If Rubio had won

[History505]

If the Republican nominee was Rubio instead of Trump, and we he won over Hillary despite her leading in polls. How would you react to that?

[Arbitrage1980]

If the Republican nominee was Rubio instead of Trump, and we he won over Hillary despite her leading in polls. How would you react to that?

My top 3 choices in the GOP primary were Cruz, Walker, Rubio, and I reluctantly voted for Trump in the general election. I would have been very happy with a Rubio presidency.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the Republican nominee was Rubio instead of Trump, and we he won over Hillary despite her leading in polls. How would you react to that?

I'd still be vomiting over the thought that Little Puke Marco, bought and paid for by globalists, would have actually smarmed (Is that a word or a sniglet?) his way to the White House.  He's a corrupt puke and a worm.

[RINO Tom]

If the Republican nominee was Rubio instead of Trump, and we he won over Hillary despite her leading in polls. How would you react to that?

I'd still be vomiting over the thought that Little Puke Marco, bought and paid for by globalists, would have actually smarmed (Is that a word or a sniglet?) his way to the White House.  He's a corrupt puke and a worm.

LOL.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Less anxious but still disappointing and uncertain.

[TheSaint250]

I disagree with him on some issues, such as military intervention and global warming, but he would not have been bad.  He was my first choice until I started liking some of Trump's positions more and more.

He could've won and would've been a good president.

[mvd10]

Democrats would have a lot to be afraid of. Republicans probably would have more seats in the house and the senate and Rubio would have been a lot more competent than Trump. I'd say that Obamacare repeal would have narrowly passed with tax reform and spending cuts coming next because apparently the GOP can use reconciliation twice (or four times depending on how you look at it). Rubio would quickly become unpopular because of his rather radical agenda, but I think the results would come soon enough for him to win 2020 (and the 2018 map is strongly in favor of the GOP anyway).

[Arbitrage1980]

If the Republican nominee was Rubio instead of Trump, and we he won over Hillary despite her leading in polls. How would you react to that?

The RCP average was Rubio 48%, Clinton 44% (Rubio +4), and the latest best poll for Hillary, had she tied with him.

Rubio would have won by a good margin. Aside from Michigan and Maine 02, he would have kept the Trump 2016 states and added New Hampshire, Virginia, Minnesota, Colorado, Nevada, for a total of 331 electoral votes. He would have won the national popular vote by 3-4%, by losing California by a much smaller magin and doing a lot better in AZ, UT, TX, IL, FL, GA, NC, NY, MA.

[Arbitrage1980]

I disagree with him on some issues, such as military intervention and global warming, but he would not have been bad.  He was my first choice until I started liking some of Trump's positions more and more.

He could've won and would've been a good president.

I preferred Cruz and Walker, mainly because of Rubio's soft stance on immigration. But if he had been our nominee, I would have donated money and gladly volunteered. With Trump, I voted for him in the general but that was the extent of my effort. Rubio would have potentially re-aligned the electorate by introducing the GOP and conservative ideals to a new generation of Americans. As a young charismatic son of immigrants, he would have been the perfect messenger. And although he withered in certain moments during the campaign, Rubio impressed me with his strong knowledge of policy and articulate defense of conservatism.

[Santander]

Rubio had the best tax plan of any major candidate on either side, minus the refundable child care credit.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Well, I did vote for Rubio in the primaries.  He would have won in a landslide, though.

[Arbitrage1980]

Well, I did vote for Rubio in the primaries.  He would have won in a landslide, though.

Correct. It would've been the biggest GOP victory since HW Bush 1988 and resulted in a true re-alignment.

[uti2]

As a young charismatic son of immigrants

Well, I did vote for Rubio in the primaries.  He would have won in a landslide, though.

Correct. It would've been the biggest GOP victory since HW Bush 1988 and resulted in a true re-alignment.

You do realize that superficially in this analogy Clinton would be Bush Sr. and Rubio would be Dukakis, right?

There's no statistical evidence to suggest that rubio would've done significantly better with Hispanics in CO or NV. Rubio lost latinos overall in his FL senate race, and lost non-cuban latinos by a two-thirds margin to his opponent.


Would a Korean-American get excited over a potential Japanese republican nominee? Mexicans =/ Cubans

[Arbitrage1980]

As a young charismatic son of immigrants

Well, I did vote for Rubio in the primaries.  He would have won in a landslide, though.

Correct. It would've been the biggest GOP victory since HW Bush 1988 and resulted in a true re-alignment.

You do realize that superficially in this analogy Clinton would be Bush Sr. and Rubio would be Dukakis, right?

There's no statistical evidence to suggest that rubio would've done significantly better with Hispanics in CO or NV. Rubio lost latinos overall in his FL senate race, and lost non-cuban latinos by a two-thirds margin to his opponent.


Would a Korean-American get excited over a potential Japanese republican nominee? Mexicans =/ Cubans

Trump won 306 electoral votes despite being outraised 2:1, endless blunders, access hollywood tape, losing all 3 debates to Hillary, the party establishment rejecting him. Yeah, I'm pretty sure Rubio would have killed it. He would not have done quite as well with working class whites, so let's say he would have lost MI and WI. But given the general landscape, he would have won the other Trump states, and since he would have done better with minorities and college whites, he would have added NV, CO, MN, VA, NH.

[uti2]

As a young charismatic son of immigrants

Well, I did vote for Rubio in the primaries.  He would have won in a landslide, though.

Correct. It would've been the biggest GOP victory since HW Bush 1988 and resulted in a true re-alignment.

You do realize that superficially in this analogy Clinton would be Bush Sr. and Rubio would be Dukakis, right?

There's no statistical evidence to suggest that rubio would've done significantly better with Hispanics in CO or NV. Rubio lost latinos overall in his FL senate race, and lost non-cuban latinos by a two-thirds margin to his opponent.


Would a Korean-American get excited over a potential Japanese republican nominee? Mexicans =/ Cubans

Trump won 306 electoral votes despite being outraised 2:1, endless blunders, access hollywood debate, losing all 3 debates to Hillary, the party establishment rejecting him. Yeah, I'm pretty sure Rubio would have killed it. He would not have done quite as well with working class whites, so let's say he would have lost MI and WI. But given the general landscape, he would have won the other Trump states, and since he would have done better with minorities and college whites, he would have added NV, CO, MN, VA, NH.

The establishment more or less backed him in the end. You're forgetting that Trump had a ton of free media to make up for the fundraising deficiency. A normal candidate would not get free media like that.  Reagan and GWB were known for making tons of 'gaffes'

If you want to talk about debates, sure, Trump was nonsensical, but at least he looked like he stood for *something* and answered questions off-the-cuff. In contrast, it's not that hard to call someone out for using a memorized stump speech you know that they're going to use before they say it.


Trump did slightly better with Latinos than Romney. Rubio won standard one-third of non-cuban latinos (the standard numbers that Republicans generally get) in his senate race. The argument that he would do substantially better with latinos should be seriously called into question when he couldn't even win latinos in his senate race.

Also, here's another interesting angle, rubio has a very right-wing platform, and you know the mainstream media would shred him on that, so where would he have to ultimately go for media support? The Drudge/breitbart/alt-right media complex hates his guts and would unenthusiastically support him, if it all.

[Arbitrage1980]

As a young charismatic son of immigrants

Well, I did vote for Rubio in the primaries.  He would have won in a landslide, though.

Correct. It would've been the biggest GOP victory since HW Bush 1988 and resulted in a true re-alignment.

You do realize that superficially in this analogy Clinton would be Bush Sr. and Rubio would be Dukakis, right?

There's no statistical evidence to suggest that rubio would've done significantly better with Hispanics in CO or NV. Rubio lost latinos overall in his FL senate race, and lost non-cuban latinos by a two-thirds margin to his opponent.


Would a Korean-American get excited over a potential Japanese republican nominee? Mexicans =/ Cubans

Trump won 306 electoral votes despite being outraised 2:1, endless blunders, access hollywood debate, losing all 3 debates to Hillary, the party establishment rejecting him. Yeah, I'm pretty sure Rubio would have killed it. He would not have done quite as well with working class whites, so let's say he would have lost MI and WI. But given the general landscape, he would have won the other Trump states, and since he would have done better with minorities and college whites, he would have added NV, CO, MN, VA, NH.

The establishment more or less backed him in the end. You're forgetting that Trump had a ton of free media to make up for the fundraising deficiency. A normal candidate would not get free media like that.  Reagan and GWB were known for making tons of 'gaffes'

If you want to talk about debates, sure, Trump was nonsensical, but at least he looked like he stood for *something* and answered questions off-the-cuff. In contrast, it's not that hard to call someone out for using a memorized stump speech you know that they're going to use before they say it.


Trump did slightly better with Latinos than Romney. Rubio won standard one-third of non-cuban latinos (the standard numbers that Republicans generally get) in his senate race. The argument that he would do substantially better with latinos should be seriously called into question when he couldn't even win latinos in his senate race.

Also, here's another interesting angle, rubio has a very right-wing platform, and you know the mainstream media would shred him on that, so where would he have to ultimately go for media support? The Drudge/breitbart/alt-right media complex hates his guts and would unenthusiastically support him, if it all.

You bring up some valid points. I certainly don't think Rubio would have won the Latino vote. But given that Romney got 27% and Trump got 29%, I don't think it's crazy to think Rubio would have done as well as McCain's 35% in 2008. And he probably would have gotten 58-59% of the white vote; that should be enough to add those states into his column. McCain got crushed because he "only" got 55% of the white vote and 4% of the black vote. If Rubio had gotten 59% of the white vote, 10% of the black vote, 35% of latinos, and 30% of asians, that would have been a pretty good sized electoral victory.

[RFayette]

Happier than Trump winning, but nowhere near as happy as I'd be with a Cruz win.

[Sumner 1868]

The fact is Drumpf simply was the most electable GOP candidate in the social media age. Let's not pretend otherwise.

[Lord Admirale]

The fact is Drumpf simply was the most electable GOP candidate in the social media age. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Ew.

[Lord Admirale]

Rubio probably would've won like HW in 1988 (as someone said earlier). I could see him winning Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, the rest of Maine, Virginia, and New Jersey (by a hair). He'd probably lose Michigan and Wisconsin though.

Might I add that Rubio would've definitely won the popular vote. Hillary wouldn't drive up the Hispanic vote in Arizona, California, and Texas. If anything, Rubio pushes them to vote for him.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)/Governor John Kasich (R-OH) - 334 EV, 66,452,213 votes (51.1%)
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) - 204 EV, 62,340,234 votes (45.2%)

[uti2]

Rubio probably would've won like HW in 1988 (as someone said earlier). I could see him winning Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, the rest of Maine, Virginia, and New Jersey (by a hair). He'd probably lose Michigan and Wisconsin though.

You also estimate Clinton-Cruz 279-259, rubio and cruz aren't that different. It's extremely hypocritical to see big contrasts like that for such similar candidates. The reality is that they wouldn't do that differently. Rubio is closer to Cruz than Kasich, and in a general election he'd have to either  acknowledge the nature of his right-wing platform, or he'd try to deflect it by going into repeat mode, which would be just as damaging or even worse. The irony of the Bush Sr.-Dukakis analogy is that Clinton is a better profile match for Bush Sr., and rubio is a better profile match for Dukakis. Bush Sr. being an out-of-touch northern 'WASP' elitist, and Dukakis being a child of immigrants who tries to be as cautiously inoffensive as possible.

[Lord Admirale]

Rubio probably would've won like HW in 1988 (as someone said earlier). I could see him winning Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, the rest of Maine, Virginia, and New Jersey (by a hair). He'd probably lose Michigan and Wisconsin though.

You also estimate Clinton-Cruz 279-259, rubio and cruz aren't that different. It's extremely hypocritical to see big contrasts like that for such similar candidates.

No, I didn't? Never have I once mentioned Cruz in this thread, nor discussed Cruz with you.

The reality is that they wouldn't do that differently. Rubio is closer to Cruz than Kasich, and in a general election he'd have to either  acknowledge the nature of his right-wing platform, or he'd try to deflect it by going into repeat mode, which would be just as damaging or even worse.

Again, no. Rubio is a moderate conservative, Cruz is an ultra-conservative, and Kasich is a moderate. But we're not talking about Cruz, buddy.

The irony of the Bush Sr.-Dukakis analogy is that Clinton is a better profile match for Bush Sr., and rubio is a better profile match for Dukakis. Bush Sr. being an out-of-touch northern 'WASP' elitist, and Dukakis being a child of immigrants who tries to be as cautiously inoffensive as possible.

Not sure why this was put here, but Bush Sr. was succeeding a highly popular president. Dukakis could not compete and was a poor campaigner.

[Arbitrage1980]

Rubio probably would've won like HW in 1988 (as someone said earlier). I could see him winning Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, the rest of Maine, Virginia, and New Jersey (by a hair). He'd probably lose Michigan and Wisconsin though.

You also estimate Clinton-Cruz 279-259, rubio and cruz aren't that different. It's extremely hypocritical to see big contrasts like that for such similar candidates. The reality is that they wouldn't do that differently. Rubio is closer to Cruz than Kasich, and in a general election he'd have to either  acknowledge the nature of his right-wing platform, or he'd try to deflect it by going into repeat mode, which would be just as damaging or even worse. The irony of the Bush Sr.-Dukakis analogy is that Clinton is a better profile match for Bush Sr., and rubio is a better profile match for Dukakis. Bush Sr. being an out-of-touch northern 'WASP' elitist, and Dukakis being a child of immigrants who tries to be as cautiously inoffensive as possible.

They are both conservative, but Cruz is much more stridently conservative on social and cultural issues. I mean we're talking about a guy who announced his candidacy at Liberty University. Style also matters. Cruz comes across as arrogant and patronizing while Rubio is charismatic and likable. Now, Cruz was my first choice because I think he would've transformed the country in a way similar to Reagan. But even I have to admit that Rubio would have been a much more formidable general election candidate. My buddies who worked for Hillary were mortified of Rubio.

The HW Bush-Dukakis analogy is not too relevant here. Yes, Hillary and Bush are both WASP, and Rubio is also the son of immigrants, but that's a shallow comparison that doesn't shed any insight into the dynamics of the 2016 election.

[uti2]

Rubio probably would've won like HW in 1988 (as someone said earlier). I could see him winning Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, the rest of Maine, Virginia, and New Jersey (by a hair). He'd probably lose Michigan and Wisconsin though.

You also estimate Clinton-Cruz 279-259, rubio and cruz aren't that different. It's extremely hypocritical to see big contrasts like that for such similar candidates.

No, I didn't? Never have I once mentioned Cruz in this thread, nor discussed Cruz with you.

The reality is that they wouldn't do that differently. Rubio is closer to Cruz than Kasich, and in a general election he'd have to either  acknowledge the nature of his right-wing platform, or he'd try to deflect it by going into repeat mode, which would be just as damaging or even worse.

Again, no. Rubio is a moderate conservative, Cruz is an ultra-conservative, and Kasich is a moderate. But we're not talking about Cruz, buddy.

The irony of the Bush Sr.-Dukakis analogy is that Clinton is a better profile match for Bush Sr., and rubio is a better profile match for Dukakis. Bush Sr. being an out-of-touch northern 'WASP' elitist, and Dukakis being a child of immigrants who tries to be as cautiously inoffensive as possible.

Not sure why this was put here, but Bush Sr. was succeeding a highly popular president. Dukakis could not compete and was a poor campaigner.

I saw you mention Cruz before in another thread. What's your current map for Cruz? No, Kasich is a moderate conservative, Rubio is close to very conservative, and Cruz is very conservative. Look at their policy positions. Kasich isn't that moderate when you look at his record.

Obama was highly popular, the Reagan administration had a gigantic scandal comparable to benghazi/emailgate with iran-contra, Bush Sr. had to pardon many Reagan officials upon re-election. Dukakis took the high ground, and refused to address the smears against him. There is parallel to that in how rubio always tries to be cautious and inoffensive in his campaign strategy.

[uti2]

Rubio probably would've won like HW in 1988 (as someone said earlier). I could see him winning Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, the rest of Maine, Virginia, and New Jersey (by a hair). He'd probably lose Michigan and Wisconsin though.

You also estimate Clinton-Cruz 279-259, rubio and cruz aren't that different. It's extremely hypocritical to see big contrasts like that for such similar candidates. The reality is that they wouldn't do that differently. Rubio is closer to Cruz than Kasich, and in a general election he'd have to either  acknowledge the nature of his right-wing platform, or he'd try to deflect it by going into repeat mode, which would be just as damaging or even worse. The irony of the Bush Sr.-Dukakis analogy is that Clinton is a better profile match for Bush Sr., and rubio is a better profile match for Dukakis. Bush Sr. being an out-of-touch northern 'WASP' elitist, and Dukakis being a child of immigrants who tries to be as cautiously inoffensive as possible.

They are both conservative, but Cruz is much more stridently conservative on social and cultural issues. I mean we're talking about a guy who announced his candidacy at Liberty University. Style also matters. Cruz comes across as arrogant and patronizing while Rubio is charismatic and likable. Now, Cruz was my first choice because I think he would've transformed the country in a way similar to Reagan. But even I have to admit that Rubio would have been a much more formidable general election candidate. My buddies who worked for Hillary were mortified of Rubio.

The HW Bush-Dukakis analogy is not too relevant here. Yes, Hillary and Bush are both WASP, and Rubio is also the son of immigrants, but that's a shallow comparison that doesn't shed any insight into the dynamics of the 2016 election.

There are also political parallels in that both Obama and Reagan were popular, both had huge scandals with iran-contra, benghazi/emailgate. Clinton was an established political figure who had a prominent role in the previous administration. The republicans were terrified of losing in 1988, they were afraid that many prominent republicans would go to jail, Bush Sr. was seen as the underdog. Bush Sr. had to pardon many people after he was elected.

On social issues, rubio and cruz are basically the same. The difference is that rubio tries to mask his positions with speeches and tries to not directly answer questions, whereas cruz is more blunt and open about his positions. Eventually, rubio would be pressured to answer questions instead of giving an ambiguously phrased stump speech, or he would have to repeat his stump speech, making him look just as bad or worse.

You need to remember, rubio is a guy who endorsed Huckabee in 2008.