanges with Trump or Jeb (or Cruz, for that matter) where they fire upon Rubio totally unsuccessfully. I can also give you plenty of Florida debates where Rubio does well. You're just revealing at this point that you didn't watch.

Hillary or Obama or Cruz wouldn't have IQs low enough to regurgitate memorized lines.

If you think Hillary, Obama, and Cruz -- especially the latter two -- don't regurgitate memorized lines, you've obviously never heard them speak.

they're all ivy league educated.  Rubio really does crack under pressure, in the week after NH, he also got nervous and broke his tooth, then he went desperation juvenile insults in the end after NV, because he knew he had no chance.

Yes, in the week after New Hampshire it was becoming increasingly clear that Rubio had gone from being a front-runner to being a very distant possibility. That would be enough to rattle anyone, I think. (See Cruz in the week after the Northeast primary, for instance).

Obama only beat Clinton in a super-tight race due to winning over left-wing independents/greens those are the exact people who would hate rubio enough to back Clinton, hence Clinton beating Rubio in that scenario.

Er, no. These people hate Trump far more than they do Rubio; if anything Trump is ginning their turnout, an effect that would be absent with Rubio in the race.

 Gore beat Bush in the Popular vote dispite his lack of 'likability'.  Besides due to less polarization, obama's favorables were actually way higher as were politicians in general, rubio's numbers were creeping up in march just like cruz's did. The 2 most well-known GOP politicians, cruz and jeb had comparable favorables to Clinton.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. It's true that Cruz and Jeb had comparable favorabilities to Clinton; Trump's are even worse, which is why he's losing.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Most other Republicans would have gotten 350+ electoral votes against Clinton.  Most other Democrats would have gotten 350+ electoral votes against Trump.

Current Polling Map:

Final Map:

396-142

[uti2]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. It's true that Cruz and Jeb had comparable favorabilities to Clinton; Trump's are even worse, which is why he's losing.

Rubio never had any serious campaign infrastructure or ground game, it was all 'media hype', only Cruz and Jeb were prepared on those fronts from the beginning. So in that sense, his odds weren't much different than Kasich. And about those social conservative voters, that social conservatism would also turn off people from rubio, hence you shouldn't assume all those kasich voters would've gone to him.

Kasich was governor of his state, and he polled relatively close to Trump, that showed the strength of Trump more than anything, rubio's #s maxed out in trying to help kasich there, but don't assume all those kasich voters would've gone to him. WI republicans are demographically similar to IA and MN, more of a religious socon influence. IL and MI are closer to OH republicans, which benefited Trump. There is no way anyone other than Kasich had a shot in OH, considering Trump's performance in PA.

And in a Trumpless race, it wouldn't have been negative? Romney was damaged pretty badly from his primary attacks, the same would've happened without Trump.

You want to cherrypick what happened for a few days after IA, and ignore the rest of the weeks before and after that, that's what's called an outlier, if you use it to model 'trajectories'.  

Trump had all the negative media attention on him, then when other candidates got the spotlight and were seen as serious contenders, they also got the same negative media, hence their unfavorables creeping up in march.

No, the polling was consistent showing Trump winning SC and NV, despite bogus arguments of '3-2-1' media hype. In NH, Kasich and Cruz were tied with Rubio in NH back in Jan, you're talking about literally a couple of days of media hype to base your 'trajectories' on, relying on outliers is not how you build a working model.

No, the fact that Rubio collapsed in a similar fashion to Jeb, showed him to be just as weak as Jeb if not even weaker in the end, as he was also terrible at counter-attacks that were not hosted in a scripted fashion. Cruz was a little bit stronger as he was more calculated and coompetent, but he couldn't handle the wear and tare in the end, he might've done better which is more point if the establishment had backed him after iowa.

Those 'debates' were scripted memorized lines, like with Jeb, that by they way were based on scenarios that wouldn't be possible in a Trumpless race, Cruz's 'attacks' were purely on technicalities and were very legalistic, he only argued symmetrically. Jeb in the ia debate did the same and won that debate, it's just that rubio split his voters by running and he wasn't demonized by getting seriously attacked yet, Jeb would've done fine without Trump in the race. Rubio can only argue when given a script and a set of talking points, take him out of that comfort zone and he has nothing. The FL debate was just him spouting off the same lines he usually does without him attacking anyone, that was not a real debate, it was like one of the earlier 'soundbite' debates, not actual argumentation.

If you think they would utter the same line 10 seconds after the other back-to-back, then you haven't heard them speak. Cruz before IN, was the same as before WI,  he was arguing in the same fashion, even with intense opposition, like those Trump supporters debating him before the IN primary. He held his own far better and kept his cool up until primary day in the end. The point is that due to polarization, everyone's unfavorables in a competitive modern day race would be high, as with cruz and jeb, and rubio's was going up in march following cruz's trajector in which cruz was totally decimated in Apr./May. Like I said, Gore generated enough turnout to win the PV, despite his unfavorables v. Bush. It would be like Bush v. Gore, except the electoral map has shifted in many states to benefit the democrats, instead of the republicans like back then.

[Maxwell]

Rubio being likable is a stretch.

[Vosem]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. It's true that Cruz and Jeb had comparable favorabilities to Clinton; Trump's are even worse, which is why he's losing.

Rubio never had any serious campaign infrastructure or ground game, it was all 'media hype', only Cruz and Jeb were prepared on those fronts from the beginning. So in that sense, his odds weren't much different than Kasich. And about those social conservative voters, that social conservatism would also turn off people from rubio, hence you shouldn't assume all those kasich voters would've gone to him.

Rubio did not really have his own infrastructure the way Cruz or Jeb did, but Rubio had pretty strong support from numerous politicians throughout various states; certainly he had more of a ground game than Trump. It's true that not all Kasich voters would've gone to Rubio, but polling evidence suggests it would've been the vast majority.

Kasich was governor of his state, and he polled relatively close to Trump, that showed the strength of Trump more than anything, rubio's #s maxed out in trying to help kasich there, but don't assume all those kasich voters would've gone to him.

Trump had 36% in OH, 36% in MI, 39% in IL, and 35% in WI; all relatively similar numbers. Kasich was able to become the sole anti-Trump in OH because he was the governor here, true, but a similar candidate could've commanded a similar coalition. The Kasich/Trump race here was not at all close (47-36); maybe Rubio would've been a few points weaker, sure, but he still would've defeated Trump comfortably.

WI republicans are demographically similar to IA and MN, more of a religious socon influence.

The relevant question here is the difference between cauci and primaries; more motivated voters, who frequently tend to be more socially conservative, tend to show up in cauci (like IA and MN) as opposed to primaries, which cast a wider net. The three states are somewhat difficult to compare because they all voted at different times in the race.

IL and MI are closer to OH republicans, which benefited Trump. There is no way anyone other than Kasich had a shot in OH, considering Trump's performance in PA.

Trump's performance in PA was held later, when Cruz had successfully been dragged down to the same level as Trump. Trump lost OH because Republican voters here do not particularly care for his brand (though, amusingly enough, there is a brand of typically-Democratic voter here who does), and he won IL and MI only through the disunity of his opponents; the Republican Parties there, indeed, are very similar to ours.

And in a Trumpless race, it wouldn't have been negative? Romney was damaged pretty badly from his primary attacks, the same would've happened without Trump.

It would still have been negative in a race without Trump, yeah. Again, I don't know what point you're trying to make.

You want to cherrypick what happened for a few days after IA, and ignore the rest of the weeks before and after that, that's what's called an outlier, if you use it to model 'trajectories'.

When you look at all those weeks, you see that Trump had the worst favorabilities of anyone running in the Republican race and won, repeatedly, through the simple vote-splits of his opponents. This pattern continued through the end of April. This suggests that a single unified front could've defeated Trump without too many problems. The only time during the race that that unified front came close to emerging was during those few days, so it is in fact a very meaningful moment.

Trump had all the negative media attention on him, then when other candidates got the spotlight and were seen as serious contenders, they also got the same negative media, hence their unfavorables creeping up in march.

This is true in principle, but Rubio and Cruz both had some amount of media attention going back to at least October when their surges began.

[Vosem]

No, the polling was consistent showing Trump winning SC and NV, despite bogus arguments of '3-2-1' media hype.

Right, but Trump's wins in South Carolina and Nevada were very different. Trump won 46% of the vote in Nevada; it was a safe state for him that he was never going to lose. Trump won 32% of the vote (less than 1/3) in South Carolina, where you had two candidates (Bush and Kasich) whose supporters pretty overwhelmingly named Rubio as their second choice, which would've pushed him easily ahead of Trump (and possibly over 40%, for that matter, since anecdotally the only South Carolinians I know voted for Cruz because they believed he had the best chance of stopping Trump, and in general the "strategic NeverTrump vote", even at that very early stage, was already for Cruz).

This was reflected in polling; Trump's final average in NV was 42 (underselling him a bit) and in SC was 32 (exactly correct).

In NH, Kasich and Cruz were ahead of Rubio in NH back in Jan, you're talking about literally a couple of days of media hype to base your 'trajectories' on, relying on outliers is not how you build a working model.

In January in NH there was a very, very large number of floating anti-Trump voters, who were basically undecided between Fiorina/Christie/Bush/Kasich/Rubio; polls gave various answers as to which of these was strongest (Fiorina had fallen apart by this point, but in September/October most of these voters had in fact backed her). These people broke, in Iowa and nationally, to Rubio at the end of January, and then away from him after the debate.

There's no model. There's where the race was, and there's why and how it shifted.

No, the fact that Rubio collapsed in a similar fashion to Jeb, showed him to be just as weak as Jeb if not even weaker in the end, as he was also terrible at counter-attacks that were not hosted in a scripted fashion.

Rubio eclipsed Jeb because he kept running circles around him in a dozen debates, so trying to argue Jeb was a better candidate than Rubio because Rubio is a poor debater is having reality exactly backwards.

Cruz was a little bit stronger as he was more calculated and coompetent, but he couldn't handle the wear and tare in the end, he might've done better which is more point if the establishment had backed him after iowa.

Cruz's basic problem was that, after many anti-establishment voters left to back Trump, what he was left with was smaller than what either Trump or generic establishment anti-Trump had. He never quite managed to convince enough of the latter group to back him to throw the race to a convention he would've won.

The establishment backing Cruz after Iowa would've been nonsensical, since that was just when Rubio, who they much preferred, was gaining strength. What they really should've done, perhaps, was back Cruz immediately after New Hampshire, and pressure Bush/Rubio out, but unfortunately Cruz was too weak in NH to force that conclusion to come about, and Nikki Haley's endorsement of Rubio managed to resurrect him. Skipping NH was a big strategic blunder on Cruz's part, imo.

Those 'debates' were scripted memorized lines, like with Jeb, that by they way were based on scenarios that wouldn't be possible in a Trumpless race, Cruz's 'attacks' were purely on technicalities and were very legalistic, he only argued symmetrically.

I've already said about ten times that Rubio couldn't have won in a Trumpless race. That's not what we ended up having, however.

Jeb in the ia debate did the same and won that debate,

Jeb did not win a single debate throughout the primary season, unlike Rubio.

it's just that rubio split his voters by running and he wasn't demonized by getting seriously attacked yet, Jeb would've done fine without Trump in the race.

Jeb's negatives were way too high and the fragment of primary voters willing to back him was way too low for him to do fine without Trump in the race. However, with Trump in the race, he had no path.

Rubio can only argue when given a script and a set of talking points, take him out of that comfort zone and he has nothing. The FL debate was just him spouting off the same lines he usually does without him attacking anyone, that was not a real debate, it was like one of the earlier 'soundbite' debates, not actual argumentation.

I mean, considering what Rubio does in debates has been successful dozens of times, I don't understand why you're pooh-poohing what works.

If you think they would utter the same line 10 seconds after the other back-to-back, then you haven't heard them speak.

If you think they (especially Cruz) don't plan the exact phrasing and intonation of what they're going to say long beforehand, then you haven't heard them speak. Plain and simple.

Cruz before IN, was the same as before WI,  he was arguing in the same fashion, even with intense opposition, like those Trump supporters debating him before the IN primary. He held his own far better and kept his cool up until primary day in the end. The point is that due to polarization, everyone's unfavorables in a competitive modern day race would be high, as with cruz and jeb, and rubio's was going up in march following cruz's trajector in which cruz was totally decimated in Apr./May. Like I said, Gore generated enough turnout to win the PV, despite his unfavorables v. Bush. It would be like Bush v. Gore, except the electoral map has shifted in many states to benefit the democrats, instead of the republicans like back then.

Sure, but Rubio's favorability rating would still have been much higher than Clinton's, and Cruz's would be comparable in a year where people are pretty clearly looking for change. Either would've narrowly, but decisively, beaten Hillary Clinton.

Rubio being likable is a stretch.

I mean, the guy was up against Trump, Cruz, and Bush for the privilege of facing Hillary Clinton. Contrast matters

[PaperKooper]

Rubio would be crushing Clinton. 

[uti2]

This is true in principle, but Rubio and Cruz both had some amount of media attention going back to at least October when their surges began.

Again, all that support for rubio was literally patched together at the last second to artificially rehabilitate him. It was a hail mary, where all the establishment people tried to move over to him in an emergency backup plan, not anything methodological or organized and nothing anything with a fundamental infrastructure to back it up like cruz. It was a terrible gamble based on a hatred of cruz.

Like I said, Cruz's performance proves that the 'anti-trump' candidate notion is absurd, not all of candidate x's supporters would go to candidate y and vice versa.  39% in IL in a split field is actually very indicative his numbers would go higher. His OH numbers were hampered by Gov. Kasich's strong performance, the WI number is more in line with his IA performance, if more people had dropped out before IA. You're also forgetting the special circumstances in WI with Walker, etc. and the local media there being especially anti-trump, that market is shared with MN, and back in IA, they were devout socons who were all backing Cruz. Trump was consistently polling ahead in PA from the beginning as he did in OH, until Kasich got momentum. A lot of people who might've voted for Kasich for governor but were Trump voters were split along kasich/trump lines.

Back in Jan, the numbers were showing only Cruz was cleanly and consistently beating Trump 1-on-1, Rubio and Cruz both tarnished their numbers in their attacks and made many of their voters untenable to each other's bases, so that assumption of all candidate x voters going to y is wrong. The voters knew about 'stopping trump' yet many didn't care, because for them it wasn't necessarily about stopping trump and following romney's plan, because they didn't necessarily agree with it.

Back in Oct, Carson was still leading and was a force until Dec. all eyes were on Trump in Jan/Feb due to the question of 'If Trump could actually win a primary', etc., so he still hogged all the attention, the only candidate with public expectations of capable of winning was still Trump, then the numbers for the others like cruz as I mentioned went down when when it was suggested he could win and many eyeballs went on him from people who weren't paying attention before.

I mean, the guy was up against Trump, Cruz, and Bush for the privilege of facing Hillary Clinton. Contrast matters

Again you're only talking about a contingent of voters, some wanted to 'stop trump', others didn't care and were voting for their candidate of choice, not all of those votes would go to another candidate, which is why again on super tuesday, those numbers showed despite those 'stop trump' voters attempting to coalesce it wasn't enough, because not everyone in the party was concerned with that goal, even after romney's speech. You're assuming that there was a 'non-trump' vote, but those factions are aligned very differently, for who is not trump and for what reasons they are, that's due to divisions in the GOP. Jeb was seen as a 'poor debater' due to getting attacked by Trump in the debates, the same exact thing happened to Rubio when he debated Trump, so rubio was vulnerable to the same weaknesses as Jeb in the end. Rubio never 'won' any debates accept on media hype by repeating canned lines and not attacking the frontrunner. Jeb's negatives were driven up due to competition by Trump, Trump ended up doing the same to rubio/cruz who hid from him in the end anyway. Because it's not successful unless he gets called out on it, debate him in that assymetrical fashion and he folds easily, worse than Jeb. Jeb was getting hit by Trump's assymetrical attacks constantly from the beginning, weakening his image in the first place. In a trumpless race, the other candidates still would've been weakened but it would've been more orderly instead of with Trump hogging all the media attention and honing attacks on his opponents.

They practice talking points, they don't actually repeat a memorized script, i.e. if candidate x says something about me, 'I will respond with this cute memorized line', that's exactly what rubio only knows how to do. No, the unfavorables were going up like I said, and Cruz's were comparable and Gore won the PV, he only lost because the demos of the EV map were different back then.

Besides, they weren't 'looking for change', that's just a narrative Trump's candidacy allowed to be built up. Without Trump, a different dynamic. You admit he wouldn't have won in a trumpless race, but he never had a chance of getting 1237 in a race with trump either, it would've either been trump, or jeb (if everyone had attacked early on equally), or cruz taking it at the convention with his delegates. Like I said rubio no chance at hitting that number, and cruz's people were the ones with the strong infrastructure and ground game to take it at the convention, which would've happened in a contested convention.

He never had a chance in a race with trump and cruz to begin with, he only acted as a thorn in the side of cruz more than anything.


Like in Bush v. Gore, except in reverse, rubio would've done the same as jeb and would've lost in a somewhat close race, cruz would be way behind, and again factor in the unique circumstances that happened only due to trump you can't extrapolate other candidates' performance in a similar fashion.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Most other Republicans would have gotten 350+ electoral votes against Clinton.  Most other Democrats would have gotten 350+ electoral votes against Trump.

Current Polling Map:

Final Map:

396-142