Which Hillary states would Rubio have won?

[Arbitrage1980]

I don't think Rubio would have won WI and ME02 because he would have been weaker than Trump with working class whites but agree with the rest of it. I think Rubio could have won MN by doing well in the twin cities and the suburbs.

No doubt that Rubio would have won the national popular vote as well.

[uti2]

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.

Rubio would figure out a way to flub it, at least Trump could be like "well at least I admit it".

Same way Dukakis somehow didn't manage to beat H.W. by bashing Iran-Contra over the head.

except Iran-Contra was resolved by mid 1987 (at least when it came to whether HW was involved in it or not) while the Email Scandal dragged on till July of election year.

Bush Sr. wasn't personally cleared by the Independent Counsel of anything.

There were rumors in Israel that Amiram Nir had confided in Bush Sr, Nir died in late November 1988.


Oliver North was literally indicted in the July of 1988:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/21/us/civil-liberties-union-asks-court-to-quash-iran-contra-indictment.html

The Independent Counsel pertaining to Iran-Contra continued to exist right up until mid-1993.

Multiple actors continued to be indicted right up until the end of 1992. The Independent Counsel issued its final report in mid-1993.

Lawrence Walsh was in charge of the investigation and indicted Caspar Weinberger right before Bush Sr. left office.

[uti2]

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.

Go look back at the context of the purported polling r.e. favorables:

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

[uti2]

^To add the above point, Dukakis quite literally was up over Bush Sr. by double digits in early polling and had a net favorables margin of 67-10.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/05/27/dukakis-takes-early-lead-over-bush/0ed5eed4-7b0e-44e4-8c13-6adff6603e82/

Favorability numbers are not fixed, they change over the course of campaigning. Being disliked is generally just an indictator of how well-known you are.

Obama was more ostensibly disliked than Mccain and Romney. Same goes for GWB v. Kerry & even Reagan vs. Carter & Mondale.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-most-hated-candidate-usually-wins/article/2590520


This article is also actually from December 18, 1987:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,145687,00.html

"Dukakis and Paul Simon are the only two with relatively low negatives"

Dukakis had amongst the lowest unfavorables in the entire Democratic field in terms of early favorables.

[Lord Admirale]

^To add the above point, Dukakis quite literally was up over Bush Sr. by double digits in early polling and had a net favorables margin of 67-10.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/05/27/dukakis-takes-early-lead-over-bush/0ed5eed4-7b0e-44e4-8c13-6adff6603e82/

Favorability numbers are not fixed, they change over the course of campaigning. Being disliked is generally just an indictator of how well-known you are.

Obama was more ostensibly disliked than Mccain and Romney. Same goes for GWB v. Kerry & even Reagan vs. Carter & Mondale.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-most-hated-candidate-usually-wins/article/2590520


This article is also actually from December 18, 1987:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,145687,00.html

"Dukakis and Paul Simon are the only two with relatively low negatives"

Dukakis had amongst the lowest unfavorables in the entire Democratic field in terms of early favorables.

Uti has some weird hatred of Marco Rubio, especially when someone points out Rubio would win Pennsylvania.

[Suburban Republican]

You give could give or take Nevada.

[uti2]

^To add the above point, Dukakis quite literally was up over Bush Sr. by double digits in early polling and had a net favorables margin of 67-10.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/05/27/dukakis-takes-early-lead-over-bush/0ed5eed4-7b0e-44e4-8c13-6adff6603e82/

Favorability numbers are not fixed, they change over the course of campaigning. Being disliked is generally just an indictator of how well-known you are.

Obama was more ostensibly disliked than Mccain and Romney. Same goes for GWB v. Kerry & even Reagan vs. Carter & Mondale.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-most-hated-candidate-usually-wins/article/2590520


This article is also actually from December 18, 1987:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,145687,00.html

"Dukakis and Paul Simon are the only two with relatively low negatives"

Dukakis had amongst the lowest unfavorables in the entire Democratic field in terms of early favorables.

Uti has some weird hatred of Marco Rubio, especially when someone points out Rubio would win Pennsylvania.

I don't hate him, I've said before, he would do well against a Tim Kaine style democrat, just not someone who is aggressive. His whole candidacy is structured on assuming an easy-going ideological back and forth of talking points, he does not do well in dynamic engagements. For example, Clinton or Biden would've played off the differences between Mexicans and Cubans to start with (the conservative media would call it 'race baiting', but it would work) to damage his Latino outreach strategy.

Because I'm telling you PA does not like Bush-style conservatism. PA is a northeastern state at its electoral core, Trump was only able to win through Appalachia. The only way a normal republican takes PA is by moderating on social issues, and rubio was to the right of Trump on those social issues.

For people who bring up the Senate race, as I've explained before, Santorum won his PA senate race in 2000 easily, while Gore easily carried the state.

[uti2]

My primary point of contention is with people who say Rubio/Cruz are dramatically different electorally. Rubio/Cruz have almost the same positions, what's the difference besides some superficial attributes? It doesn't work if you look at the historical record.





These traits like youth are not advantages in and of themselves, they are double edged swords (see Reagan, etc.), Clinton or Biden would mock his youth and liken him to an insecure child. So, the superficial facade of his candidacy would be broken, what would he do following that?





He doesn't have any actual moderating policies of note when you look beyond the superficialities.
His policies for the most part are the same as Cruz, so electorally he'd functionally end up as equivalent to Cruz following the facade breaking down.

People mock Clinton for 'not having a message', but Bush Sr. didn't either, electoral coalition of the incumbency is the message by default.  What was the fundamental raison d'etre behind rubio's candidacy? He didn't have one, other than the fact that it was 'my party's turn', and 'my electoral coalition and views are better than yours', very Dukakis/Dewey-esque. For Bush it was about his 'faith', and he was the first major presidential candidate to actually offer concessions to the Religious Right and he also offered moderates policy concessions. For Reagan/Nixon/Kasich it was about conservatism with a Realpolitik bent (Reagan supported Gun Control as CA gov, he was one of the first governors in the country to legalize abortion, as president he banned machine guns, supported the brady bill, he used people like Manafort as intermediaries to open dialogues with dictators, etc.).


Rubio's Message was literally PNAC, meanwhile Clinton ran her campaign courting neocons was called 'a warmonger who would start WW3'. Let me get this straight, the Jeb/Rubio message was defeated in the election through Clinton, but that is somehow supposed to speak to the strength of that message? Clinton up against a normal republican would have literally been attacked for 'not wanting to start WW3 enough' instead.





Republicans who like Rubio generally assume an incredibly shallow and banal notion that Obama won because he was black and well-spoken (while curiously ignoring the exact nature of Obama's content in those speeches). This is objectively false. If anything, Obama's coalition was a trade-off (compare the Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Clinton '08 polling numbers in the Deep South to Obama's, compare what happened to the Blue Dogs & Southern Democrats in statewide races), but he was able to win primarily due to keeping the far-left in line by playing off against economically unpopular GOP positions (Bush was smart enough to moderate on that front to improve his margins a bit, but Christie & Kasich where the only candidates following in his footsteps on the economic front). It was the Far-Left/Bernie vote that elevated Obama in '08. had Obama's campaign in '08 been like Rubio's, 'vote for me i'm black and well-spoken but I support the same policies as Hillary(Jeb)', he would've easily lost, Obama won by reaching out to the far-left (slamming the establishment Foreign policy consensus, and attacking Free Trade, Wall street, etc.).





In contrast, if you look at the primary issue republicans care about, immigration, rubio literally did the equivalent of voting for the Iraq War. The GOP coalition is also more electorally precarious. Bush barely won 2 elections, Obama won both of his elections with ease, leaving more room for margin of error for Clinton.



If there was any candidate comparable to Obama based on campaign style it was Cruz.

Cruz was at least going all in on the base. The only reason why you'd assume Cruz to be unelectable vs. Rubio is if you fundamentally assume GOP policies to be unelectable at face value. Jeb & Rubio had similar strategies of flipping off the base, while superficially trying to court suburban Democrats (the people who love Clintonism and vote D for social reasons are not flipping for someone socially to the right of GWB). That approach would've been identical to the GOP courtship strategy Clinton specifically deployed against Trump, she changed her entire original Obama-2012-style strategy to mimic a Jeb/Rubio style campaign in reverse against Trump.


Also, here is the most amusing fact, Center-Leftists loved Clinton, the Democrats who hated her were Far-Leftists, who didn't believe she was left-wing enough, so they disliked Clinton for being a Wall Street/TPP-loving warmonger and they're supposed to vote for a right-wing republican who would attack Clinton for not wanting regime change in Iran and for not supporting free trade/wall street capital gains/dividends hard enough?





In conclusion I suspect someone might comment about how the ideas don't matter (despite the similar policy platforms of rubio and cruz), and it's all about the messenger (the argument being that Rubio is a 'better messenger' than Cruz), but here is the exact problem with that analysis:

They entire Jeb/Rubio strategy was predicated on trying to win over those very same suburban democrats who loved the Clinton years in the first place, so again, what incentive would they have to cross over? Let me get this straight, you think you can just call Clinton 'old', and literally manipulate the most educated suburban voters with simplistic slogans and memorized speeches? These voters you are talking about are quite literally the voters most likely to pay attention to policy details and look beyond slogans.

In 2000, Bush was able to barely peel off Clinton's coalition by moderating with compassionate conservatism, which was Kasich's platform.

Then, of course, there's also another school of thought that suggests 'any republican would've beaten Clinton', that camp is at least more respectable and intellectually consistent compared to the 'Cruz would lose bigly, but someone who has his near exact positions would win bigly' - but that logic in and of itself demonstrates the paradox of Rubio's candidacy, if you're an anti-Trump republican and anyone could've beaten Clinton, your focus should've been to support the Republican closest to Trump and who would therefore have the best odds of beating him in the primary, meaning Cruz...

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

I don't buy that Rubio was a stronger candidate than Trump. He is an empty suit.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

Good posts uti. I agree, although it is worth noting that Obama's big win in 2008 wasn't just because he fired up his base. Polls were close until Lehman Bros went under. That election could have been won by almost any democrat given Bush's unpopularity. Obama ran a good campaign in the more competitive environment of 2012. He presented a vision and Romney didn't have one.

[Lechasseur]

My primary point of contention is with people who say Rubio/Cruz are dramatically different electorally. Rubio/Cruz have almost the same positions, what's the difference besides some superficial attributes? It doesn't work if you look at the historical record.





These traits like youth are not advantages in and of themselves, they are double edged swords (see Reagan, etc.), Clinton or Biden would mock his youth and liken him to an insecure child. So, the superficial facade of his candidacy would be broken, what would he do following that?





He doesn't have any actual moderating policies of note when you look beyond the superficialities.
His policies for the most part are the same as Cruz, so electorally he'd functionally end up as equivalent to Cruz following the facade breaking down.

People mock Clinton for 'not having a message', but Bush Sr. didn't either, electoral coalition of the incumbency is the message by default.  What was the fundamental raison d'etre behind rubio's candidacy? He didn't have one, other than the fact that it was 'my party's turn', and 'my electoral coalition and views are better than yours', very Dukakis/Dewey-esque. For Bush it was about his 'faith', and he was the first major presidential candidate to actually offer concessions to the Religious Right and he also offered moderates policy concessions. For Reagan/Nixon/Kasich it was about conservatism with a Realpolitik bent (Reagan supported Gun Control as CA gov, he was one of the first governors in the country to legalize abortion, as president he banned machine guns, supported the brady bill, he used people like Manafort as intermediaries to open dialogues with dictators, etc.).


Rubio's Message was literally PNAC, meanwhile Clinton ran her campaign courting neocons was called 'a warmonger who would start WW3'. Let me get this straight, the Jeb/Rubio message was defeated in the election through Clinton, but that is somehow supposed to speak to the strength of that message? Clinton up against a normal republican would have literally been attacked for 'not wanting to start WW3 enough' instead.





Republicans who like Rubio generally assume an incredibly shallow and banal notion that Obama won because he was black and well-spoken (while curiously ignoring the exact nature of Obama's content in those speeches). This is objectively false. If anything, Obama's coalition was a trade-off (compare the Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Clinton '08 polling numbers in the Deep South to Obama's, compare what happened to the Blue Dogs & Southern Democrats in statewide races), but he was able to win primarily due to keeping the far-left in line by playing off against economically unpopular GOP positions (Bush was smart enough to moderate on that front to improve his margins a bit, but Christie & Kasich where the only candidates following in his footsteps on the economic front). It was the Far-Left/Bernie vote that elevated Obama in '08. had Obama's campaign in '08 been like Rubio's, 'vote for me i'm black and well-spoken but I support the same policies as Hillary(Jeb)', he would've easily lost, Obama won by reaching out to the far-left (slamming the establishment Foreign policy consensus, and attacking Free Trade, Wall street, etc.).





In contrast, if you look at the primary issue republicans care about, immigration, rubio literally did the equivalent of voting for the Iraq War. The GOP coalition is also more electorally precarious. Bush barely won 2 elections, Obama won both of his elections with ease, leaving more room for margin of error for Clinton.



If there was any candidate comparable to Obama based on campaign style it was Cruz.

Cruz was at least going all in on the base. The only reason why you'd assume Cruz to be unelectable vs. Rubio is if you fundamentally assume GOP policies to be unelectable at face value. Jeb & Rubio had similar strategies of flipping off the base, while superficially trying to court suburban Democrats (the people who love Clintonism and vote D for social reasons are not flipping for someone socially to the right of GWB). That approach would've been identical to the GOP courtship strategy Clinton specifically deployed against Trump, she changed her entire original Obama-2012-style strategy to mimic a Jeb/Rubio style campaign in reverse against Trump.


Also, here is the most amusing fact, Center-Leftists loved Clinton, the Democrats who hated her were Far-Leftists, who didn't believe she was left-wing enough, so they disliked Clinton for being a Wall Street/TPP-loving warmonger and they're supposed to vote for a right-wing republican who would attack Clinton for not wanting regime change in Iran and for not supporting free trade/wall street capital gains/dividends hard enough?





In conclusion I suspect someone might comment about how the ideas don't matter (despite the similar policy platforms of rubio and cruz), and it's all about the messenger (the argument being that Rubio is a 'better messenger' than Cruz), but here is the exact problem with that analysis:

They entire Jeb/Rubio strategy was predicated on trying to win over those very same suburban democrats who loved the Clinton years in the first place, so again, what incentive would they have to cross over? Let me get this straight, you think you can just call Clinton 'old', and literally manipulate the most educated suburban voters with simplistic slogans and memorized speeches? These voters you are talking about are quite literally the voters most likely to pay attention to policy details and look beyond slogans.

In 2000, Bush was able to barely peel off Clinton's coalition by moderating with compassionate conservatism, which was Kasich's platform.

Then, of course, there's also another school of thought that suggests 'any republican would've beaten Clinton', that camp is at least more respectable and intellectually consistent compared to the 'Cruz would lose bigly, but someone who has his near exact positions would win bigly' - but that logic in and of itself demonstrates the paradox of Rubio's candidacy, if you're an anti-Trump republican and anyone could've beaten Clinton, your focus should've been to support the Republican closest to Trump and who would therefore have the best odds of beating him in the primary, meaning Cruz...

A very good analysis, I agree

[HillGoose]

all of them, Rubio wins all 50 states + DC

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Virginia. Maybe Colorado. I think Virginia would have been a Lean R state in this case.

But he would have done worse in PA, MI, and WI, probably enough to lose all three.

[Arkansas Yankee]

Virginia. Maybe Colorado. I think Virginia would have been a Lean R state in this case.

But he would have done worse in PA, MI, and WI, probably enough to lose all three.

But Colorado and Virginia would have been enough.

Wisconsin would not have been a goner, as Johnson put together a slightly different coalition than Trump to win. Johnson and Rubio would have run in tandem. The same might have occurred in PA with Toomey and Rubio.

In addition mcMullin would not have run and Rubio would have gotten at least 2,000,000 of Johnson’s voters. He would have won NH.  ME, MI, AND MN would gone to him.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

all of them, Rubio wins all 50 states + DC

[Joey1996]

No Republican not named Donald Trump would have beaten Clinton, the best they would have done is repeat the 2012 map. Even NH, VI and MN were close races. Funny enough plenty of Democrats would have beaten Trump.

[Lord Admirale]

Minnesota, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, and New Hampshire

336-202

[Burke859]

I'm going to say that Rubio wins back a lot of white collar whites who voted for Obama --- the Dubya/Obama voters with college degrees and solid income potential.  In many ways, this keeps the Republicans focused on the Sunbelt, but also with big swings in Virginia, Colorado, and Minnesota.  The trio of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania still vote Democrat, while Rubio wins much more sober victories in Iowa and Ohio, and loses Maine-2.

Basically, the Obama/Trump WWC voters still vote Democrat, while Rubio wins back Creative Class white voters and lots of Hispanics for the GOP.  Outcome is a similar electoral vote margin that Trump enjoyed, just with different states and probably with the popular vote going the same way as the electoral vote.  Would have interesting impact on how Democrats proceed to move forward.

[Lord Admirale]

I'm going to say that Rubio wins back a lot of white collar whites who voted for Obama --- the Dubya/Obama voters with college degrees and solid income potential.  In many ways, this keeps the Republicans focused on the Sunbelt, but also with big swings in Virginia, Colorado, and Minnesota.  The trio of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania still vote Democrat, while Rubio wins much more sober victories in Iowa and Ohio, and loses Maine-2.

Basically, the Obama/Trump WWC voters still vote Democrat, while Rubio wins back Creative Class white voters and lots of Hispanics for the GOP.  Outcome is a similar electoral vote margin that Trump enjoyed, just with different states and probably with the popular vote going the same way as the electoral vote.  Would have interesting impact on how Democrats proceed to move forward.

I could see CA, MA, and MD being 50% D instead of 60% D, especially California.

[Grassroots]

A ton.