Can Republicans Simultaneously Win Suburbanites and the Working Class with Marco

[Young Conservative]

Will the gains of Trump remain? Will the gains of Clinton be lost? Is Marco rubio still the "Republican Savior?" My gut says he will reverse trends in Texas and Georgia and solidify those states more firmly once again, while also being competitive in Wisconsin and Minnesota, but I'm unsure about a few other working class states.

[bagelman]

No. The working class rejected Marco in the primaries and would reject him again given the opportunity.

[Xing]

lol, still idolizing Flawless Beautiful Marco , are we? He might do better among conservative Latinos, but he'd do worse among rural white voters.

[Person Man]

lol, still idolizing Flawless Beautiful Marco , are we? He might do better among conservative Latinos, but he'd do worse among rural white voters.

Rubio's future is dependent on how whether Trump manages to transform the Republican Party from a Conservative into a Nationalist Party or becomes generic R by 2020. I can see Rubio running with Pence in 2024 if Trump only wins in 2020 because he basically governs as W's 3rd term and runs for his 4th. I see that as Rubio's most conventional path. Maybe he wins as early as 2020 if Trump gets impeached, Pence becomes W's 3rd term and he picks him to be his VP.

[Figueira]

Rubio's antiquated social views will be a major disadvantage by the time Trump is gone.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If Trump has a bad midterm, Dems can pickoff either TX or NEB for its 51st Senate Seat. But Greg Abbott and at the prez level it is perfectly safe GOP.

[Young Conservative]

If Trump has a bad midterm, Dems can pickoff either TX or NEB for its 51st Senate Seat. But Greg Abbott and at the prez level it is perfectly safe GOP.

I still think Cruz is safe. There is no democratic bench in Texas where a candidate is conservative enough to take him down.

[libertpaulian]

Rubio's antiquated social views will be a major disadvantage by the time Trump is gone.

This.  He's not going to look like a moderate savior when he's against gay marriage and the country is 65% in favor of it.

Some polls show 65% support already.  By 2020, I can envision it at 67%, and if Trump is re-elected, it'll probably be at 70-72% in 2024.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Rubio's antiquated social views will be a major disadvantage by the time Trump is gone.

This.  He's not going to look like a moderate savior when he's against gay marriage and the country is 65% in favor of it.

Some polls show 65% support already.  By 2020, I can envision it at 67%, and if Trump is re-elected, it'll probably be at 70-72% in 2024.

I remember seeing that support for gay marriage has actually declined in the post-Obergefell era, as the SCOTUS action and subsequent SJW/liberal reactions unified Republicans against it.

[libertpaulian]

Rubio's antiquated social views will be a major disadvantage by the time Trump is gone.

This.  He's not going to look like a moderate savior when he's against gay marriage and the country is 65% in favor of it.

Some polls show 65% support already.  By 2020, I can envision it at 67%, and if Trump is re-elected, it'll probably be at 70-72% in 2024.

I remember seeing that support for gay marriage has actually declined in the post-Obergefell era, as the SCOTUS action and subsequent SJW/liberal reactions unified Republicans against it.

A couple polls were taken post-Obergefell and the average was in the low 60s.  I think one showed high 50s.

[BaldEagle1991]

If Trump has a bad midterm, Dems can pickoff either TX or NEB for its 51st Senate Seat. But Greg Abbott and at the prez level it is perfectly safe GOP.

I still think Cruz is safe. There is no democratic bench in Texas where a candidate is conservative enough to take him down.

Cruz is not popular.

[BaldEagle1991]

If Trump has a bad midterm, Dems can pickoff either TX or NEB for its 51st Senate Seat. But Greg Abbott and at the prez level it is perfectly safe GOP.

I still think Cruz is safe. There is no democratic bench in Texas where a candidate is conservative enough to take him down.

Cruz is not popular.

Mark Cuban could take him as a Dem or a quasi-Dem Indie, but I would rather that he tries for governor.

Same here. I'd vote for Mark Cuban for Texas Governor.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I don't see how either political party will win both of these groups in the long term. Their agendas and priorities are too different. They're only on the same side right now (although suburbanites are clearly moving away) because of their mutual disdain for SJWs.

Matthew 6:24: You will either hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

And Cruz is safe, even if only because campaigning in Texas is so expensive that Chuck Schumer would be a fool to campaign there and waste enough money to campaign in 4 or 5 other states in a Likely R state as big as that.

[Person Man]

I don't see how either political party will win both of these groups in the long term. Their agendas and priorities are too different. They're only on the same side right now (although suburbanites are clearly moving away) because of their mutual disdain for SJWs.

Matthew 6:24: You will either hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

And Cruz is safe, even if only because campaigning in Texas is so expensive that Chuck Schumer would be a fool to campaign there and waste enough money to campaign in 4 or 5 other states in a Likely R state as big as that.

If Trump is at 40% and he is still angry at Cruz being a cuck anything can happen. Unless of course Cruz can convince the people we can have an effective discourse with one party.

[RINO Tom]

Not with Marco, but the if you cross out "with Marco" from the thread title, the answer is absolutely yes!  People act like McKinley, Coolidge, Eisenhower and Reagan won with an entirely different coalition (excluding, of course, the Black/Southern White vote) than a Republican who'd get a big EC victory in the 21st Century would.  That's crazy.  Any Republican who is going to have anything close to a landslide win is going to win both the rural and suburban vote, including much of the working class in both.  The working class in cities has been solidly Democratic since well before the New Deal, and I highly doubt we'll ever win them.

[RINO Tom]

No.  Republicans made a deal with the devil.  They are the party of the working poor (whites).  Major, highly educated suburbs are long gone for them.  This trend will continue as it has been for years.  And acting as if Trump did this to the Republican party is a joke.  Well educated suburbs have been trending to the Democrats for years, Trump just hastened that push.  Little Marco isn't going to save the GOP with his anti-gay, anti-abortion views.

They are lucky though, there aren't a lot of highly educated suburbanites in many swing states, or at least there are more working poor than them in the swing states that decided the last election (MI, FL, etc.).

LOL, if Hillary had won either one of those states, you'd describe both as these highly cosmopolitan areas that could never be won by Republicans.  You'll probably consider this TROLLING, but here are the exit poll totals:

FLORIDA
Suburban Vote: 53% Trump, 43% Clinton
Wealthy Vote: 56% Trump, 40% Clinton
College Grad Vote: 49% Trump, 46% Clinton (literally did better with college graduates than non-college graduates... LOL)

So, in Florida, Trump won the suburban vote, the wealthy vote AND the college-educated vote.  You are quite literally super wrong.

MICHIGAN
Suburban Vote: 53% Trump, 42% Clinton
Wealthy Vote: 51% Trump, 43% Clinton
College Grad Vote: 50% Clinton, 44% Trump ... congrats, you're right on one thing.

In Michigan, Trump won the suburban vote, he won the wealthy vote and he lost the college-grad vote by just 6%.  Considering that he probably got CLOBBERED with the urban college-grad vote, I'm willing to bet he won the suburban college-grad vote.

In neither of those states did these mythical elite suburbanites you have wet dreams about give Clinton the main base of her support.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I don't see how either political party will win both of these groups in the long term. Their agendas and priorities are too different. They're only on the same side right now (although suburbanites are clearly moving away) because of their mutual disdain for SJWs.

Matthew 6:24: You will either hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

And Cruz is safe, even if only because campaigning in Texas is so expensive that Chuck Schumer would be a fool to campaign there and waste enough money to campaign in 4 or 5 other states in a Likely R state as big as that.

If Trump is at 40% and he is still angry at Cruz being a cuck anything can happen. Unless of course Cruz can convince the people we can have an effective discourse with one party.

Dems still wouldn't spend money there. Look how they stayed away from Florida this year even though the race was within 5 points. If they can spend the same amount of money as they'd spend in Texas to compete in 5 other states, they'll do it.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I don't see how either political party will win both of these groups in the long term. Their agendas and priorities are too different. They're only on the same side right now (although suburbanites are clearly moving away) because of their mutual disdain for SJWs.

Matthew 6:24: You will either hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

And Cruz is safe, even if only because campaigning in Texas is so expensive that Chuck Schumer would be a fool to campaign there and waste enough money to campaign in 4 or 5 other states in a Likely R state as big as that.

If Trump is at 40% and he is still angry at Cruz being a cuck anything can happen. Unless of course Cruz can convince the people we can have an effective discourse with one party.

Dems still wouldn't spend money there. Look how they stayed away from Florida this year even though the race was within 5 points. If they can spend the same amount of money as they'd spend in Texas to compete in 5 other states, they'll do it.

They need a self-funder worth >$100M who can peel off anti-Trump libertarian-type Republicans.  Hence my suggestion of Mark Cuban as the best possible statewide Dem candidate in Texas. 

Cruz is incredibly popular among such Republicans, particularly in Texas. For some reason, most of Rand's support seemed to go to Cruz in the primary when Rand dropped out.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I don't see how either political party will win both of these groups in the long term. Their agendas and priorities are too different. They're only on the same side right now (although suburbanites are clearly moving away) because of their mutual disdain for SJWs.

Matthew 6:24: You will either hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

And Cruz is safe, even if only because campaigning in Texas is so expensive that Chuck Schumer would be a fool to campaign there and waste enough money to campaign in 4 or 5 other states in a Likely R state as big as that.

If Trump is at 40% and he is still angry at Cruz being a cuck anything can happen. Unless of course Cruz can convince the people we can have an effective discourse with one party.

Dems still wouldn't spend money there. Look how they stayed away from Florida this year even though the race was within 5 points. If they can spend the same amount of money as they'd spend in Texas to compete in 5 other states, they'll do it.

They need a self-funder worth >$100M who can peel off anti-Trump libertarian-type Republicans.  Hence my suggestion of Mark Cuban as the best possible statewide Dem candidate in Texas. 

Cruz is incredibly popular among such Republicans, particularly in Texas. For some reason, most of Rand's support seemed to go to Cruz in the primary when Rand dropped out.

Oops, misread.  I thought we were assuming Cruz loses the primary to a stronger Trump supporter.  If Cruz makes it out of the primary, the optimal Dem candidate is an outsider who can peel off Trump supporters.  If Cruz loses the primary or takes an appointment of some kind, the optimal Dem candidate is anti-Trump with a libertarian side.

I see; that makes sense. In a state like Texas, I'd say the only at it works is if somehow Cruz is not the nominee and you can get a self-funding and already-well-known candidate like Cuban in there (if he even would run as a Democrat), and even then, it's Texas.

[blacknwhiterose]

No.  Everyone, with the possible exception of John Kasich, from the list of losers in the 2016 GOP primaries is damaged goods, at least as far as future presidential ambitions are concerned.  Rubio took a serious pounding in the results, including losing in his own backyard, and has some very cringe-worthy primary debate moments all over youtube with millions of views and counting.  It's amazing some people are still talking about him.  The GOP has changed considerably already, and will continue to transform under the Trump administration.  Rubio was already somewhat antiquated one year ago, especially his views on foreign policy.  He and Jeb got outflanked by the Trump revolution and, adding Rubio's already poor track record of political acumen, it's a foregone conclusion to say he's more Dan Quayle than he is some sort of future JFK of the Republican Party.

[The_Doctor]

Assuming Pence (or Trump) somehow wins a second term and the Democrats win two terms of their own, Rubio would next have a chance to win in 2032.

Barring a Democratic win in 2020 (or loss in 2024/8), it looks like most Republicans are out of luck until 2032 at the earliest, given that we tend to re-elect incumbent parties. 

[Person Man]

I don't see how either political party will win both of these groups in the long term. Their agendas and priorities are too different. They're only on the same side right now (although suburbanites are clearly moving away) because of their mutual disdain for SJWs.

Matthew 6:24: You will either hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

And Cruz is safe, even if only because campaigning in Texas is so expensive that Chuck Schumer would be a fool to campaign there and waste enough money to campaign in 4 or 5 other states in a Likely R state as big as that.

If Trump is at 40% and he is still angry at Cruz being a cuck anything can happen. Unless of course Cruz can convince the people we can have an effective discourse with one party.

Dems still wouldn't spend money there. Look how they stayed away from Florida this year even though the race was within 5 points. If they can spend the same amount of money as they'd spend in Texas to compete in 5 other states, they'll do it.

They need a self-funder worth >$100M who can peel off anti-Trump libertarian-type Republicans.  Hence my suggestion of Mark Cuban as the best possible statewide Dem candidate in Texas. 

Cruz is incredibly popular among such Republicans, particularly in Texas. For some reason, most of Rand's support seemed to go to Cruz in the primary when Rand dropped out.

Oops, misread.  I thought we were assuming Cruz loses the primary to a stronger Trump supporter.  If Cruz makes it out of the primary, the optimal Dem candidate is an outsider who can peel off Trump supporters.  If Cruz loses the primary or takes an appointment of some kind, the optimal Dem candidate is anti-Trump with a libertarian side.

I see; that makes sense. In a state like Texas, I'd say the only at it works is if somehow Cruz is not the nominee and you can get a self-funding and already-well-known candidate like Cuban in there (if he even would run as a Democrat), and even then, it's Texas.

2018 would be the time for Cuban provided Trump isn't a War President yet.

[Kingpoleon]

Rubio's antiquated social views will be a major disadvantage by the time Trump is gone.

This.  He's not going to look like a moderate savior when he's against gay marriage and the country is 65% in favor of it.

Some polls show 65% support already.  By 2020, I can envision it at 67%, and if Trump is re-elected, it'll probably be at 70-72% in 2024.

I remember seeing that support for gay marriage has actually declined in the post-Obergefell era, as the SCOTUS action and subsequent SJW/liberal reactions unified Republicans against it.

Not true:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx
From July 2015 to May 2016, support in terms of margin has climbed six percent, for an all time high margin of +24.

[RINO Tom]

I just kind of thought of this, but why on Earth are we acting like a TON of suburbs aren't working class?  There are going to be differences, of course (e.g., some rich suburb of NYC), but I'm willing to bet that the majority of suburbs that have trended Democratic have also become a lot more diverse and, YES, more economically diverse, too.

[erſatz-york]

Had Marco gotten the nomination in 2016, I believe he would have won - probably by sacrificing the Trump gains in the Rust Belt and exchanging them for gains in suburban areas like NOVA, the Denver metro and Clark County to net him VA, CO, NV, and the White House. Assuming he retains all the Romney states and then wins FL (home state) and OH (by nominating John Kasich as his running mate), he should win. He could win NH if he is lucky, WI if he is even more lucky.