What would a Rubio electoral map have looked like?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:47:00 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  What would a Rubio electoral map have looked like?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: What would a Rubio electoral map have looked like?  (Read 6511 times)
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: January 10, 2017, 06:22:23 PM »

Well, Gardner ran as a slightly different candidate and claimed Udall was using 'smears'.

Right, and this worked. No reason it couldn't also work for a more socially moderate candidate.

rubio is on record of stating that he supports enforcing federal drug laws in states like colorado.

No. He has repeatedly said that this is a states' rights issue -- that he personally feels that states which legalize marijuana are making a mistake, and that he thinks states shouldn't do it, but he recognizes they have a right to. This is a misrepresentation of his position.

Normal media is like fox and limbaugh, mostly neutral, WI was unique in which they were hostile to Trump. It matters when it comes to building momentum.

The fact that Trump wasn't meaningfully stronger or weaker in Wisconsin compared to Illinois/Michigan/Ohio shows that this is probably not the case.

So you have the support of federal drug law enforcement by rubio giving Hillary a win in libertarian-leaning CO.

And then you have NoVA which voted 60-40 for Obama and was upset over the government shutdown, which rubio, etc. supported. NoVA residents are also largely government workers and contractors most impacted by the shutdown. Maybe they would've been more comfortable with someone like Kasich to make it closer, like I said, but that's not rubio.

Gillespie supported the shutdown too, actually quite vocally. He lost Fairfax County, the heart of NoVa, 40/58. Rubio could've definitely hit those numbers. Trump lost 29/64; quite a different scenario.

A 60-40 defeat in NoVa for a Republican is OK; it can be made up with by other parts of the state. A 65-30 defeat, like the one Trump had, cannot be.

For the record, this is my Rubio v. Clinton map:



Rubio leads Hillary 259-247, with three states as arguable between the three candidates. My gut feeling is that Rubio would've carried Virginia while losing Colorado and Wisconsin, but all three would've been very close, very likely within a percentage point. Hillary wins if she could sweep all three, which I find doubtful. I gave NH & ME-2 to Hillary though the truth is we need more data before we can say what Trump did there is unique to him or a new part of the Republican coalition.

Cruz would've lost Colorado and Virginia but carried Wisconsin, and then either won the election in the House or used ME-2 to win 270-268. Hard to say, again, until we see how ME-2 will behave in the post-Trump world, which we won't see for many years, unfortunately.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: January 10, 2017, 07:26:19 PM »
« Edited: January 10, 2017, 08:09:18 PM by uti2 »


First of all, I don't think I've ever posted that map. Rubio polled ahead of Clinton while  she led Trump and Cruz,  while Trump did win it is arguable  that the same just because she was a very weak candidate. Rubio would have done worse with non college-educated whites but they are a Republican demographic and Clinton is alienating to them. Rubio would do better with college-educated whites, Trump fell with them compared to Romney, Rubio could get Romney's showing or likely better. Rubio would also do better with Hispanics. Virginia was slightly you the right of the nation in 2012, Rubio could win it, while Colorado was the tipping point state then. Pennsylvania was 0.01% more for Obama than Colorado in 2012. Rubio was touted as a Republican Obama ,while  that hurt him in the primary it would help in the general.  Rubio could present himself as the young, change candidate against old establishment candidate Clinton. He would likely do better in the debates and prepare for them, and he'd stay on message and not be accused of sexual assault. The fundamentals; country on wrong track, weak economy, foreign policy crises etc pointed to a GOP victory. I believe that victory could have been stronger than a 2% popular vote loss.

You probably just forgot. No, cruz's polling v. clinton didn't collapse until april/may, if you compare the compare the contemporary performance of cruz's polling to rubio's they were within the margin of error. rubio was polling ~+2 v. cruz back in the period of Jan/Feb, etc.

How is he going to be the change candidate when he has all the same policies as a non-change candidate? Hillary would just do comparisons vis-a-vis Mccain/Romney. Do better in the debates? All he does is put up generic boilerplate, based on memorized messages. The economy isn't that weak, except in middle america where a lot of that has to do with globalization, again, which rubio has no policies to help in that direction. He was saying the same as romney with regards to automation. Foreign Policy was one of the key issues that allowed Obama to be seen as the change candidate, supporting Mccain's old policies would be seen as a reverse of change. FP was a key differentiation that Obama had v. Hillary in the 2008 primary too.

Being seen as the 'republican obama' didn't hurt him in the primary at all, cruz had even less experience, what hurt him was being seen as controlled/scripted and being looked at as unfit for leadership and not being seen as being capable of making harsh critical decisions if need be. That same weakness would carry on into the general. No one thought Cruz was incapable of making bold decisions, Cruz was seen as a maverick. For all the talk about Bush, at least people saw him as a 'decider' and a strong leader, same with Cruz, rubio was seen as the epitome of indecision.

If you look at how Bush also campaigned as a change candidate in 2000, his FP in 2000 was similar to the posturing Cruz did this year, and he was seen as an outsider from out of washington and his FP was more realist, Cruz was the one who sort of had that parallel, not rubio. Cruz was trying to posture from that angle call the Iraq War a mistake, rubio was saying that it was not a mistake. So, rubio wouldn't be seen as a change, just a return to bush-era policies of nation-building, cruz said he was opposed to nation building. Obama was seen as having some radically different policies from both Clinton/Mccain, people saw that with cruz as well, not rubio.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: January 10, 2017, 07:45:46 PM »

Well, Gardner ran as a slightly different candidate and claimed Udall was using 'smears'.

Right, and this worked. No reason it couldn't also work for a more socially moderate candidate.

rubio is on record of stating that he supports enforcing federal drug laws in states like colorado.

No. He has repeatedly said that this is a states' rights issue -- that he personally feels that states which legalize marijuana are making a mistake, and that he thinks states shouldn't do it, but he recognizes they have a right to. This is a misrepresentation of his position.

Normal media is like fox and limbaugh, mostly neutral, WI was unique in which they were hostile to Trump. It matters when it comes to building momentum.

The fact that Trump wasn't meaningfully stronger or weaker in Wisconsin compared to Illinois/Michigan/Ohio shows that this is probably not the case.

So you have the support of federal drug law enforcement by rubio giving Hillary a win in libertarian-leaning CO.

And then you have NoVA which voted 60-40 for Obama and was upset over the government shutdown, which rubio, etc. supported. NoVA residents are also largely government workers and contractors most impacted by the shutdown. Maybe they would've been more comfortable with someone like Kasich to make it closer, like I said, but that's not rubio.

Gillespie supported the shutdown too, actually quite vocally. He lost Fairfax County, the heart of NoVa, 40/58. Rubio could've definitely hit those numbers. Trump lost 29/64; quite a different scenario.

A 60-40 defeat in NoVa for a Republican is OK; it can be made up with by other parts of the state. A 65-30 defeat, like the one Trump had, cannot be.

For the record, this is my Rubio v. Clinton map:



Rubio leads Hillary 259-247, with three states as arguable between the three candidates. My gut feeling is that Rubio would've carried Virginia while losing Colorado and Wisconsin, but all three would've been very close, very likely within a percentage point. Hillary wins if she could sweep all three, which I find doubtful. I gave NH & ME-2 to Hillary though the truth is we need more data before we can say what Trump did there is unique to him or a new part of the Republican coalition.

Cruz would've lost Colorado and Virginia but carried Wisconsin, and then either won the election in the House or used ME-2 to win 270-268. Hard to say, again, until we see how ME-2 will behave in the post-Trump world, which we won't see for many years, unfortunately.

No, rubio's on record of explicitly favoring federal drug law enforcement in the states, his position is not like cruz/rand at all. He is only in favor of the states allowing medicinal marijuana, not recreational use.

Well, you could see how Trump benefited from momentum as in the case of IN, not so much in WI, due to the media markets.

If your argument is that Warner won due to strength from other parts of the state, then Tim Kaine would've also been able to pull more support from other parts of the state to offset it.
Logged
Coolface Sock #42069
whitesox130
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,695
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: 2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: January 10, 2017, 08:37:23 PM »

I'm torn.

On one hand, I think Rubio wouldn't have had nearly the volume of negative press Trump had, but I think that would have actually helped Hillary. No scandals to run against would have forced Hillary to come up with a positive message (here's why you should vote for me to instead of here's why you should vote against the other guy). Whenever elections become a referendum on one candidate rather than a contest between two candidates, the candidate in question tends to win. Hillary's strategy would have almost certainly shifted to running on policy and her own accomplishments. Rubio also likely would have struggled to run up the score among working-class whites like Trump did. I struggle to see how he flips all those voters in the Iron Range and rural Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. His voters would have looked much more like Mitt Romney's, and Romney lost. Rubio also would have been far more passive in the face of the inevitable slew of hate that he would have gotten from the left (they would have treated him largely the same as they treated Trump).

On the other hand, Hillary is a fundamentally-flawed politician with nowhere near the skills of President Obama. I'm not sure her campaign would have been much better against a more conventional Republican candidate like Rubio. Also, the rest of the Democratic Party would still be full of people busy calling Rubio and his supporters racist and sexist and every other name in the book just like they did to Mitt Romney and nearly every other Republican (everything that happened at the Golden Globes last night is a textbook course in Why Trump Won 101). The SJW celebrities would still be busy doing whatever they can to alienate poor whites and suburbanites. Bernie bros would still be doing their best to tear down Hillary before, during, and after the primary (to the disgust of Sanders himself). And Rubio certainly wouldn't have hemmhoraged votes in the suburbs the way Trump did; it's hard to see him losing Cobb County or Orange County or doing as poorly in Waukesha as Trump did, and I can only assume he would have done better in northern Virginia than Trump. But Trump won all those states except Virginia, and it's far from certain that Rubio would have won there.

If there is one piece of conventional wisdom that was stood on its head last year, it's that rich white voters in the suburbs decide elections. Rubio would have improved over Trump in many traditional Republican areas, but it wouldn't have been in the places you need to do well to win, and it's far from clear that he would have dominated rural and working class areas the way Trump did.

So many things about this election would have been the same no matter what, but I can't really see how Rubio would have won any state that Trump didn't win other than Virginia (which is only 13 electoral votes), and he could very possibly have lost Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan as well. So I can only conclude that the most likely scenario is that Rubio would have underperformed Trump in the electoral college, though he may have done better in the popular vote and may have still won.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: January 10, 2017, 09:52:11 PM »

Well, Gardner ran as a slightly different candidate and claimed Udall was using 'smears'.

Right, and this worked. No reason it couldn't also work for a more socially moderate candidate.

rubio is on record of stating that he supports enforcing federal drug laws in states like colorado.

No. He has repeatedly said that this is a states' rights issue -- that he personally feels that states which legalize marijuana are making a mistake, and that he thinks states shouldn't do it, but he recognizes they have a right to. This is a misrepresentation of his position.

Normal media is like fox and limbaugh, mostly neutral, WI was unique in which they were hostile to Trump. It matters when it comes to building momentum.

The fact that Trump wasn't meaningfully stronger or weaker in Wisconsin compared to Illinois/Michigan/Ohio shows that this is probably not the case.

So you have the support of federal drug law enforcement by rubio giving Hillary a win in libertarian-leaning CO.

And then you have NoVA which voted 60-40 for Obama and was upset over the government shutdown, which rubio, etc. supported. NoVA residents are also largely government workers and contractors most impacted by the shutdown. Maybe they would've been more comfortable with someone like Kasich to make it closer, like I said, but that's not rubio.

Gillespie supported the shutdown too, actually quite vocally. He lost Fairfax County, the heart of NoVa, 40/58. Rubio could've definitely hit those numbers. Trump lost 29/64; quite a different scenario.

A 60-40 defeat in NoVa for a Republican is OK; it can be made up with by other parts of the state. A 65-30 defeat, like the one Trump had, cannot be.

For the record, this is my Rubio v. Clinton map:



Rubio leads Hillary 259-247, with three states as arguable between the three candidates. My gut feeling is that Rubio would've carried Virginia while losing Colorado and Wisconsin, but all three would've been very close, very likely within a percentage point. Hillary wins if she could sweep all three, which I find doubtful. I gave NH & ME-2 to Hillary though the truth is we need more data before we can say what Trump did there is unique to him or a new part of the Republican coalition.

Cruz would've lost Colorado and Virginia but carried Wisconsin, and then either won the election in the House or used ME-2 to win 270-268. Hard to say, again, until we see how ME-2 will behave in the post-Trump world, which we won't see for many years, unfortunately.

No, rubio's on record of explicitly favoring federal drug law enforcement in the states, his position is not like cruz/rand at all. He is only in favor of the states allowing medicinal marijuana, not recreational use.

No. Rubio supports legalizing medical marijuana outright, in the individual states. He does not support individual states legalizing recreational marijuana, but he recognizes their right to do so: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/marijuana-gop-114786

Well, you could see how Trump benefited from momentum as in the case of IN, not so much in WI, due to the media markets.

That was almost a month later. It hadn't begun yet by the time Wisconsin voted. If Indiana had voted on the same day as Wisconsin, Cruz would have won there too. If Wisconsin voted the same day as Indiana, Trump would have won there too. It was all a timing thing.

If your argument is that Warner won due to strength from other parts of the state, then Tim Kaine would've also been able to pull more support from other parts of the state to offset it.

The 2012 Senate race in Virginia reflected the presidential race almost perfectly; Kaine really wasn't meaningfully stronger than Obama everywhere. He is Generic D in Virginia. Warner has his own special strengths, which Kaine lacks. He comes from Richmond City; in 2012, Obama won 79% there, while Kaine won 80%. (Hillary Clinton won...the same 79%. Nothing changed).

That argument doesn't hold water.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: January 10, 2017, 10:00:58 PM »
« Edited: January 10, 2017, 10:11:22 PM by uti2 »

Well, Gardner ran as a slightly different candidate and claimed Udall was using 'smears'.

Right, and this worked. No reason it couldn't also work for a more socially moderate candidate.

rubio is on record of stating that he supports enforcing federal drug laws in states like colorado.

No. He has repeatedly said that this is a states' rights issue -- that he personally feels that states which legalize marijuana are making a mistake, and that he thinks states shouldn't do it, but he recognizes they have a right to. This is a misrepresentation of his position.

Normal media is like fox and limbaugh, mostly neutral, WI was unique in which they were hostile to Trump. It matters when it comes to building momentum.

The fact that Trump wasn't meaningfully stronger or weaker in Wisconsin compared to Illinois/Michigan/Ohio shows that this is probably not the case.

So you have the support of federal drug law enforcement by rubio giving Hillary a win in libertarian-leaning CO.

And then you have NoVA which voted 60-40 for Obama and was upset over the government shutdown, which rubio, etc. supported. NoVA residents are also largely government workers and contractors most impacted by the shutdown. Maybe they would've been more comfortable with someone like Kasich to make it closer, like I said, but that's not rubio.

Gillespie supported the shutdown too, actually quite vocally. He lost Fairfax County, the heart of NoVa, 40/58. Rubio could've definitely hit those numbers. Trump lost 29/64; quite a different scenario.

A 60-40 defeat in NoVa for a Republican is OK; it can be made up with by other parts of the state. A 65-30 defeat, like the one Trump had, cannot be.

For the record, this is my Rubio v. Clinton map:



Rubio leads Hillary 259-247, with three states as arguable between the three candidates. My gut feeling is that Rubio would've carried Virginia while losing Colorado and Wisconsin, but all three would've been very close, very likely within a percentage point. Hillary wins if she could sweep all three, which I find doubtful. I gave NH & ME-2 to Hillary though the truth is we need more data before we can say what Trump did there is unique to him or a new part of the Republican coalition.

Cruz would've lost Colorado and Virginia but carried Wisconsin, and then either won the election in the House or used ME-2 to win 270-268. Hard to say, again, until we see how ME-2 will behave in the post-Trump world, which we won't see for many years, unfortunately.

No, rubio's on record of explicitly favoring federal drug law enforcement in the states, his position is not like cruz/rand at all. He is only in favor of the states allowing medicinal marijuana, not recreational use.

No. Rubio supports legalizing medical marijuana outright, in the individual states. He does not support individual states legalizing recreational marijuana, but he recognizes their right to do so: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/marijuana-gop-114786

Well, you could see how Trump benefited from momentum as in the case of IN, not so much in WI, due to the media markets.

That was almost a month later. It hadn't begun yet by the time Wisconsin voted. If Indiana had voted on the same day as Wisconsin, Cruz would have won there too. If Wisconsin voted the same day as Indiana, Trump would have won there too. It was all a timing thing.

If your argument is that Warner won due to strength from other parts of the state, then Tim Kaine would've also been able to pull more support from other parts of the state to offset it.

The 2012 Senate race in Virginia reflected the presidential race almost perfectly; Kaine really wasn't meaningfully stronger than Obama everywhere. He is Generic D in Virginia. Warner has his own special strengths, which Kaine lacks. He comes from Richmond City; in 2012, Obama won 79% there, while Kaine won 80%. (Hillary Clinton won...the same 79%. Nothing changed).

That argument doesn't hold water.

That's what his spokesman said, that's not what he said, he only favors allowing states to legalize marijuana medicinally, not recreationally. He would enforce federal laws in states.

seehttp://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Marco_Rubio_Drugs.htm

If you think it's going to be a close race, then Kaine would've boosted her enough the way Graham would've boosted Gore in 2000.

I disagree when you say that the exact circumstances were the same, very possible Trump still loses WI due to the media market against him there, and Trump wins IN by an even greater margin he did with MO.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: January 10, 2017, 10:06:43 PM »

Well, Gardner ran as a slightly different candidate and claimed Udall was using 'smears'.

Right, and this worked. No reason it couldn't also work for a more socially moderate candidate.

rubio is on record of stating that he supports enforcing federal drug laws in states like colorado.

No. He has repeatedly said that this is a states' rights issue -- that he personally feels that states which legalize marijuana are making a mistake, and that he thinks states shouldn't do it, but he recognizes they have a right to. This is a misrepresentation of his position.

Normal media is like fox and limbaugh, mostly neutral, WI was unique in which they were hostile to Trump. It matters when it comes to building momentum.

The fact that Trump wasn't meaningfully stronger or weaker in Wisconsin compared to Illinois/Michigan/Ohio shows that this is probably not the case.

So you have the support of federal drug law enforcement by rubio giving Hillary a win in libertarian-leaning CO.

And then you have NoVA which voted 60-40 for Obama and was upset over the government shutdown, which rubio, etc. supported. NoVA residents are also largely government workers and contractors most impacted by the shutdown. Maybe they would've been more comfortable with someone like Kasich to make it closer, like I said, but that's not rubio.

Gillespie supported the shutdown too, actually quite vocally. He lost Fairfax County, the heart of NoVa, 40/58. Rubio could've definitely hit those numbers. Trump lost 29/64; quite a different scenario.

A 60-40 defeat in NoVa for a Republican is OK; it can be made up with by other parts of the state. A 65-30 defeat, like the one Trump had, cannot be.

For the record, this is my Rubio v. Clinton map:



Rubio leads Hillary 259-247, with three states as arguable between the three candidates. My gut feeling is that Rubio would've carried Virginia while losing Colorado and Wisconsin, but all three would've been very close, very likely within a percentage point. Hillary wins if she could sweep all three, which I find doubtful. I gave NH & ME-2 to Hillary though the truth is we need more data before we can say what Trump did there is unique to him or a new part of the Republican coalition.

Cruz would've lost Colorado and Virginia but carried Wisconsin, and then either won the election in the House or used ME-2 to win 270-268. Hard to say, again, until we see how ME-2 will behave in the post-Trump world, which we won't see for many years, unfortunately.

No, rubio's on record of explicitly favoring federal drug law enforcement in the states, his position is not like cruz/rand at all. He is only in favor of the states allowing medicinal marijuana, not recreational use.

No. Rubio supports legalizing medical marijuana outright, in the individual states. He does not support individual states legalizing recreational marijuana, but he recognizes their right to do so: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/marijuana-gop-114786

Well, you could see how Trump benefited from momentum as in the case of IN, not so much in WI, due to the media markets.

That was almost a month later. It hadn't begun yet by the time Wisconsin voted. If Indiana had voted on the same day as Wisconsin, Cruz would have won there too. If Wisconsin voted the same day as Indiana, Trump would have won there too. It was all a timing thing.

If your argument is that Warner won due to strength from other parts of the state, then Tim Kaine would've also been able to pull more support from other parts of the state to offset it.

The 2012 Senate race in Virginia reflected the presidential race almost perfectly; Kaine really wasn't meaningfully stronger than Obama everywhere. He is Generic D in Virginia. Warner has his own special strengths, which Kaine lacks. He comes from Richmond City; in 2012, Obama won 79% there, while Kaine won 80%. (Hillary Clinton won...the same 79%. Nothing changed).

That argument doesn't hold water.

That's what his spokesman said, that's not what he said, he only favors allowing states to legalize marijuana medicinally, not recreationally. He would enforce federal laws in states.

seehttp://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Marco_Rubio_Drugs.htm

If you think it's going to be a close race, then Kaine would've boosted her enough the way Graham would've boosted Gore in 2000.

I disagree when you say that the exact circumstances were the same, very possible Trump still loses WI due to the media market against him there, and Trump wins IN by a similar margin he did with MO

Bob Graham had served Florida much longer in 2000 than Tim Kaine had served Virginia in 2016, and also had a much more impressive electoral record (Kaine has 2 hard-fought prominent victories, against Kilgore and Allen; Graham had 5 statewide victories, all against fairly touted opponents, only 2 of which were even single-digits). I don't think they're comparable. Kaine would not have made much of a difference for Hillary in VA. Even if he had, Rubio could still have won CO or WI, and thereby the Presidency. He needs one of those three. I personally think VA is likeliest, but the odds of him winning any one of them would've been quite high.

I don't think the media market in WI is that powerful. Maybe Trump would've eked out a win in an earlier Indiana primary, certainly, but he wouldn't have had the 15-point win he had in reality. A Missouri-style victory is a plausible result too.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: January 10, 2017, 10:15:39 PM »

Well, Gardner ran as a slightly different candidate and claimed Udall was using 'smears'.

Right, and this worked. No reason it couldn't also work for a more socially moderate candidate.

rubio is on record of stating that he supports enforcing federal drug laws in states like colorado.

No. He has repeatedly said that this is a states' rights issue -- that he personally feels that states which legalize marijuana are making a mistake, and that he thinks states shouldn't do it, but he recognizes they have a right to. This is a misrepresentation of his position.

Normal media is like fox and limbaugh, mostly neutral, WI was unique in which they were hostile to Trump. It matters when it comes to building momentum.

The fact that Trump wasn't meaningfully stronger or weaker in Wisconsin compared to Illinois/Michigan/Ohio shows that this is probably not the case.

So you have the support of federal drug law enforcement by rubio giving Hillary a win in libertarian-leaning CO.

And then you have NoVA which voted 60-40 for Obama and was upset over the government shutdown, which rubio, etc. supported. NoVA residents are also largely government workers and contractors most impacted by the shutdown. Maybe they would've been more comfortable with someone like Kasich to make it closer, like I said, but that's not rubio.

Gillespie supported the shutdown too, actually quite vocally. He lost Fairfax County, the heart of NoVa, 40/58. Rubio could've definitely hit those numbers. Trump lost 29/64; quite a different scenario.

A 60-40 defeat in NoVa for a Republican is OK; it can be made up with by other parts of the state. A 65-30 defeat, like the one Trump had, cannot be.

For the record, this is my Rubio v. Clinton map:



Rubio leads Hillary 259-247, with three states as arguable between the three candidates. My gut feeling is that Rubio would've carried Virginia while losing Colorado and Wisconsin, but all three would've been very close, very likely within a percentage point. Hillary wins if she could sweep all three, which I find doubtful. I gave NH & ME-2 to Hillary though the truth is we need more data before we can say what Trump did there is unique to him or a new part of the Republican coalition.

Cruz would've lost Colorado and Virginia but carried Wisconsin, and then either won the election in the House or used ME-2 to win 270-268. Hard to say, again, until we see how ME-2 will behave in the post-Trump world, which we won't see for many years, unfortunately.

No, rubio's on record of explicitly favoring federal drug law enforcement in the states, his position is not like cruz/rand at all. He is only in favor of the states allowing medicinal marijuana, not recreational use.

No. Rubio supports legalizing medical marijuana outright, in the individual states. He does not support individual states legalizing recreational marijuana, but he recognizes their right to do so: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/marijuana-gop-114786

Well, you could see how Trump benefited from momentum as in the case of IN, not so much in WI, due to the media markets.

That was almost a month later. It hadn't begun yet by the time Wisconsin voted. If Indiana had voted on the same day as Wisconsin, Cruz would have won there too. If Wisconsin voted the same day as Indiana, Trump would have won there too. It was all a timing thing.

If your argument is that Warner won due to strength from other parts of the state, then Tim Kaine would've also been able to pull more support from other parts of the state to offset it.

The 2012 Senate race in Virginia reflected the presidential race almost perfectly; Kaine really wasn't meaningfully stronger than Obama everywhere. He is Generic D in Virginia. Warner has his own special strengths, which Kaine lacks. He comes from Richmond City; in 2012, Obama won 79% there, while Kaine won 80%. (Hillary Clinton won...the same 79%. Nothing changed).

That argument doesn't hold water.

That's what his spokesman said, that's not what he said, he only favors allowing states to legalize marijuana medicinally, not recreationally. He would enforce federal laws in states.

seehttp://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Marco_Rubio_Drugs.htm

If you think it's going to be a close race, then Kaine would've boosted her enough the way Graham would've boosted Gore in 2000.

I disagree when you say that the exact circumstances were the same, very possible Trump still loses WI due to the media market against him there, and Trump wins IN by a similar margin he did with MO

Bob Graham had served Florida much longer in 2000 than Tim Kaine had served Virginia in 2016, and also had a much more impressive electoral record (Kaine has 2 hard-fought prominent victories, against Kilgore and Allen; Graham had 5 statewide victories, all against fairly touted opponents, only 2 of which were even single-digits). I don't think they're comparable. Kaine would not have made much of a difference for Hillary in VA. Even if he had, Rubio could still have won CO or WI, and thereby the Presidency. He needs one of those three. I personally think VA is likeliest, but the odds of him winning any one of them would've been quite high.

I don't think the media market in WI is that powerful. Maybe Trump would've eked out a win in an earlier Indiana primary, certainly, but he wouldn't have had the 15-point win he had in reality. A Missouri-style victory is a plausible result too.

I already showed you with CO, rubio does not have a rand/cruz like position towards recreational marijuana use in the states, he only supports the states rights' in the context of medicinal marijuana, that would've killed him in CO.

Kaine is very popular in NoVA, which give him his victories, that would give him the requisite margin needed.

Go look at the areas of IN, IL and WI in performance comparison.

What mainly hit Trump in WI was the WOW area and the media market. Trump's support in IN was more evenly distributed. Trump was a lot more popular in metro-Chicago in NW IN, and he always had a strong base of support across the state:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/2016-indiana-county-predicts-every-election-trump-fever-213411
Logged
Arbitrage1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 769
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: January 13, 2017, 02:02:28 PM »

Amazing debate in this thread. Very well-informed and articulate posts by both sides.

It seems like everyone agrees that Rubio most likely would have won the national popular vote since he would have done significantly better in CA, AZ, TX, GA, than Trump? Rubio probably would have lost CA by around 15 points (compared to Trump's 30) and won TX by 12-15 (compared to Trump's 9). My guess is GA would have been a comfortable 8-10 point margin.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: January 13, 2017, 06:14:18 PM »

Amazing debate in this thread. Very well-informed and articulate posts by both sides.

It seems like everyone agrees that Rubio most likely would have won the national popular vote since he would have done significantly better in CA, AZ, TX, GA, than Trump? Rubio probably would have lost CA by around 15 points (compared to Trump's 30) and won TX by 12-15 (compared to Trump's 9). My guess is GA would have been a comfortable 8-10 point margin.

-Agree on all except natl popular vote and CA.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: January 14, 2017, 11:24:05 AM »

People underestimate Rubio's unlikability.  2016 was an anti-establishment year, and Rubio reeks of the establishment.  He owes his career to powerful special interests, and until 2016, he had never won FL with a majority (he won with under 50% against two candidates running to the left of him in 2010).  He was a first term Senator with a horrible attendance record who came off as the Establishment's favorite Management Trainee, and who served the purpose of advancing a kind of false sense of "diversity".  A smarmy little puke.  2016 wasn't the year of smarmy little pukes; it was the year of rebellion against national elites of all kinds, and Rubio was not destined to do well in this environment, period.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: January 14, 2017, 11:51:28 AM »

People underestimate Rubio's unlikability.  2016 was an anti-establishment year, and Rubio reeks of the establishment.  He owes his career to powerful special interests, and until 2016, he had never won FL with a majority (he won with under 50% against two candidates running to the left of him in 2010).  He was a first term Senator with a horrible attendance record who came off as the Establishment's favorite Management Trainee, and who served the purpose of advancing a kind of false sense of "diversity".  A smarmy little puke.  2016 wasn't the year of smarmy little pukes; it was the year of rebellion against national elites of all kinds, and Rubio was not destined to do well in this environment, period.

Setting aside whether Rubio would've come off as more establishment than Clinton or not, and how much it might've mattered, 2016 really wasn't any sort of rebellion against national elites. Both gubernatorial and congressional reelection rates, normally sky-high, surged in 2016. Approval of the incumbent President reached the highest level at a presidential election since 2000. Anti-establishment candidates won far from a majority in both primaries (43% in the Democratic one, 39% in the Republican one), with the weaker anti-establishment candidate being nominated due to vote-splitting, and then losing the general election popular vote fairly decisively, in fact receiving less support than Mitt Romney.

Indeed, the evidence points to 2016 being an atypically establishment year -- probably the most establishment year since ~2004 or 2002 -- where Trump, through a combination of some canny strategy, lots of pure luck, and an extremely favorable distribution of supporters in the primary and general, was able to win anyway. It won't be remembered that way historically (the Trump victory is going to be what's discussed in the historical record, which is pretty logical), but that's what happened.

Also, even at his nadir in March when his campaign had collapsed Rubio was still seen as more likable than Clinton or Trump by pretty much everyone. Likability was not going to be a hindrance for him in 2016.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: January 14, 2017, 12:14:32 PM »
« Edited: January 14, 2017, 12:24:16 PM by uti2 »

People underestimate Rubio's unlikability.  2016 was an anti-establishment year, and Rubio reeks of the establishment.  He owes his career to powerful special interests, and until 2016, he had never won FL with a majority (he won with under 50% against two candidates running to the left of him in 2010).  He was a first term Senator with a horrible attendance record who came off as the Establishment's favorite Management Trainee, and who served the purpose of advancing a kind of false sense of "diversity".  A smarmy little puke.  2016 wasn't the year of smarmy little pukes; it was the year of rebellion against national elites of all kinds, and Rubio was not destined to do well in this environment, period.

Setting aside whether Rubio would've come off as more establishment than Clinton or not, and how much it might've mattered, 2016 really wasn't any sort of rebellion against national elites. Both gubernatorial and congressional reelection rates, normally sky-high, surged in 2016. Approval of the incumbent President reached the highest level at a presidential election since 2000. Anti-establishment candidates won far from a majority in both primaries (43% in the Democratic one, 39% in the Republican one), with the weaker anti-establishment candidate being nominated due to vote-splitting, and then losing the general election popular vote fairly decisively, in fact receiving less support than Mitt Romney.

Indeed, the evidence points to 2016 being an atypically establishment year -- probably the most establishment year since ~2004 or 2002 -- where Trump, through a combination of some canny strategy, lots of pure luck, and an extremely favorable distribution of supporters in the primary and general, was able to win anyway. It won't be remembered that way historically (the Trump victory is going to be what's discussed in the historical record, which is pretty logical), but that's what happened.

Also, even at his nadir in March when his campaign had collapsed Rubio was still seen as more likable than Clinton or Trump by pretty much everyone. Likability was not going to be a hindrance for him in 2016.

Cruz's unfavs were very similar to Rubio's initially, it didn't collapse until Apr/May when he got more media attention, a lot of it is built in due to political polarization. And Cruz's favs overall were similar to Jeb's and Hillary's in the end.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: January 14, 2017, 12:18:16 PM »

People underestimate Rubio's unlikability.  2016 was an anti-establishment year, and Rubio reeks of the establishment.  He owes his career to powerful special interests, and until 2016, he had never won FL with a majority (he won with under 50% against two candidates running to the left of him in 2010).  He was a first term Senator with a horrible attendance record who came off as the Establishment's favorite Management Trainee, and who served the purpose of advancing a kind of false sense of "diversity".  A smarmy little puke.  2016 wasn't the year of smarmy little pukes; it was the year of rebellion against national elites of all kinds, and Rubio was not destined to do well in this environment, period.

Setting aside whether Rubio would've come off as more establishment than Clinton or not, and how much it might've mattered, 2016 really wasn't any sort of rebellion against national elites. Both gubernatorial and congressional reelection rates, normally sky-high, surged in 2016. Approval of the incumbent President reached the highest level at a presidential election since 2000. Anti-establishment candidates won far from a majority in both primaries (43% in the Democratic one, 39% in the Republican one), with the weaker anti-establishment candidate being nominated due to vote-splitting, and then losing the general election popular vote fairly decisively, in fact receiving less support than Mitt Romney.

Indeed, the evidence points to 2016 being an atypically establishment year -- probably the most establishment year since ~2004 or 2002 -- where Trump, through a combination of some canny strategy, lots of pure luck, and an extremely favorable distribution of supporters in the primary and general, was able to win anyway. It won't be remembered that way historically (the Trump victory is going to be what's discussed in the historical record, which is pretty logical), but that's what happened.

Also, even at his nadir in March when his campaign had collapsed Rubio was still seen as more likable than Clinton or Trump by pretty much everyone. Likability was not going to be a hindrance for him in 2016.

Cruz's unfavs was very similar to Rubio's initially, it didn't collapsed until Apr/May when he got more media attention, a lot of it is built in due to political polarization. And Cruz's likability overall was similar to Jeb's and Hillary's.

Cruz's unfavorables were lower than Rubio's all through the cycle, though you're right that they were similar to Jeb's and Hillary's. What this misses is that all these candidates had significantly better unfavorables than Donald Trump, who went on to be elected, so clearly unfavorables aren't exactly an all-important, determining factor.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: January 14, 2017, 12:41:35 PM »
« Edited: January 14, 2017, 01:11:13 PM by uti2 »

Rubio wouldn't have lost IA in the GE, but he probably wouldn't have won NV either. I think it would have been Romney 2012 + FL + IA + OH + WI + ME-02 + maybe CO + maybe PA.

Well, keep in mind that ME-02 is lepage/trump land, but besides that, rubio would have problems in CO due to his federal drug position, and Hillary would've been able to run a more effective rustbelt campaign without the russian hacks, if it was a more conventional race, allowing her to consolidate more votes from bernie supporters. She'd remind people of rubio's positions on the auto bailouts, etc. and how it's the same as romney's. She does that and she is much more likely to keep the blue wall in tact causing an electoral problem for him.

*Kasich is a more unique kind of candidate with the specific type of regional appeal for the area, which is why they shouldn't be grouped in together electorally. Remember, Kasich was going to do the OH-PA-Upstate NY route, which is very similar to what Trump did, Jeb and Rubio don't have the same appeal in that corridor, it's highly probable that Jeb/Rubio would've tried to push through NV anyway, and run into EV issues and come up short electorally.
Logged
Arbitrage1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 769
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: January 14, 2017, 01:37:07 PM »

Rubio wouldn't have lost IA in the GE, but he probably wouldn't have won NV either. I think it would have been Romney 2012 + FL + IA + OH + WI + ME-02 + maybe CO + maybe PA.

Well, keep in mind that ME-02 is lepage/trump land, but besides that, rubio would have problems in CO due to his federal drug position, and Hillary would've been able to run a more effective rustbelt campaign without the russian hacks, if it was a more conventional race, allowing her to consolidate more votes from bernie supporters. She'd remind people of rubio's positions on the auto bailouts, etc. and how it's the same as romney's. She does that and she is much more likely to keep the blue wall in tact causing an electoral problem for him.

*Kasich is a more unique kind of candidate with the specific type of regional appeal for the area, which is why they shouldn't be grouped in together electorally. Remember, Kasich was going to do the OH-PA-Upstate NY route, which is very similar to what Trump did, Jeb and Rubio don't have the same appeal in that corridor, it's highly probable that Jeb/Rubio would've tried to push through NV anyway, and run into EV issues and come up short electorally.

I must have missed the part where Putin's agents forced Hillary to make the deplorable comment and not campaign aggressively in WI or MI.

Logged
Arbitrage1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 769
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: January 14, 2017, 01:41:45 PM »

People underestimate Rubio's unlikability.  2016 was an anti-establishment year, and Rubio reeks of the establishment.  He owes his career to powerful special interests, and until 2016, he had never won FL with a majority (he won with under 50% against two candidates running to the left of him in 2010).  He was a first term Senator with a horrible attendance record who came off as the Establishment's favorite Management Trainee, and who served the purpose of advancing a kind of false sense of "diversity".  A smarmy little puke.  2016 wasn't the year of smarmy little pukes; it was the year of rebellion against national elites of all kinds, and Rubio was not destined to do well in this environment, period.

Rubio won in 2010 as an insurgent candidate, upsetting Crist in the gop primary. His voting record in the Senate has been consistently conservative. He is very knowledgeable on a wide array of issues and played a key role in risk corridors for insurance companies in the Obamacare battle. His one flaw was his role in Gang of Eight; he honestly thought he could help craft an immigration deal until Schumer stabbed him in the back.

The Rubio hate is not borne out by data. He was very well liked during the GOP primary but didn't gain traction due to the relentless attacks by Jeb, divided field, lack of ground game in the early states, and the debate debacle against Christie.

In his re-election in 2016, Rubio outperformed Trump and won 48% of latinos and 17% of blacks.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: January 14, 2017, 02:11:10 PM »

Rubio wouldn't have lost IA in the GE, but he probably wouldn't have won NV either. I think it would have been Romney 2012 + FL + IA + OH + WI + ME-02 + maybe CO + maybe PA.

Well, keep in mind that ME-02 is lepage/trump land, but besides that, rubio would have problems in CO due to his federal drug position, and Hillary would've been able to run a more effective rustbelt campaign without the russian hacks, if it was a more conventional race, allowing her to consolidate more votes from bernie supporters. She'd remind people of rubio's positions on the auto bailouts, etc. and how it's the same as romney's. She does that and she is much more likely to keep the blue wall in tact causing an electoral problem for him.

*Kasich is a more unique kind of candidate with the specific type of regional appeal for the area, which is why they shouldn't be grouped in together electorally. Remember, Kasich was going to do the OH-PA-Upstate NY route, which is very similar to what Trump did, Jeb and Rubio don't have the same appeal in that corridor, it's highly probable that Jeb/Rubio would've tried to push through NV anyway, and run into EV issues and come up short electorally.

I must have missed the part where Putin's agents forced Hillary to make the deplorable comment and not campaign aggressively in WI or MI.



She was talking about Trump voters in that speech, remember, she was trying to court upper-class republicans, and she only made those decisions in the context of Trump.

People underestimate Rubio's unlikability.  2016 was an anti-establishment year, and Rubio reeks of the establishment.  He owes his career to powerful special interests, and until 2016, he had never won FL with a majority (he won with under 50% against two candidates running to the left of him in 2010).  He was a first term Senator with a horrible attendance record who came off as the Establishment's favorite Management Trainee, and who served the purpose of advancing a kind of false sense of "diversity".  A smarmy little puke.  2016 wasn't the year of smarmy little pukes; it was the year of rebellion against national elites of all kinds, and Rubio was not destined to do well in this environment, period.

Rubio won in 2010 as an insurgent candidate, upsetting Crist in the gop primary. His voting record in the Senate has been consistently conservative. He is very knowledgeable on a wide array of issues and played a key role in risk corridors for insurance companies in the Obamacare battle. His one flaw was his role in Gang of Eight; he honestly thought he could help craft an immigration deal until Schumer stabbed him in the back.

The Rubio hate is not borne out by data. He was very well liked during the GOP primary but didn't gain traction due to the relentless attacks by Jeb, divided field, lack of ground game in the early states, and the debate debacle against Christie.

In his re-election in 2016, Rubio outperformed Trump and won 48% of latinos and 17% of blacks.

He was part of the tea party wave. Schumer didn't stab him in the back, that bill was supposed to pass and it was intended to not have any teeth, it failed because Cantor was primaried.

Other way around, rubio only lasted as long as he did, due to his refusal to attack Trump, Walker, etc. collapsed when they did, and rubio also collapsed when he did. His whole debate strategy and campaign strategy from day 1 was simply reciting rehearsed lines and using scripted responses to select questions, this was well-known on the campaign trail and reported by journalists, all Christie did was call him out on it. Christie never did the same for Cruz, because he had respect for Cruz as a person and a leader, even if he disagreed with him more on policy. All Jeb was doing was calling rubio out on his refusal to attack Trump.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kucRXG26htU

Isakson in his GA senate race won the same percentage of blacks, he performed the usual percentage that republicans normally get with non-hispanic cubans, his main advantage is in FL particular demographic with cubans, by the way his senate opponent was abandoned by the dems who used the money for that race to use in other races, had they given him the full-support they originally intended, those margins would've been reduced for him. Burr 'outperformed' by a similar margin.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: January 14, 2017, 02:28:33 PM »

Isakson in his GA senate race won the same percentage of blacks, he performed the usual percentage that republicans normally get with non-hispanic cubans, his main advantage is in FL particular demographic with cubans, by the way his senate opponent was abandoned by the dems who used the money for that race to use in other races, had they given him the full-support they originally intended, those margins would've been reduced for him. Burr 'outperformed' by a similar margin.

Keep in mind that the reason the Democrats pulled support from their nominee was because of how strong Rubio was; it wasn't any sort of Paul Babeu or Jason Lewis scenario where the national party decided this was a competitive seat they wanted to punt because they didn't like the candidate. Polling had him favored in an open seat with Rubio as the only Republican who could've won.

I don't really get the point of the comparison with Isakson, who is also a popular/competent Senator, but who faced a much weaker Democratic opponent and has never tried to sell himself as a presidentiable.

Rubio wouldn't have lost IA in the GE, but he probably wouldn't have won NV either. I think it would have been Romney 2012 + FL + IA + OH + WI + ME-02 + maybe CO + maybe PA.

Well, keep in mind that ME-02 is lepage/trump land, but besides that, rubio would have problems in CO due to his federal drug position, and Hillary would've been able to run a more effective rustbelt campaign without the russian hacks, if it was a more conventional race, allowing her to consolidate more votes from bernie supporters. She'd remind people of rubio's positions on the auto bailouts, etc. and how it's the same as romney's. She does that and she is much more likely to keep the blue wall in tact causing an electoral problem for him.

*Kasich is a more unique kind of candidate with the specific type of regional appeal for the area, which is why they shouldn't be grouped in together electorally. Remember, Kasich was going to do the OH-PA-Upstate NY route, which is very similar to what Trump did, Jeb and Rubio don't have the same appeal in that corridor, it's highly probable that Jeb/Rubio would've tried to push through NV anyway, and run into EV issues and come up short electorally.

ME-2 is sort of unique in that we need to wait, probably for a few more cycles actually, to see if what happened there was purely Trump or if it transfers to other Republicans. The absolutely monstrous margin Trump won there (11 points -- it is more Republican than Texas now -- it is right of the median Trump electoral vote) makes me suspect any Republican would've won, though I'm unsure. I think anybody who really hammered the anti-establishment line, like Ted Cruz, would've carried it, while Bush and Rubio would probably have come close but fallen short.

Rubio would not have had problems in CO because that wasn't his position. His position was that states have the power to legalize marijuana, but shouldn't, and he reiterated this multiple times in the 2016 campaign. Many years before the campaign, he had a single remark where he said what you're suggesting was his position. Considering most supporters of marijuana legalization probably flipped over the last 10-15 years, I doubt anyone would hold it against him.

Rubio would not have won NV. Nor would his victory have depended on NV. I've laid this out multiple times.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: January 14, 2017, 02:36:05 PM »
« Edited: January 14, 2017, 02:40:36 PM by uti2 »


Rubio would not have won NV. Nor would his victory have depended on NV. I've laid this out multiple times.

They pulled support, because the FL media market was expensive, so they tried to pay for other races, otherwise his margin would've been the same as burr & co, and he did similar in the end anyway, so it wasn't that special.

It is his position, his only position with regards to state's rights on marijuana was in the context of medicinal marijuana, he has remained 100% opposed to recreational marijuana at the federal level and supports enforcing those laws in the states, as I showed you in the links. He has the same exact position as Santorum and Christie on the issue, open to states legalizing medicinal marijuana, but not for recreational use.  His position is not like rand's or cruz's, which is state's rights.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: January 14, 2017, 02:43:34 PM »


Rubio would not have won NV. Nor would his victory have depended on NV. I've laid this out multiple times.

They pulled support, because the FL media market was expensive, so they tried to pay for other races, otherwise his margin would've been the same as burr & co, and he did similar in the end anyway, so it wasn't that special.

It is his position, his only position with regards to state's rights on marijuana was in the context of medicinal marijuana, he has remained 100% opposed to recreational marijuana at the federal level and supports enforcing those laws in the states, as I showed you in the links. He has the same exact position as Santorum and Christie on the issue, open to states legalizing medicinal marijuana, but not for recreational use.  His position is not like rand's or cruz's, which is state's rights.

They pulled support because Patrick Murphy was doing significantly worse in polls than Deborah Ross and Jason Kander; when Hillary had an 8/9-point lead in early October, Ross was narrowly leading and Kander was at least tied, while Murphy was still down 5 points. This is notwithstanding the fact that Florida is a more Democratic state than North Carolina and Missouri, and has been in every election since 1992 (1996-2000-2004-2008-2012-2016). The reason Rubio won by more is because he's a stronger candidate.

Anyway, I've sent you links as well. Your links date from 2013/2014, before he ran for President. My links date from during the campaign. His position changed. During the campaign, it was the same as Rand Paul's and Ted Cruz's. I don't think a flip-flop here would be that big a deal, since lots of Americans' positions on this issue have changed over the last decade. You're free to disagree.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: January 14, 2017, 02:49:58 PM »


Rubio would not have won NV. Nor would his victory have depended on NV. I've laid this out multiple times.

They pulled support, because the FL media market was expensive, so they tried to pay for other races, otherwise his margin would've been the same as burr & co, and he did similar in the end anyway, so it wasn't that special.

It is his position, his only position with regards to state's rights on marijuana was in the context of medicinal marijuana, he has remained 100% opposed to recreational marijuana at the federal level and supports enforcing those laws in the states, as I showed you in the links. He has the same exact position as Santorum and Christie on the issue, open to states legalizing medicinal marijuana, but not for recreational use.  His position is not like rand's or cruz's, which is state's rights.

They pulled support because Patrick Murphy was doing significantly worse in polls than Deborah Ross and Jason Kander; when Hillary had an 8/9-point lead in early October, Ross was narrowly leading and Kander was at least tied, while Murphy was still down 5 points. This is notwithstanding the fact that Florida is a more Democratic state than North Carolina and Missouri, and has been in every election since 1992 (1996-2000-2004-2008-2012-2016). The reason Rubio won by more is because he's a stronger candidate.

Anyway, I've sent you links as well. Your links date from 2013/2014, before he ran for President. My links date from during the campaign. His position changed. During the campaign, it was the same as Rand Paul's and Ted Cruz's. I don't think a flip-flop here would be that big a deal, since lots of Americans' positions on this issue have changed over the last decade. You're free to disagree.

Yes, because they put more money into those candidates towards the end.

No, it's also from what he said in interviews in 2015, the only quote you're hanging in something his EX-spokesman suggested. He has the same exact position as Christie and Santorum with regards to federal marijuana laws that Obama was not enforcing in states like colorado with regards to recreational marijuana. Medicinal marijuana is different.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: January 14, 2017, 03:19:33 PM »

Rubio wouldn't have lost IA in the GE, but he probably wouldn't have won NV either. I think it would have been Romney 2012 + FL + IA + OH + WI + ME-02 + maybe CO + maybe PA.

Well, keep in mind that ME-02 is lepage/trump land, but besides that, rubio would have problems in CO due to his federal drug position, and Hillary would've been able to run a more effective rustbelt campaign without the russian hacks, if it was a more conventional race, allowing her to consolidate more votes from bernie supporters. She'd remind people of rubio's positions on the auto bailouts, etc. and how it's the same as romney's. She does that and she is much more likely to keep the blue wall in tact causing an electoral problem for him.

*Kasich is a more unique kind of candidate with the specific type of regional appeal for the area, which is why they shouldn't be grouped in together electorally. Remember, Kasich was going to do the OH-PA-Upstate NY route, which is very similar to what Trump did, Jeb and Rubio don't have the same appeal in that corridor, it's highly probable that Jeb/Rubio would've tried to push through NV anyway, and run into EV issues and come up short electorally.

-Basically true.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: January 14, 2017, 03:36:48 PM »

Rubio wouldn't have lost IA in the GE, but he probably wouldn't have won NV either. I think it would have been Romney 2012 + FL + IA + OH + WI + ME-02 + maybe CO + maybe PA.

Well, keep in mind that ME-02 is lepage/trump land, but besides that, rubio would have problems in CO due to his federal drug position, and Hillary would've been able to run a more effective rustbelt campaign without the russian hacks, if it was a more conventional race, allowing her to consolidate more votes from bernie supporters. She'd remind people of rubio's positions on the auto bailouts, etc. and how it's the same as romney's. She does that and she is much more likely to keep the blue wall in tact causing an electoral problem for him.

*Kasich is a more unique kind of candidate with the specific type of regional appeal for the area, which is why they shouldn't be grouped in together electorally. Remember, Kasich was going to do the OH-PA-Upstate NY route, which is very similar to what Trump did, Jeb and Rubio don't have the same appeal in that corridor, it's highly probable that Jeb/Rubio would've tried to push through NV anyway, and run into EV issues and come up short electorally.

I must have missed the part where Putin's agents forced Hillary to make the deplorable comment and not campaign aggressively in WI or MI.



She was talking about Trump voters in that speech, remember, she was trying to court upper-class republicans, and she only made those decisions in the context of Trump.

People underestimate Rubio's unlikability.  2016 was an anti-establishment year, and Rubio reeks of the establishment.  He owes his career to powerful special interests, and until 2016, he had never won FL with a majority (he won with under 50% against two candidates running to the left of him in 2010).  He was a first term Senator with a horrible attendance record who came off as the Establishment's favorite Management Trainee, and who served the purpose of advancing a kind of false sense of "diversity".  A smarmy little puke.  2016 wasn't the year of smarmy little pukes; it was the year of rebellion against national elites of all kinds, and Rubio was not destined to do well in this environment, period.

Rubio won in 2010 as an insurgent candidate, upsetting Crist in the gop primary. His voting record in the Senate has been consistently conservative. He is very knowledgeable on a wide array of issues and played a key role in risk corridors for insurance companies in the Obamacare battle. His one flaw was his role in Gang of Eight; he honestly thought he could help craft an immigration deal until Schumer stabbed him in the back.

The Rubio hate is not borne out by data. He was very well liked during the GOP primary but didn't gain traction due to the relentless attacks by Jeb, divided field, lack of ground game in the early states, and the debate debacle against Christie.

In his re-election in 2016, Rubio outperformed Trump and won 48% of latinos and 17% of blacks.

He was part of the tea party wave. Schumer didn't stab him in the back, that bill was supposed to pass and it was intended to not have any teeth, it failed because Cantor was primaried.

Other way around, rubio only lasted as long as he did, due to his refusal to attack Trump, Walker, etc. collapsed when they did, and rubio also collapsed when he did. His whole debate strategy and campaign strategy from day 1 was simply reciting rehearsed lines and using scripted responses to select questions, this was well-known on the campaign trail and reported by journalists, all Christie did was call him out on it. Christie never did the same for Cruz, because he had respect for Cruz as a person and a leader, even if he disagreed with him more on policy. All Jeb was doing was calling rubio out on his refusal to attack Trump.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kucRXG26htU

Isakson in his GA senate race won the same percentage of blacks, he performed the usual percentage that republicans normally get with non-hispanic cubans, his main advantage is in FL particular demographic with cubans, by the way his senate opponent was abandoned by the dems who used the money for that race to use in other races, had they given him the full-support they originally intended, those margins would've been reduced for him. Burr 'outperformed' by a similar margin.

The underlined is not true.  Crist was the overwhelming GOP Primary fave at first, but before the filing date, Rubio ran a campaign amongst the base which gave him a significant lead to the point where Crist had 3 choices:  Re-enter the Gubenatorial race, buck the odds against Rubio (who was now the Tea Party fave), or run as an Independent.  Crist chose option #3 and was vague as to whether or not he'd be a member of the GOP caucus, but he was the stronger candidate to the point where many Democrats (and many Democratic officials) abandoned Democrat Kendrick Meek, the Dems Senate nominee, urging Dems to vote for Crist as the better choice to dump Crist.  Rubio won 49% of the vote, not overwhelming; Crist got 29% and Meek got 21%.

Rubio's never been overwhelmingly strong in FL.  If he were, he'd have defeated Trump, period.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: January 14, 2017, 03:45:48 PM »




Rubio 348
Clinton 190
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.144 seconds with 13 queries.