Which Hillary states would Rubio have won?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 12:18:44 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
  Which Hillary states would Rubio have won?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: Which Hillary states would Rubio have won?  (Read 8755 times)
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2017, 07:59:52 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.

Trump won more raw votes than Toomey, would turnout have been the same in PA?

Of course, part of the reason for D weakness in Upper Midwest may have been due to Hillary's lack of campaigning in those states. Hillary campaigned aggressively in SW + Georgia and was able to improve the margins in those states, she left out the Midwest by taking it for granted vs. Trump. It is important to consider the context, the Obama coalition held everywhere, except for the Midwest.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 29, 2017, 08:08:20 PM »

Rubio would have easily won the national popular vote as well by losing CA by 15-20% instead of Trump's 30, losing IL by 10-15%, and winning TX by around 15%, GA by 8-10%, FL by 4-6%.

Rubio was consistently tied in FL polling from day 1 vs. Hillary, while he was always up ~7 on murphy:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_rubio_vs_clinton-3553.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/senate/fl/florida_senate_rubio_vs_murphy-5222.html

Senate race =/ presidential.

Hillary led Trump in Florida and nationwide by a large margin during the campaign but because she was very unpopular and ran a terrible campaign(not because Trump was popular!), she lost Florida and the election.

The type of campaign Jeb/Rubio were running was identical to the type of campaign Hillary ran during the GE. They were going to dodge the base to focus on courting suburban democrats with platitudes as Hillary did with suburban republicans.

They shared many of the same weaknesses as Hillary (though she originally wanted to run an Obama 2012 type strategy but changed her mind due to Trump).

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html

If you look at the FL numbers for Trump v. Clinton back in 2015, they were in a tight margin, there were regular periods of volatility during the election season overall which habitually reverted to that tight margin.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,038


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2017, 08:14:21 PM »

I looked at the numbers for MN(RCP average) and Rubio was up by 4% there so now I think he'd actually win it.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 29, 2017, 08:20:06 PM »

I looked at the numbers for MN(RCP average) and Rubio was up by 4% there so now I think he'd actually win it.

To recap, he was statistically tied in his home state while being up +4 in MN, Carson was also +2 in MN.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,038


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2017, 08:21:04 PM »

Rubio vs Clinton-Rubio win scenario

Marco Rubio/Nikki Haley-Republican: 321 EV 50.01%
Hillary Clinton/Tom Vilsack-Democratic: 217 EV 46.19%​
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2017, 08:21:34 PM »

Flawless Beautiful Marco Purple heart Purple heart Purple heart would have won all fifty states and D.C. in a flawless, beautiful victory!
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,038


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 29, 2017, 08:23:00 PM »

Rubio would have won Florida in the end though especially since he'd likely run a better campaign than Clinton. He could run on change(bit like Obama) and portray Clinton as basically a Washington insider with too much baggage. He would be disciplined and not be the most unpopular major party nominee in history.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,038


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2017, 08:27:54 PM »

Atlas wisdom: Trump won so he was obviously most electable candidate-DUH! Clinton was VERY STRONG candidate-only Trump could beat her, never mind -14% favorability?! Muh WWC populism, WWC only demographic that matters.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2017, 08:32:15 PM »

Rubio would have won Florida in the end though especially since he'd likely run a better campaign than Clinton. He could run on change(bit like Obama) and portray Clinton as basically a Washington insider with too much baggage. He would be disciplined and not be the most unpopular major party nominee in history.

His campaign was identical to Clinton's if not slightly more disorganized. Obama would be running the counterargument likening rubio to Mccain and arguing him to be 'more of the same'. Obama had significant policy arguments for his 'change', people were upset with Bush's foreign policy, and Obama ran against the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, which rubio fundamentally embodies.

Yet, despite that, Obama only barely defeated Clinton. The '08 dem primary was closer than the 2016 election.

Cruz was running on the 'change' 'anti-washington cartel' card on the GOP side.

You know who was incredibly disciplined and used rehearsed messages to the T (& regularly changed views based on polling recommendations) and was nicknamed the 'Little man'? Thomas Dewey.

Atlas wisdom: Trump won so he was obviously most electable candidate-DUH! Clinton was VERY STRONG candidate-only Trump could beat her, never mind -14% favorability?! Muh WWC populism, WWC only demographic that matters.

Rubio lost Latinos overall to Murphy in his senate race. Lost non-Cuban Latinos by standard GOP margins.

Ted Cruz's favorables were actually originally nearer to Rubio's, his numbers didn't collapse until early May due to an intense campaign against Trump. Cruz & Rubio had their favorable numbers generally move in tandem, until Rubio dropped out.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,038


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2017, 08:39:20 PM »

2016 was a change election, not a natural Democratic win. Rubio would have been able to run on that, and he wasn't identical to Clinton. Even if he was identical to Clinton, he'd win because his favorables were higher than hers while Trump's were lower. 8 years after Bush people wouldn't believe Obama's argument, especially since Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic candidate. It would be a charismatic(the media would certainly portray him as such) young Senator against the epitome of the DC establishment, Hillary Clinton. Rubio would also be able to avoid the constant gaffes and scandals that dogged Trump. Yes, he'd lose Hispanics, but he'd do better with them than Trump, and also do better with college-educated whites and many demographics. After all, if losing the popular vote by 2% is really the best the GOP can do, they don't have a bright future.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,038
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 29, 2017, 08:44:01 PM »

Atlas wisdom: Trump won so he was obviously most electable candidate-DUH! Clinton was VERY STRONG candidate-only Trump could beat her, never mind -14% favorability?! Muh WWC populism, WWC only demographic that matters.

When you have black turnout going down by default [by virtue of Obama not being there] and it was at impossibly high margin to achieve from the start, and favorables tank by the very nature of campaigning [unless you've got bad favorables from the start like Trump], yeah, that's pretty sound wisdom. Perfect? No, but pretty sound.

And yeah, the rest of the GOP field were somehow even less genuine sounding than her, every last one of them but Trump, why do you think they name dropped her so much in the debates while Trump didn't really?  And that's why they got clobbered, while she managed to win [at the cost of everyone but Hassan and Duckworth...but she probably brought McGutless much closer than she had any right to get with her campaign]...only stopped by a technicality.







Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 29, 2017, 08:48:45 PM »

2016 was a change election, not a natural Democratic win. Rubio would have been able to run on that, and he wasn't identical to Clinton. Even if he was identical to Clinton, he'd win because his favorables were higher than hers while Trump's were lower. 8 years after Bush people wouldn't believe Obama's argument, especially since Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic candidate. It would be a charismatic(the media would certainly portray him as such) young Senator against the epitome of the DC establishment, Hillary Clinton. Rubio would also be able to avoid the constant gaffes and scandals that dogged Trump. Yes, he'd lose Hispanics, but he'd do better with them than Trump, and also do better with college-educated whites and many demographics. After all, if losing the popular vote by 2% is really the best the GOP can do, they don't have a bright future.


You mean the best the GOP can do? Rubio's candidacy was modeled on the incumbent Bush '04 campaign, except more conservative, and the best the GOP could do in '04 (despite post-9/11 national security argument) was win a similar margin to Trump in the rustbelt/OH.

What happened to Michael Dukakis & Thomas Dewey?

Everyone hated Bush Sr, and thought he was a corrupt kleptocratic elitist.

As I mentioned with regards to Cruz, both Cruz & Rubio had their favorables moving down, Rubio dropped out, but they were on a similar trajectory, the bottom only fell out for Cruz after a vicious confrontation with Trump towards the end.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,038


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 29, 2017, 08:49:54 PM »

Hillary Clinton's favorability numbers were not normal. Rubio's were higher than hers even at the end and he got battered by Trump too, and most likely he'd have managed to lift his once he got out of the primary.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 29, 2017, 08:51:35 PM »

Hillary Clinton's favorability numbers were not normal. Rubio's were higher than hers even at the end and he got battered by Trump too, and most likely he'd have managed to lift his once he got out of the primary.

Why do you assume that?
Cruz/Rubio voters were GOP regulars. Trump's voters tended to be R-leaners/independents with no loyalties to the GOP. If Trump told them the primary was 'rigged by the establishment', why would they be motivated to turnout?

Kasich is an interesting alternative argument because he was the only other GOP candidate to win a significant number of independents. Kasich may have had an alternative coalition based on those voters.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,256


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 29, 2017, 08:54:58 PM »

NV CO VA but he loses PA and MI
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,038


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 29, 2017, 08:55:46 PM »

Rubio and Clinton were tied in PA.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,038
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 29, 2017, 09:01:00 PM »

P.S. Rubio probably would've shifted the map back to 2012 and put the weight on Colorado as I expect most people expected to be the tipping point.

If I'm charitable, he could've done it and Nevada [and I was originally].

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he keeps the Trump state of Wisconsin [which only he, Trump, and Kasich would have ANY hope taking].

But really, he would've tried ad-bombing, and tried swiftboating, but Hillary clearly isn't a slouch at that and she clearly had ground game down [only Trump's free media blitz was a good counter]...it'd be 1988 all over again. [I bet Deb Ross, Jason Kander, McGinty, and Feingold would've been aided by this]

Same undercurrent for change but with insiderism technically dominant and a popular administration able to give enough lift for Term III.

Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 29, 2017, 09:03:05 PM »

^By the way, about the 'battering', it didn't really get that bad for Cruz, if you check out the contemporary time frame in March, Cruz & Rubio's numbers were moving in tandem. Cruz's numbers only collapsed after Trump tipped the scale and started getting even more vicious against Cruz & his family in Apr/Early May.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,038


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 29, 2017, 09:03:14 PM »

Rubio would also have gotten a lot more from GOP donors. I believe the Koch brothers were going to spend $750 million on the race before Trump. So Hillary's fundraising advantage was primarily due to Trump being inept in that area. And negative campaigning is more effective when done by Republicans, so the GOP would get their base out and depress Democratic turnout.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,038


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 29, 2017, 09:06:34 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).
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 29, 2017, 09:08:12 PM »

Rubio would also have gotten a lot more from GOP donors. I believe the Koch brothers were going to spend $750 million on the race before Trump. So Hillary's fundraising advantage was primarily due to Trump being inept in that area. And negative campaigning is more effective when done by Republicans, so the GOP would get their base out and depress Democratic turnout.

So rubio runs a strategy without specifically courting the base a la Hillary & his attempts to get the base out about benghazi the way dukakis got the base out by shouting about iran-contra?

Meanwhile, Rubio goes out of the way to advertise the TPP, suggests even more free trade should be implemented and goes out of the way to suggest Iran needs regime change a la Mccain '08, and that's supposed to make Democrats apathetic?

Benghazi had 0 impact on the 2012 election, argument could be made that Trump's lack of direct funding was supplemented by his support from Russia.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,038


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 29, 2017, 09:10:03 PM »


There were basically no signs that VA was more winnable for the GOP than PA, even with a more conventional nominee such as Rubio. He certainly could have taken Toomey's path to victory, but I doubt he would have won VA, CO and NV.

Also, this idea that Trump was the most electable Republican nominee is nothing but a ridiculous revisionist theory advocated by many Democrats bitter about their loss and hardcore Trump fans alike.

Rubio led in Colorado and he would have led a GOP that is a better fit for Colorado than Romney, not a worse fit. As it was the tipping-point state in 2012 if he wins it would flip. Nevada I'm not sure because Trump did well there. Virginia is possibly a Clinton win but wouldn't be solid D and Rubio would do well in NOVA and would do well with college-educated whites so it could flip.
Logged
uti2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 29, 2017, 09:15:06 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
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,038


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 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
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,495


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 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
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 0.053 seconds with 13 queries.