Which Hillary states would Rubio have won?

[Pericles]

MN was only close because of Trump. Trump actually did quite well in Nevada, OTOH Rubio will do better with Hispanics. NH maybe, though he could lose it with less WWC support than Trump. VA is possible, a very winnable state for Rubio, though it partially depends on Hillary's VP pick. CO was the tipping-point state in 2012 and Rubio will do well with college-educated whites and Hispanics so he would win it. PA was tied for the tipping-point state, if Rubio does well enough in the suburbs he can win it. MI is lost. WI is tough but perhaps if Hillary goes down in a bigger loss he can take it.

[Pericles]

I'm doubtful Rubio would have won ME-2 or at least done as well there as it was the kind of district Romney lost by a  little ND Trump picked up with the Obama-Trump voters.

[Pericles]

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.

[Pericles]

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.

[Pericles]

Rubio vs Clinton-Rubio win scenario

Marco Rubio/Nikki Haley-Republican: 321 EV 50.01%
Hillary Clinton/Tom Vilsack-Democratic: 217 EV 46.19%​

[Pericles]

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.

[Pericles]

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.

[Pericles]

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.

[Pericles]

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.

[Pericles]

Rubio and Clinton were tied in PA.

[Pericles]

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.

[Pericles]

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).

[Pericles]

NV CO VA but he loses PA and MI

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.

[Pericles]

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.

[Pericles]

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.

[Pericles]

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.