Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 21, 2019, 05:23:53 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: TJ in Oregon, Virginiá)
  Which Hillary states would Rubio have won?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Print
Author Topic: Which Hillary states would Rubio have won?  (Read 4432 times)
Pericles
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,943
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: October 29, 2017, 09:20:10 pm »

Rubio's favorability was -4% according to RCP and without Trump would probably be virtually even and then go positive after the primary. It was much higher than Clinton's and Rubio would be able to keep Clinton's down with a focused negative campaign against her. Cruz's unfavorables were much higher and more voters were decided on him-they disliked him-so at best for him it would be a slightly stronger version of Trump against Clinton(maybe he'd be tied with Clinton instead of even less popular than her).

It's almost as if avoiding attacks on the frontrunner out of fear of being attacked allows you to keep your favorables up, what happens when you finally start attacking?

https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/ted-cruz-favorable-rating

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/marco-rubio-favorable-rating

In this scenario-does Trump run? Is Rubio nominated from a brokered convention? Does he beat Trump in a close primary battle? Or does Rubio do well in the early states and steamroll his way to victory with opposition rolling over soon after? That would have an impact.
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,509


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: October 29, 2017, 09:42:03 pm »

Rubio's favorability was -4% according to RCP and without Trump would probably be virtually even and then go positive after the primary. It was much higher than Clinton's and Rubio would be able to keep Clinton's down with a focused negative campaign against her. Cruz's unfavorables were much higher and more voters were decided on him-they disliked him-so at best for him it would be a slightly stronger version of Trump against Clinton(maybe he'd be tied with Clinton instead of even less popular than her).

It's almost as if avoiding attacks on the frontrunner out of fear of being attacked allows you to keep your favorables up, what happens when you finally start attacking?

https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/ted-cruz-favorable-rating

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/marco-rubio-favorable-rating

In this scenario-does Trump run? Is Rubio nominated from a brokered convention? Does he beat Trump in a close primary battle? Or does Rubio do well in the early states and steamroll his way to victory with opposition rolling over soon after? That would have an impact.

Considering the context in that Rubio got steamrolled in his home state, it's hard to imagine rubio getting the nomination in any scenario other than a brokered convention with or without Trump.
Logged
Peters/Daines more vulnerable than Shaheen/Ernst
IndyRep
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,772
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: October 29, 2017, 09:45:36 pm »
« Edited: October 29, 2017, 09:57:27 pm by MT Treasurer »

^Touché, how much time did this take you? Anyway, at that time I really thought that Trump was an extremely underestimated candidate (and it turns out he was), but I really wasn't impressed with his (kinda terrible) GE campaign after he won the nomination.

And yes, Rubio was never going to win in a landslide, and I still doubt that he would have done significantly better with Hispanics than someone like Kasich. He would have struggled against a Democrat with higher favorables than Clinton, I never denied that. Bush would have been a worse candidate than Trump IMO.

More gems from MT:

Cool, but what exactly does this prove? Trump had the potential to do a lot better than he actually did, but it's a fact is that his GE campaign was absolutely terrible. At that time, there was no way for me to know he would run his GE campaign, if anything I probably overestimated him back then.

EDIT: Also, that "Clinton machine" comment was a joke, lol. 
Logged
ExtremeConservative
ExtremeRepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,889


Political Matrix
E: 8.39, S: 7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: October 29, 2017, 09:49:18 pm »

This idea that Trump wasn't SIGNIFICANTLY weaker than Generic R is ridiculous (and Rubio does better than Generic R).  I say he only loses California, Washington, Hawaii, Maryland, Vermont, Massachusetts, and DC.  New York and Rhode Island are very close either way.



Rubio/Haley: 411 EV, 55.4% PV

Clinton/Kaine: 127 EV, 43.3% PV
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,509


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: October 29, 2017, 09:51:52 pm »

^It would actually be entirely logically consistent if one goes by the premise that Trump is 'such a weak candidate' that Jeb Bush wins FL without Trump in the race.

If, after all, Trump is so weak and only won due to 'free media',why wouldn't Jeb be able to do it? He had all the money to spend in media dollars, Trump only didn't need to do that due to his free media. Trump was basically a tabloid sub-genre story for the media, without Trump they would have gone back to missing planes and the usual routine.
Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,506
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: November 01, 2017, 01:12:26 pm »

This idea that Trump wasn't SIGNIFICANTLY weaker than Generic R is ridiculous (and Rubio does better than Generic R).  I say he only loses California, Washington, Hawaii, Maryland, Vermont, Massachusetts, and DC.  New York and Rhode Island are very close either way.



Rubio/Haley: 411 EV, 55.4% PV

Clinton/Kaine: 127 EV, 43.3% PV

Lmao this map is pure fantasy. Rubio is and was an empty suit.
Logged
The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow
slightlyburnttoast
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 896
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.42, S: -5.43

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: November 01, 2017, 05:13:26 pm »

I don't see him winning any, but there's a decent chance he could've won NH/NV/MN.
Logged
Keyboard Jacobinism
Kalwejt
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,471


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: November 01, 2017, 05:19:50 pm »

None.

Let's just accept Trump was the GOP's best option in 2016 to win for a number of reasons.
Logged
MB
MB298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,154


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: November 03, 2017, 01:22:27 pm »

He would've had a better shot to win Nevada and Colorado. Would also outperform Trump in both Arizona and New Mexico. I think it would've looked similar to the Bush 2004 map, minus New Mexico.
Logged
Alabama_Indy10
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: November 03, 2017, 03:52:48 pm »

None.

Let's just accept Trump was the GOP's best option in 2016 to win for a number of reasons.
Logged
RFayette
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,774
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: November 03, 2017, 05:19:04 pm »

Possibly Virginia, but I think Rubio would have struggled badly in the debates and wouldn't have done much (if at all) better than Trump on net.
Logged
Pericles
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,943
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: November 03, 2017, 10:23:53 pm »

Possibly Virginia, but I think Rubio would have struggled badly in the debates and wouldn't have done much (if at all) better than Trump on net.

He would have done much better than Trump, who was crushed in the debates by Clinton.
Logged
Young Conservative
youngconservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,479
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: November 03, 2017, 10:28:37 pm »

Virginia, Nevada, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado

Loses Michigan, wins Iowa and Ohio by much smaller margins.
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,509


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: November 04, 2017, 02:36:22 am »

Possibly Virginia, but I think Rubio would have struggled badly in the debates and wouldn't have done much (if at all) better than Trump on net.

He would have done much better than Trump, who was crushed in the debates by Clinton.

How substantive were those debates?

What kind of issues do you think a normal republican would have discussed? They would've discussed privatizing SS/Medicare, praising Free Trade reforms even more aggressive than the TPP, and in Rubio's case, he would have made a specific argument for regime in Iran while also discussing his failure to deal with immigration while simultaneously being forced to defend the same GOP Congress that blocked his bill? He would've used the same anecdotes over and over again, so you would be able to anticipate his statements well in advance.

Or how about the fact that his tax plan would cut tax rates for Romney & The Koch Brothers to zero (his plan called for 0 capital gains/dividends taxes)? All of these policies are supposed to make Democrats apathetic?

If you believe fundamentally the US is a far-right country, then sure, it would be logical to believe that platform is electable, but otherwise, he was running the most radical conservative campaign policy-wise since Goldwater, he wasn't that different from Cruz in policy.

But the idea that you can elect someone with those policies and then expect a 'Liberal Progressive' wave to take place in 2020 or 2024 is a bit of a joke. Contrasts like that don't happen in terms of how electoral coalitions evolve. Both Hoover and Carter actually adopted many reformist principles their own parties opposed. Bush in 2000 fundamentally ran a centrist-y Kasich style campaign.

Let's put it this way, Sanders-ism would've died even before it even remotely would have had a plausible chance.
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,509


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: November 04, 2017, 02:46:32 am »

^I can't stress this point enough. You can't go from a platform advocating for 0% taxes on the Koch Brothers' earnings to a platform advocating for 70% in the next term. That's not how it works.

These assumptions can only work if you assume Dems moving to the right, which moderate Dems would've had to be if they were willing to elect someone with such sharp right-wing policies to begin with.
Logged
darklordoftech
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,927
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: November 08, 2017, 12:19:58 pm »

Why would Rubio win New Hampshire?
Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,314
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: November 08, 2017, 12:36:35 pm »

I think he could have narrowly won MN, but any other states? No. That said, he would have won all the Trump states except maybe MI.

I agree with this.  I think Rubio had an outside chance at Nevada, too.  For fun, I think Kasich could have pulled this map against Clinton:



Optimistic, but I think Hillary was a prettyyyyyyy bad candidate, and Kasich was a good one.
Logged
Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,488
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: November 08, 2017, 04:06:02 pm »

I think he could have narrowly won MN, but any other states? No. That said, he would have won all the Trump states except maybe MI.

I agree with this.  I think Rubio had an outside chance at Nevada, too.  For fun, I think Kasich could have pulled this map against Clinton:



Optimistic, but I think Hillary was a prettyyyyyyy bad candidate, and Kasich was a good one.

I think Kasich also gets VA by 1%.  He would do better than Romney in Fairfax.
Logged
Young Conservative
youngconservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,479
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: November 09, 2017, 01:41:41 pm »



Rubio or Pence should be the 2020 nominee (This is a rubio map not a pence map)
Logged
FDB
Firstdegreeburns
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: November 09, 2017, 01:54:37 pm »



279 - 259
Logged
Pennsylvania Deplorable
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 464


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: November 11, 2017, 05:27:18 pm »

Most likely, none. Possibly Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire. Rubio almost certainly would not have replicated Trump's success across the Midwest and PA.

People here are acting like Rubio would do better because he's a "moderate" but that is a dubious assertion. Rubio is a Koch brothers guy through and through on every economic issue. Trump held strong capitalist views as well, but he mixed in populism with a willingness to get the government more involved in infrastructure and protecting fighting outsourcing. Rubio supports an outright ban on abortion WITH NO EXCEPTIONS, a position that the overwhelming majority of Americans reject. Especially running against a woman, that would have been a recipe for disaster. According to every exit poll, Trump had his best performance among voters who listed immigration as their top concern. Rubio would not have gotten that. If anything, his gang of 8 amnesty bill (written in his first term after he swore he was against amnesty in 2010), would have dampened conservative and right wing populist turnout for him.

I think the most realistic Rubio vs Clinton race sees him winning all of the Romney states + Florida.
Logged
Arbitrage1980
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 492
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: November 11, 2017, 06:54:05 pm »

Most likely, none. Possibly Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire. Rubio almost certainly would not have replicated Trump's success across the Midwest and PA.

People here are acting like Rubio would do better because he's a "moderate" but that is a dubious assertion. Rubio is a Koch brothers guy through and through on every economic issue. Trump held strong capitalist views as well, but he mixed in populism with a willingness to get the government more involved in infrastructure and protecting fighting outsourcing. Rubio supports an outright ban on abortion WITH NO EXCEPTIONS, a position that the overwhelming majority of Americans reject. Especially running against a woman, that would have been a recipe for disaster. According to every exit poll, Trump had his best performance among voters who listed immigration as their top concern. Rubio would not have gotten that. If anything, his gang of 8 amnesty bill (written in his first term after he swore he was against amnesty in 2010), would have dampened conservative and right wing populist turnout for him.

I think the most realistic Rubio vs Clinton race sees him winning all of the Romney states + Florida.


Rubio is certainly more conservative than Trump, no doubt. But likability matters, and he had it in spades. All the head-to-head polls showed Rubio beating Hillary. Rubio would have done better than Trump with latinos and college whites. Hillary lost because she could not turn out the Obama coalition. Trump received fewer votes in WI than Romney, fewer votes in MI and OH than Bush 04.

Logged
Arbitrage1980
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 492
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: November 11, 2017, 07:04:42 pm »

Most likely, none. Possibly Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire. Rubio almost certainly would not have replicated Trump's success across the Midwest and PA.

People here are acting like Rubio would do better because he's a "moderate" but that is a dubious assertion. Rubio is a Koch brothers guy through and through on every economic issue. Trump held strong capitalist views as well, but he mixed in populism with a willingness to get the government more involved in infrastructure and protecting fighting outsourcing. Rubio supports an outright ban on abortion WITH NO EXCEPTIONS, a position that the overwhelming majority of Americans reject. Especially running against a woman, that would have been a recipe for disaster. According to every exit poll, Trump had his best performance among voters who listed immigration as their top concern. Rubio would not have gotten that. If anything, his gang of 8 amnesty bill (written in his first term after he swore he was against amnesty in 2010), would have dampened conservative and right wing populist turnout for him.

I think the most realistic Rubio vs Clinton race sees him winning all of the Romney states + Florida.

Logged
Pennsylvania Deplorable
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 464


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: November 11, 2017, 08:40:31 pm »

Most likely, none. Possibly Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire. Rubio almost certainly would not have replicated Trump's success across the Midwest and PA.

People here are acting like Rubio would do better because he's a "moderate" but that is a dubious assertion. Rubio is a Koch brothers guy through and through on every economic issue. Trump held strong capitalist views as well, but he mixed in populism with a willingness to get the government more involved in infrastructure and protecting fighting outsourcing. Rubio supports an outright ban on abortion WITH NO EXCEPTIONS, a position that the overwhelming majority of Americans reject. Especially running against a woman, that would have been a recipe for disaster. According to every exit poll, Trump had his best performance among voters who listed immigration as their top concern. Rubio would not have gotten that. If anything, his gang of 8 amnesty bill (written in his first term after he swore he was against amnesty in 2010), would have dampened conservative and right wing populist turnout for him.

I think the most realistic Rubio vs Clinton race sees him winning all of the Romney states + Florida.


Rubio is certainly more conservative than Trump, no doubt. But likability matters, and he had it in spades. All the head-to-head polls showed Rubio beating Hillary. Rubio would have done better than Trump with latinos and college whites. Hillary lost because she could not turn out the Obama coalition. Trump received fewer votes in WI than Romney, fewer votes in MI and OH than Bush 04.


That would be true if we assume Rubio's likability wouldn't have taken a hit if he was the target of an all out media onslaught for months leading up to the general election. They were happy to give him favorable coverage when he was attacking Trump. It would not have lasted. Especially on social issues.
Rubio also loses his charm under pressure (ex: robotically repeating the same talking point three times when Christie attacked him in the debate before the NH primary). He's a very good speaker, but only when scripted. Perhaps that would have been enough against Clinton, who was also scripted, but it's hard for me to say the guy who only won one county in his home state's primary would be a slam dunk in the general, regardless of hypothetical polling.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,470
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: November 16, 2017, 10:18:45 pm »

People here are acting like Rubio would do better because he's a "moderate" but that is a dubious assertion.

Rubio would do better because he was a candidate not crippled by scandal and hated by the majority of the US electorate.

Literally all Rubio would have to do to win comfortably is say "emails" every 15 seconds and unlike with Trump Clinton would have no counter.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines