FL-Quinnipiac: Hillary leads "favorite sons" Bush & Rubio by double-digits

[Tender Branson]

If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Jeb Bush the Republican, for whom would you vote?

51-40 Clinton/Bush

If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Marco Rubio the Republican, for whom would you vote?

52-41 Clinton/Rubio

Is your opinion of Hillary Clinton favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about her?

62-33 favorable

Is your opinion of Jeb Bush favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?

50-35 favorable

Is your opinion of Marco Rubio favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?

41-34 favorable

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

50-45 approve

From March 13 - 18, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,000 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-centers/polling-institute/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=1870

[Tender Branson]

Rubio as Presidential candidate would not make FL much more Republican actually.

FL was 3 points more GOP in 2012 than the nation (50-49 vs. 51-47).

But if we use Quinnipiac's latest national poll (Hillary+16 over Rubio) and this, then Florida is only 5 points more GOP than the nation.

A 2-point favorite son effect for Rubio in Florida.

[Eraserhead]

Republicans better hope Obama's approval falls into the 20s/teens like Bush's did.

[pbrower2a]

Rubio as Presidential candidate would not make FL much more Republican actually.

FL was 3 points more GOP in 2012 than the nation (50-49 vs. 51-47).

But if we use Quinnipiac's latest national poll (Hillary+16 over Rubio) and this, then Florida is only 5 points more GOP than the nation.

A 2-point favorite son effect for Rubio in Florida.

That's a weak "Favorite Son" effect. He barely got elected in the best year in decades for GOP pols, and he has done little to prove himself out of the ordinary.  He has been a US Senator for two years plus, so he should be somewhat known.

In only one Presidential election since WWII has Florida been the difference between winning and losing the Presidential election. The Cook PVI shows Florida R+3 between  2008 and 2012 for the Presidency -- eminently winnable for a strong Democratic campaigner who takes the State seriously.


A Republican nominee will have to win all states that Romney won in 2012, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and one of Colorado, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa, or Nevada.  Closing in on Florida, Ohio, and Virginia and putting Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and Pennsylvania at risk for the Democratic nominee by the Republican nominee puts the 2016 Presidential election in the situation that President Obama was in early September in 2008 or 2012:

   


Intensity  Margin
 70%          10% or more
 50%           6-9%
 40%           4-5%
white          3% or less    

In essence the Republican nominee is close to having things tied down with a reasonable assurance of 266 electoral votes and four different states scattered across the country as toss-ups. The Democratic nominee could win by winning every one of them, but that is one chance in 16 as Ohio, Virginia, and Florida drop out of reach; Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, and North Carolina are pipe dreams that seemed available as late as June and are out of the question. The Democratic nominee is on the defensive and has no easy way of winning all four states with one appeal that wins them all. The Republican nominee wisely abandons any quixotic effort to win Michigan, Minnesota, or Wisconsin because he is going to win Iowa anyway if he picks off any one of those but such an effort might put a state like Ohio or Virginia at risk to a spirited campaign by the Democrat.

This said --

1. Marco Rubio, as a right-wing Cuban-American, has no more appeal to center-left middle-class Puerto Ricans or Mexican-Americans than John Hickenlooper has an appeal to right-wing German-Americans. Latinos in America are no more a political monolith than are German-Americans.

2. He has pandered to Protestant fundamentalists for their votes, which is a good way to lose other votes. People who put a high value on rational education don't want public schools teaching creationist claptrap.  

3. He would be a consummately-weak nominee for President. The last open-seat elections in the last century were

2008 -- Obama vs. McCain
2000 -- G W Bush vs. Gore
1988 -- G H W Bush vs. Dukakis
1968 -- Nixon vs. Humphrey and Wallace
1960 -- Kennedy vs. Nixon
1952 -- Eisenhower vs. Stevenson
1928 -- Hoover vs. Smith
1920 -- Harding vs. Cox

I don't see an obvious recent analogue so far for Marco Rubio. A three-way split with the Party of the incumbent having a dissident wing (1968) is unlikely. It is highly unlikely that the current Vice-President will run for President, so we can rule out 1960, 1988, and 2000.  We are unlikely to have a high-profile military hero as a major candidate, so we can rule out 1952. 1928 (Is America ready for a Catholic President?) was answered again very differently in 1960, and if America could elect a black man as President in 2008 it can certainly elect a Latino male in 2016. That leaves 1920.

Warren Gamaliel Harding was long regarded as a political mediocrity, first by his opponents, and after some of his consequences as President, about everyone else. If he wins in 2016 Rubio demonstrates that Americans are tired of the current administration for its foibles and for social ferment and want 'normalcy', whatever that is.  

So far Marco Rubio has shown himself one of the lesser lights in the Senate (much unlike Barack Obama in 2008), but he has well served the interests of well-heeled heels who want government to heed wealth and privilege but little else. Mediocrities like Harding and Dubya have become President.

Republicans better hope Obama's approval falls into the 20s/teens like Bush's did.

Bingo. Question: can we afford a President that bad -- again?

[pbrower2a]

Republicans better hope Obama's approval falls into the 20s/teens like Bush's did.

Not likely. Barack Obama is just too cautious and too respectful of formalities of law and diplomacy to let that happen. He just doesn't expect to get away with much.

[pbrower2a]

Rubio as Presidential candidate would not make FL much more Republican actually.

FL was 3 points more GOP in 2012 than the nation (50-49 vs. 51-47).

But if we use Quinnipiac's latest national poll (Hillary+16 over Rubio) and this, then Florida is only 5 points more GOP than the nation.

A 2-point favorite son effect for Rubio in Florida.

That's a weak "Favorite Son" effect. He barely got elected in the best year in decades for GOP pols, and he has done little to prove himself out of the ordinary.  He has been a US Senator for two years plus, so he should be somewhat known.

In only one Presidential election since WWII has Florida been the difference between winning and losing the Presidential election. The Cook PVI shows Florida R+3 between  2008 and 2012 for the Presidency -- eminently winnable for a strong Democratic campaigner who takes the State seriously.


A Republican nominee will have to win all states that Romney won in 2012, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and one of Colorado, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa, or Nevada.  Closing in on Florida, Ohio, and Virginia and putting Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and Pennsylvania at risk for the Democratic nominee by the Republican nominee puts the 2016 Presidential election in the situation that President Obama was in early September in 2008 or 2012:

   


Intensity  Margin
 70%          10% or more
 50%           6-9%
 40%           4-5%
white          3% or less    

In essence the Republican nominee is close to having things tied down with a reasonable assurance of 266 electoral votes and four different states scattered across the country as toss-ups. The Democratic nominee could win by winning every one of them, but that is one chance in 16 as Ohio, Virginia, and Florida drop out of reach; Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, and North Carolina are pipe dreams that seemed available as late as June and are out of the question. The Democratic nominee is on the defensive and has no easy way of winning all four states with one appeal that wins them all. The Republican nominee wisely abandons any quixotic effort to win Michigan, Minnesota, or Wisconsin because he is going to win Iowa anyway if he picks off any one of those but such an effort might put a state like Ohio or Virginia at risk to a spirited campaign by the Democrat.

This said --

1. Marco Rubio, as a right-wing Cuban-American, has no more appeal to center-left middle-class Puerto Ricans or Mexican-Americans than John Hickenlooper has an appeal to right-wing German-Americans. Latinos in America are no more a political monolith than are German-Americans.

2. He has pandered to Protestant fundamentalists for their votes, which is a good way to lose other votes. People who put a high value on rational education don't want public schools teaching creationist claptrap.  

3. He would be a consummately-weak nominee for President. The last open-seat elections in the last century were

2008 -- Obama vs. McCain
2000 -- G W Bush vs. Gore
1988 -- G H W Bush vs. Dukakis
1968 -- Nixon vs. Humphrey and Wallace
1960 -- Kennedy vs. Nixon
1952 -- Eisenhower vs. Stevenson
1928 -- Hoover vs. Smith
1920 -- Harding vs. Cox

I don't see an obvious recent analogue so far for Marco Rubio. A three-way split with the Party of the incumbent having a dissident wing (1968) is unlikely. It is highly unlikely that the current Vice-President will run for President, so we can rule out 1960, 1988, and 2000.  We are unlikely to have a high-profile military hero as a major candidate, so we can rule out 1952. 1928 (Is America ready for a Catholic President?) was answered again very differently in 1960, and if America could elect a black man as President in 2008 it can certainly elect a Latino male in 2016. That leaves 1920.

Warren Gamaliel Harding was long regarded as a political mediocrity, first by his opponents, and after some of his consequences as President, about everyone else. If he wins in 2016 Rubio demonstrates that Americans are tired of the current administration for its foibles and for social ferment and want 'normalcy', whatever that is.  

So far Marco Rubio has shown himself one of the lesser lights in the Senate (much unlike Barack Obama in 2008), but he has well served the interests of well-heeled heels who want government to heed wealth and privilege but little else. Mediocrities like Harding and Dubya have become President.

Republicans better hope Obama's approval falls into the 20s/teens like Bush's did.

Bingo. Question: can we afford a President that bad -- again?