Is Rubio the strongest Republican presidential candidate since Reagan?

[Oakvale]

Why has nobody mentioned GHWB circa 1988?

The original low energy candidate? Come on.

[Xing]

Yes, of course, Rubio is a flawless, beautiful, eloquent specimen of pure conservative love! And that's totally not just because he's the establishment front-runner now, nope! Everyone was talking about how flawless he was long before Bush and Walker tanked in the polls!

[Bull Moose Base]

He's the strongest third place candidate since Liddy Dole.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Of course not. Rubio is an empty suit.

1. George W. Bush
2. George H. W. Bush
3. Mitt Romney
4. John McCain
5. Marco Rubio
6. Bob Dole

[BlueSwan]

No way. George W. Bush was much stronger in 2000. People tend to forget that Bush was a pretty strong candidate back then: charming, moderate, likable.

Likewise, I'd take Mitt Romney, for all his flaws, any day over Rubio. Romney was a better debater, had a better grasp of the issues and had more leadership skills.

[Higgs]

1) Dems and liberals, it said STRONGEST, so instead of just sh|tting on Rubio, name who is.

1. George W. Bush
2. George H.W. Bush
3. John McCain
4. Bob Dole
5. Donald Trump
6. Mitt Romney
...
499. Tim Pawlenty
500. Marco Rubio

What's your reasoning?

[EliteLX]

Rubio isn't the strongest, Dub'ya was, but he's higher up there if not second or third. Needs to work a tad bit more on keeping his cool and building his political resume, though.

The strongest GOP candidate since Ronald Reagan is obviously TRUMP, but this biased forum doesn't like the truth.

Give it up with trying to be Lief already buddy.

[bobloblaw]

No because he wont get the 54% and 426 EVs GHW Bush got in 1988.

But he is possibly the strongest GOP candidate since 1988 for an open WH.

[bobloblaw]

Look obviously the strongest GOP candidate since Reagan was Bush in 88. He won a EV landslide, close to a PV landslide and did what no VP did on 150 years.

[Torie]

Why has nobody mentioned GHWB circa 1988?

The original low energy candidate? Come on.

He was low energy in 1992 (perhaps because he had a thyroid condition then), but I don't think that was true in 1988, and he trounced Dukakis pretty soundly.

[bobloblaw]

No way. George W. Bush was much stronger in 2000. People tend to forget that Bush was a pretty strong candidate back then: charming, moderate, likable.

Likewise, I'd take Mitt Romney, for all his flaws, any day over Rubio. Romney was a better debater, had a better grasp of the issues and had more leadership skills.

Mitt Romney was the beat losing candidate since Nixon in 60 or Humphrey in 68

[RINO Tom]

1) Dems and liberals, it said STRONGEST, so instead of just sh|tting on Rubio, name who is.

1. George W. Bush
2. George H.W. Bush
3. John McCain
4. Bob Dole
5. Donald Trump
6. Mitt Romney
...
499. Tim Pawlenty
500. Marco Rubio

What's your reasoning?

Pretty much whomever becomes the flavor-of-the-month "Republicans' best chance vs. Hillary" candidate lands himself a top spot on King's sh^tlist.

[morgieb]

A+ trolling would read again

[Mister Mets]

I do think McCain was stronger.

His problem was that he ran in the worst environment for a Republican since 1964.

That said, while Rubio isn't my first choice, he'll make a strong General election candidate.