Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2019, 11:31:09 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  2016 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: TJ in Oregon, Virginiá)
| | |-+  Has Trump not run, who would have won the Republican nomination?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Has Trump not run, who would have won the Republican nomination?  (Read 1592 times)
136or142
Adam T
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,943
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 08, 2018, 02:06:49 pm »

Based on this tweet:
Politics1.com Retweeted

Pat Ward

@WardDPatrick
In interview with NJ Advance, @ChrisChristie reflects on what could have been: “I absolutely believe if Trump had not gotten into the race I think we would have won.”

Of course, Christie is delusional.  A point can be made that Christie's style and Trump's style were similar which can lead to Christie comforting himself with these thoughts, but clearly this is a bridge too far.

The other main candidates still strike me as implausible, but one of the would have had to have won:
1.Ted Cruz.  Who would vote for The Zodiac Killer?  (It's a 'joke' but I think it reflects him.)
2.Marco Rubio.  An obvious empty suit.
2.John Kasich.  Too liberal.

Anybody else?  Ben Carson?  Jeb Bush?
Logged
Chateaubriand Pact
AMB1996
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,727
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2018, 02:42:52 pm »

Hard to say, since other candidates were so overshadowed by Trump in the early pre-primary stages. Bush probably doesn't flounder as badly. Maybe Jindal is a serious contender, or Santorum/Carson eat into Cruz's evangelical support.

There's really no way to know.
Logged
here2view
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,673
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -3.48

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2018, 02:55:58 pm »

I think it would have come down to Cruz vs. Rubio. I think Rubio would have won because the establishment would throw most of its support toward him.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,943
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2018, 06:14:19 pm »

Hard to say, since other candidates were so overshadowed by Trump in the early pre-primary stages. Bush probably doesn't flounder as badly. Maybe Jindal is a serious contender, or Santorum/Carson eat into Cruz's evangelical support.

There's really no way to know.

Thanks for playing.  Cheesy
Logged
Joey1996
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,921


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2018, 06:34:29 pm »

Rubio easily, and he would have lost in the general
Logged
History505
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,190
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2018, 08:02:25 pm »

Based on this tweet:
Politics1.com Retweeted

Pat Ward

@WardDPatrick
In interview with NJ Advance, @ChrisChristie reflects on what could have been: “I absolutely believe if Trump had not gotten into the race I think we would have won.”

Of course, Christie is delusional.  A point can be made that Christie's style and Trump's style were similar which can lead to Christie comforting himself with these thoughts, but clearly this is a bridge too far.

The other main candidates still strike me as implausible, but one of the would have had to have won:
1.Ted Cruz.  Who would vote for The Zodiac Killer?  (It's a 'joke' but I think it reflects him.)
2.Marco Rubio.  An obvious empty suit.
2.John Kasich.  Too liberal.

Anybody else?  Ben Carson?  Jeb Bush?
I see what you did there lol. Smart.
Logged
AP
Admiral President
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,699
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 42.00, S: -69.00

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2018, 08:31:46 pm »

Rubio easily, and he would have lost in the general

Yeah no. Almost any Republican would've crushed Hillary, and Trump was the least decisive of them all.

With that said, Rubio would've secured the nomination and gotten between around 330 and 380 electoral votes.
Logged
Burke859
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 79
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2018, 01:19:54 am »

Rubio.  He would have had Cruz as his typical "unelectable conservative" foil, and Jeb looked and seemed old, even without Trump making fun of him.

Kasich might have been able to run as Trump-lite, by mounting a populist campaign that was establishment-friendly, but he would have gone off the rails at some point and would have advocated Medicare for all or some such thing.  Kasich was too much of a loose cannon to run a deft campaign like that.
Logged
Joey1996
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,921


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 09, 2018, 01:48:45 am »

Rubio easily, and he would have lost in the general

Yeah no. Almost any Republican would've crushed Hillary, and Trump was the least decisive of them all.

With that said, Rubio would've secured the nomination and gotten between around 330 and 380 electoral votes.

That's simply not true...what States could Rubio flip from 2012 to beat Clinton? Maybe Nevada, maybe New Hamsphire, that's not good enough... in the primary the guy lost every county in Florida to Trump besides Dade, so I doubt he would have flipped his home state either. Cruz wouldn't have flipped anything, he's even less likable than Clinton and Kasich would have only flipped Ohio and maybe the Moderate suburban Republicans in NOVA.

I get that Trump is hated, and rightfully so... but no other Republican could have put together the coalition he did in 2016, no Republican could win WI, MI, and PA .. Dubya couldn't even do it in 2004. No Republican not named Trump could make it a close race in Minnesota or Maine. No Republican could have topped Romney's perctenages in Missouri or West Virginia.

Hillary was an awful candidate but still would have easily defeated the other Republicans.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,694
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2018, 03:38:21 am »

Rubio easily, and he would have lost in the general

Yeah no. Almost any Republican would've crushed Hillary, and Trump was the least decisive of them all.

With that said, Rubio would've secured the nomination and gotten between around 330 and 380 electoral votes.
That's simply not true...what States could Rubio flip from 2012 to beat Clinton? Maybe Nevada, maybe New Hamsphire, that's not good enough... in the primary the guy lost every county in Florida to Trump besides Dade, so I doubt he would have flipped his home state either. Cruz wouldn't have flipped anything, he's even less likable than Clinton and Kasich would have only flipped Ohio and maybe the Moderate suburban Republicans in NOVA. 

He was also reelected on the same day in Florida by almost ten times the amount Trump won by. To dismiss the idea that he wouldn't have flipped his own damn state when he won 47% of hispanics is foolish. That number, by the way, would have easily given him Colorado and maybe New Mexico. With your own concessions, that's 259. I agree he wouldn't have flipped the closer WCW states, but Hillary was a terrible fit for Ohio, so there's that, and his potential youth appeal may narrowly give him Iowa. 283 right there. Not as generous as some would think, but he still wins, and will still be a very strong nominee if ever nominated when he inevitably runs again, especially if it's in 2028 if Trump loses in 2020, or 2032 if he is reelected.
Logged
Joey1996
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,921


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2018, 08:17:03 am »

Rubio easily, and he would have lost in the general

Yeah no. Almost any Republican would've crushed Hillary, and Trump was the least decisive of them all.

With that said, Rubio would've secured the nomination and gotten between around 330 and 380 electoral votes.
That's simply not true...what States could Rubio flip from 2012 to beat Clinton? Maybe Nevada, maybe New Hamsphire, that's not good enough... in the primary the guy lost every county in Florida to Trump besides Dade, so I doubt he would have flipped his home state either. Cruz wouldn't have flipped anything, he's even less likable than Clinton and Kasich would have only flipped Ohio and maybe the Moderate suburban Republicans in NOVA. 

He was also reelected on the same day in Florida by almost ten times the amount Trump won by. To dismiss the idea that he wouldn't have flipped his own damn state when he won 47% of hispanics is foolish. That number, by the way, would have easily given him Colorado and maybe New Mexico. With your own concessions, that's 259. I agree he wouldn't have flipped the closer WCW states, but Hillary was a terrible fit for Ohio, so there's that, and his potential youth appeal may narrowly give him Iowa. 283 right there. Not as generous as some would think, but he still wins, and will still be a very strong nominee if ever nominated when he inevitably runs again, especially if it's in 2028 if Trump loses in 2020, or 2032 if he is reelected.

I really don't think you would see a mass exodus of Hispasnic Voters to Rubio just because he's Latino. He publicly flip flipped on amnesty and would be hammered for It by Clinton, safe to say Clinton would run to his left on immigration. Several states were weighing on expanding Obamacare to allow coverage of undocumented immigrants, Rubio wanted to repeal Obamacare, he voted against Santuary cities etc. Also we are assuming that Hispasnic voters are single issue minded, which isn't true.

And no way he flips Colorado with his opposition to legalized marijuana, an industry that has created billions for that state. 
Logged
Let Dogs Survive
MormDem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,064
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 09, 2018, 01:17:35 pm »

Cruz..

He played the cards almost the same way Obama did in '08. Whereas Rubio turned out to be a paper tiger on the ground game. All the establishment support might have gotten him to Hillary levels in '08, but no way does Cruz lose the delegate lead.

Cruz would've lost the critical Midwest to Hillary though.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,691
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 09, 2018, 01:58:48 pm »

Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio
Logged
AP
Admiral President
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,699
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 42.00, S: -69.00

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 09, 2018, 02:29:02 pm »

Rubio easily, and he would have lost in the general

Yeah no. Almost any Republican would've crushed Hillary, and Trump was the least decisive of them all.

With that said, Rubio would've secured the nomination and gotten between around 330 and 380 electoral votes.
That's simply not true...what States could Rubio flip from 2012 to beat Clinton? Maybe Nevada, maybe New Hamsphire, that's not good enough... in the primary the guy lost every county in Florida to Trump besides Dade, so I doubt he would have flipped his home state either. Cruz wouldn't have flipped anything, he's even less likable than Clinton and Kasich would have only flipped Ohio and maybe the Moderate suburban Republicans in NOVA. 

He was also reelected on the same day in Florida by almost ten times the amount Trump won by. To dismiss the idea that he wouldn't have flipped his own damn state when he won 47% of hispanics is foolish. That number, by the way, would have easily given him Colorado and maybe New Mexico. With your own concessions, that's 259. I agree he wouldn't have flipped the closer WCW states, but Hillary was a terrible fit for Ohio, so there's that, and his potential youth appeal may narrowly give him Iowa. 283 right there. Not as generous as some would think, but he still wins, and will still be a very strong nominee if ever nominated when he inevitably runs again, especially if it's in 2028 if Trump loses in 2020, or 2032 if he is reelected.

I really don't think you would see a mass exodus of Hispasnic Voters to Rubio just because he's Latino. He publicly flip flipped on amnesty and would be hammered for It by Clinton, safe to say Clinton would run to his left on immigration. Several states were weighing on expanding Obamacare to allow coverage of undocumented immigrants, Rubio wanted to repeal Obamacare, he voted against Santuary cities etc. Also we are assuming that Hispasnic voters are single issue minded, which isn't true.

And no way he flips Colorado with his opposition to legalized marijuana, an industry that has created billions for that state. 
Rubio would still make inroads with all minorities, maybe not by a significant amount, but enough to make a difference.

Also, Colorado is not a single issue state.
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,509


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2018, 12:05:26 pm »

Rubio.  He would have had Cruz as his typical "unelectable conservative" foil, and Jeb looked and seemed old, even without Trump making fun of him.

Kasich might have been able to run as Trump-lite, by mounting a populist campaign that was establishment-friendly, but he would have gone off the rails at some point and would have advocated Medicare for all or some such thing.  Kasich was too much of a loose cannon to run a deft campaign like that.

Rubio spent his entire campaign avoiding Trump, while pretty much everyone else was attacking Trump. He didn't attack until the last minute and he was subsequently dismantled when he did.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marco-rubio-is-running-scared/2016/02/03/787074bc-caca-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html

Both Rubio and Cruz almost exclusively won Conservatives voters in the primary, both also have very conservative policies. Liberal Republicans voted for Kasich & Trump. Where would the latter have gone without Trump? Well, Jeb was in the lead, why would they abandon Jeb? And for whom? Kasich?
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,509


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2018, 12:14:47 pm »

Rubio easily, and he would have lost in the general

Yeah no. Almost any Republican would've crushed Hillary, and Trump was the least decisive of them all.

With that said, Rubio would've secured the nomination and gotten between around 330 and 380 electoral votes.
That's simply not true...what States could Rubio flip from 2012 to beat Clinton? Maybe Nevada, maybe New Hamsphire, that's not good enough... in the primary the guy lost every county in Florida to Trump besides Dade, so I doubt he would have flipped his home state either. Cruz wouldn't have flipped anything, he's even less likable than Clinton and Kasich would have only flipped Ohio and maybe the Moderate suburban Republicans in NOVA. 

He was also reelected on the same day in Florida by almost ten times the amount Trump won by. To dismiss the idea that he wouldn't have flipped his own damn state when he won 47% of hispanics is foolish. That number, by the way, would have easily given him Colorado and maybe New Mexico. With your own concessions, that's 259. I agree he wouldn't have flipped the closer WCW states, but Hillary was a terrible fit for Ohio, so there's that, and his potential youth appeal may narrowly give him Iowa. 283 right there. Not as generous as some would think, but he still wins, and will still be a very strong nominee if ever nominated when he inevitably runs again, especially if it's in 2028 if Trump loses in 2020, or 2032 if he is reelected.

I really don't think you would see a mass exodus of Hispasnic Voters to Rubio just because he's Latino. He publicly flip flipped on amnesty and would be hammered for It by Clinton, safe to say Clinton would run to his left on immigration. Several states were weighing on expanding Obamacare to allow coverage of undocumented immigrants, Rubio wanted to repeal Obamacare, he voted against Santuary cities etc. Also we are assuming that Hispasnic voters are single issue minded, which isn't true.

And no way he flips Colorado with his opposition to legalized marijuana, an industry that has created billions for that state. 
Rubio would still make inroads with all minorities, maybe not by a significant amount, but enough to make a difference.

Also, Colorado is not a single issue state.

Mel Martinez won 60% of the Hispanic vote in FL 2004. Keep in mind that FL has a high percentage of Cubans. In terms of non-Cubans (the key demographic you should use if you want to extrapolate the performance to other states, he basically performed with them by the standard GOP numbers) If you look at the polling Clinton v. Rubio in FL was consistently tight, while Rubio v. Murphy always had him up +7.

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

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

If Rubio was presumptive and tried to ignore the state in the GE and take it for granted, it's not implausible he could lose it.

So what particular issue would he offer attractive to Colorado? He is full-on tea party in terms of economic and social policies, not a degree of moderation in his policies. He is no 'compassionate conservative' (that was Kasich). If you just say 'Guns' and 'but Hillary', well that would apply to any republican, but it wouldn't be a unique argument for rubio.
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,509


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2018, 12:27:12 pm »

Cruz..

He played the cards almost the same way Obama did in '08. Whereas Rubio turned out to be a paper tiger on the ground game. All the establishment support might have gotten him to Hillary levels in '08, but no way does Cruz lose the delegate lead.

Cruz would've lost the critical Midwest to Hillary though.

Cruz was running the Obama '08 campaign. Rubio was running an Edwards '08 campaign. Jeb was the Hillary '08 until Trump bizarrely sort of took Jeb's place. If you look at the primary polling data, Trump consistently won on the backs of moderate republicans and during the primaries in general many were making parallels between Trump's disorganized campaign and Clinton's '08 campaign. Trump won as the Edwards (Rubio) vote didn't consolidate for Obama (Cruz). Edwards dropped out early and endorsed Obama.
Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,067
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 10, 2018, 01:19:09 pm »

I think Bush.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,484


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 10, 2018, 01:33:09 pm »

Rubio easily, and he would have lost in the general

Yeah no. Almost any Republican would've crushed Hillary, and Trump was the least decisive of them all.

With that said, Rubio would've secured the nomination and gotten between around 330 and 380 electoral votes.
That's simply not true...what States could Rubio flip from 2012 to beat Clinton? Maybe Nevada, maybe New Hamsphire, that's not good enough... in the primary the guy lost every county in Florida to Trump besides Dade, so I doubt he would have flipped his home state either. Cruz wouldn't have flipped anything, he's even less likable than Clinton and Kasich would have only flipped Ohio and maybe the Moderate suburban Republicans in NOVA. 

He was also reelected on the same day in Florida by almost ten times the amount Trump won by. To dismiss the idea that he wouldn't have flipped his own damn state when he won 47% of hispanics is foolish. That number, by the way, would have easily given him Colorado and maybe New Mexico. With your own concessions, that's 259. I agree he wouldn't have flipped the closer WCW states, but Hillary was a terrible fit for Ohio, so there's that, and his potential youth appeal may narrowly give him Iowa. 283 right there. Not as generous as some would think, but he still wins, and will still be a very strong nominee if ever nominated when he inevitably runs again, especially if it's in 2028 if Trump loses in 2020, or 2032 if he is reelected.

I really don't think you would see a mass exodus of Hispasnic Voters to Rubio just because he's Latino. He publicly flip flipped on amnesty and would be hammered for It by Clinton, safe to say Clinton would run to his left on immigration. Several states were weighing on expanding Obamacare to allow coverage of undocumented immigrants, Rubio wanted to repeal Obamacare, he voted against Santuary cities etc. Also we are assuming that Hispasnic voters are single issue minded, which isn't true.

And no way he flips Colorado with his opposition to legalized marijuana, an industry that has created billions for that state. 
Rubio would still make inroads with all minorities, maybe not by a significant amount, but enough to make a difference.

Also, Colorado is not a single issue state.

Mel Martinez won 60% of the Hispanic vote in FL 2004. Keep in mind that FL has a high percentage of Cubans. In terms of non-Cubans (the key demographic you should use if you want to extrapolate the performance to other states, he basically performed with them by the standard GOP numbers) If you look at the polling Clinton v. Rubio in FL was consistently tight, while Rubio v. Murphy always had him up +7.

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

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

If Rubio was presumptive and tried to ignore the state in the GE and take it for granted, it's not implausible he could lose it.

So what particular issue would he offer attractive to Colorado? He is full-on tea party in terms of economic and social policies, not a degree of moderation in his policies. He is no 'compassionate conservative' (that was Kasich). If you just say 'Guns' and 'but Hillary', well that would apply to any republican, but it wouldn't be a unique argument for rubio.



No Rubio literally is George W Bush 2.0



Bush also proposed eliminating the dividends tax , cutting capital gains more than he did .



On Social Issies Bush was pretty right wing as well



Rubio Immigration plan was basically Dubya’s as well



I would argue Jeb Bush was Bush 2000 , Marco Rubio was Bush 2004
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,509


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2018, 01:44:57 pm »

Rubio easily, and he would have lost in the general

Yeah no. Almost any Republican would've crushed Hillary, and Trump was the least decisive of them all.

With that said, Rubio would've secured the nomination and gotten between around 330 and 380 electoral votes.
That's simply not true...what States could Rubio flip from 2012 to beat Clinton? Maybe Nevada, maybe New Hamsphire, that's not good enough... in the primary the guy lost every county in Florida to Trump besides Dade, so I doubt he would have flipped his home state either. Cruz wouldn't have flipped anything, he's even less likable than Clinton and Kasich would have only flipped Ohio and maybe the Moderate suburban Republicans in NOVA.  

He was also reelected on the same day in Florida by almost ten times the amount Trump won by. To dismiss the idea that he wouldn't have flipped his own damn state when he won 47% of hispanics is foolish. That number, by the way, would have easily given him Colorado and maybe New Mexico. With your own concessions, that's 259. I agree he wouldn't have flipped the closer WCW states, but Hillary was a terrible fit for Ohio, so there's that, and his potential youth appeal may narrowly give him Iowa. 283 right there. Not as generous as some would think, but he still wins, and will still be a very strong nominee if ever nominated when he inevitably runs again, especially if it's in 2028 if Trump loses in 2020, or 2032 if he is reelected.

I really don't think you would see a mass exodus of Hispasnic Voters to Rubio just because he's Latino. He publicly flip flipped on amnesty and would be hammered for It by Clinton, safe to say Clinton would run to his left on immigration. Several states were weighing on expanding Obamacare to allow coverage of undocumented immigrants, Rubio wanted to repeal Obamacare, he voted against Santuary cities etc. Also we are assuming that Hispasnic voters are single issue minded, which isn't true.

And no way he flips Colorado with his opposition to legalized marijuana, an industry that has created billions for that state.  
Rubio would still make inroads with all minorities, maybe not by a significant amount, but enough to make a difference.

Also, Colorado is not a single issue state.

Mel Martinez won 60% of the Hispanic vote in FL 2004. Keep in mind that FL has a high percentage of Cubans. In terms of non-Cubans (the key demographic you should use if you want to extrapolate the performance to other states, he basically performed with them by the standard GOP numbers) If you look at the polling Clinton v. Rubio in FL was consistently tight, while Rubio v. Murphy always had him up +7.

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

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

If Rubio was presumptive and tried to ignore the state in the GE and take it for granted, it's not implausible he could lose it.

So what particular issue would he offer attractive to Colorado? He is full-on tea party in terms of economic and social policies, not a degree of moderation in his policies. He is no 'compassionate conservative' (that was Kasich). If you just say 'Guns' and 'but Hillary', well that would apply to any republican, but it wouldn't be a unique argument for rubio.



No Rubio literally is George W Bush 2.0



Bush also proposed eliminating the dividends tax , cutting capital gains more than he did .



On Social Issies Bush was pretty right wing as well



Rubio Immigration plan was basically Dubya’s as well



I would argue Jeb Bush was Bush 2000 , Marco Rubio was Bush 2004

Kasich was George W. Bush 2.0 (maybe Bush 2000 w/ Jeb as Bush '04). Bush never proposed eliminating the capital gains tax. He only wanted to end Dividend Taxes because his plan had Corporate Taxes as being high, Rubio wanted both Corporate Taxes slashed and Dividend Taxes abolished. Bush expanded medicare, Rubio viciously attacked the Governors who expanded Medicare in the race for being 'liberal'. Rubio also attacked Common Core, the same way Bush was attacked by conservatives for No Child Left Behind.

Bush supported Planned Parenthood Funding.
Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,509


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2018, 01:48:43 pm »

Normal races generally come down to partisan insurgents vs. moderates/centrists. Trump actually did run as a type of centrist in the form of a 'radical middle' candidate.

People should keep in mind though that Cruz partially moved to the right after Trump entered the race (he flipped on immigration & TPP). So if w/o Trump Cruz doesn't flip on those issues, he is probably able to consolidate rubio's voters in a trade-off while being outflanked from the right by someone like Walker. If this occurs while Jeb faces pressure from Kasich, then in that scenario, there is actually a very good chance no one 'wins' the nomination, and the nominee is selected at a contested convention.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,484


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2018, 03:40:51 pm »

Rubio easily, and he would have lost in the general

Yeah no. Almost any Republican would've crushed Hillary, and Trump was the least decisive of them all.

With that said, Rubio would've secured the nomination and gotten between around 330 and 380 electoral votes.
That's simply not true...what States could Rubio flip from 2012 to beat Clinton? Maybe Nevada, maybe New Hamsphire, that's not good enough... in the primary the guy lost every county in Florida to Trump besides Dade, so I doubt he would have flipped his home state either. Cruz wouldn't have flipped anything, he's even less likable than Clinton and Kasich would have only flipped Ohio and maybe the Moderate suburban Republicans in NOVA.  

He was also reelected on the same day in Florida by almost ten times the amount Trump won by. To dismiss the idea that he wouldn't have flipped his own damn state when he won 47% of hispanics is foolish. That number, by the way, would have easily given him Colorado and maybe New Mexico. With your own concessions, that's 259. I agree he wouldn't have flipped the closer WCW states, but Hillary was a terrible fit for Ohio, so there's that, and his potential youth appeal may narrowly give him Iowa. 283 right there. Not as generous as some would think, but he still wins, and will still be a very strong nominee if ever nominated when he inevitably runs again, especially if it's in 2028 if Trump loses in 2020, or 2032 if he is reelected.

I really don't think you would see a mass exodus of Hispasnic Voters to Rubio just because he's Latino. He publicly flip flipped on amnesty and would be hammered for It by Clinton, safe to say Clinton would run to his left on immigration. Several states were weighing on expanding Obamacare to allow coverage of undocumented immigrants, Rubio wanted to repeal Obamacare, he voted against Santuary cities etc. Also we are assuming that Hispasnic voters are single issue minded, which isn't true.

And no way he flips Colorado with his opposition to legalized marijuana, an industry that has created billions for that state.  
Rubio would still make inroads with all minorities, maybe not by a significant amount, but enough to make a difference.

Also, Colorado is not a single issue state.

Mel Martinez won 60% of the Hispanic vote in FL 2004. Keep in mind that FL has a high percentage of Cubans. In terms of non-Cubans (the key demographic you should use if you want to extrapolate the performance to other states, he basically performed with them by the standard GOP numbers) If you look at the polling Clinton v. Rubio in FL was consistently tight, while Rubio v. Murphy always had him up +7.

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

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

If Rubio was presumptive and tried to ignore the state in the GE and take it for granted, it's not implausible he could lose it.

So what particular issue would he offer attractive to Colorado? He is full-on tea party in terms of economic and social policies, not a degree of moderation in his policies. He is no 'compassionate conservative' (that was Kasich). If you just say 'Guns' and 'but Hillary', well that would apply to any republican, but it wouldn't be a unique argument for rubio.



No Rubio literally is George W Bush 2.0



Bush also proposed eliminating the dividends tax , cutting capital gains more than he did .



On Social Issies Bush was pretty right wing as well



Rubio Immigration plan was basically Dubya’s as well



I would argue Jeb Bush was Bush 2000 , Marco Rubio was Bush 2004

Kasich was George W. Bush 2.0 (maybe Bush 2000 w/ Jeb as Bush '04). Bush never proposed eliminating the capital gains tax. He only wanted to end Dividend Taxes because his plan had Corporate Taxes as being high, Rubio wanted both Corporate Taxes slashed and Dividend Taxes abolished. Bush expanded medicare, Rubio viciously attacked the Governors who expanded Medicare in the race for being 'liberal'. Rubio also attacked Common Core, the same way Bush was attacked by conservatives for No Child Left Behind.

Bush supported Planned Parenthood Funding.

Kasich was McCain 2000


There is a difference between Medicare and Medicaid and more Republicans voted for Medicare Part D than Republicans.


https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00459

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/elec04.medicare/index.html



Only 11 Democrats voted for Medicare Part D , while all but 9 Republicans Voted for it


« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 03:43:38 pm by Old School Republican »Logged
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,509


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2018, 04:23:56 pm »

Rubio easily, and he would have lost in the general

Yeah no. Almost any Republican would've crushed Hillary, and Trump was the least decisive of them all.

With that said, Rubio would've secured the nomination and gotten between around 330 and 380 electoral votes.
That's simply not true...what States could Rubio flip from 2012 to beat Clinton? Maybe Nevada, maybe New Hamsphire, that's not good enough... in the primary the guy lost every county in Florida to Trump besides Dade, so I doubt he would have flipped his home state either. Cruz wouldn't have flipped anything, he's even less likable than Clinton and Kasich would have only flipped Ohio and maybe the Moderate suburban Republicans in NOVA.  

He was also reelected on the same day in Florida by almost ten times the amount Trump won by. To dismiss the idea that he wouldn't have flipped his own damn state when he won 47% of hispanics is foolish. That number, by the way, would have easily given him Colorado and maybe New Mexico. With your own concessions, that's 259. I agree he wouldn't have flipped the closer WCW states, but Hillary was a terrible fit for Ohio, so there's that, and his potential youth appeal may narrowly give him Iowa. 283 right there. Not as generous as some would think, but he still wins, and will still be a very strong nominee if ever nominated when he inevitably runs again, especially if it's in 2028 if Trump loses in 2020, or 2032 if he is reelected.

I really don't think you would see a mass exodus of Hispasnic Voters to Rubio just because he's Latino. He publicly flip flipped on amnesty and would be hammered for It by Clinton, safe to say Clinton would run to his left on immigration. Several states were weighing on expanding Obamacare to allow coverage of undocumented immigrants, Rubio wanted to repeal Obamacare, he voted against Santuary cities etc. Also we are assuming that Hispasnic voters are single issue minded, which isn't true.

And no way he flips Colorado with his opposition to legalized marijuana, an industry that has created billions for that state.  
Rubio would still make inroads with all minorities, maybe not by a significant amount, but enough to make a difference.

Also, Colorado is not a single issue state.

Mel Martinez won 60% of the Hispanic vote in FL 2004. Keep in mind that FL has a high percentage of Cubans. In terms of non-Cubans (the key demographic you should use if you want to extrapolate the performance to other states, he basically performed with them by the standard GOP numbers) If you look at the polling Clinton v. Rubio in FL was consistently tight, while Rubio v. Murphy always had him up +7.

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

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

If Rubio was presumptive and tried to ignore the state in the GE and take it for granted, it's not implausible he could lose it.

So what particular issue would he offer attractive to Colorado? He is full-on tea party in terms of economic and social policies, not a degree of moderation in his policies. He is no 'compassionate conservative' (that was Kasich). If you just say 'Guns' and 'but Hillary', well that would apply to any republican, but it wouldn't be a unique argument for rubio.



No Rubio literally is George W Bush 2.0



Bush also proposed eliminating the dividends tax , cutting capital gains more than he did .



On Social Issies Bush was pretty right wing as well



Rubio Immigration plan was basically Dubya’s as well



I would argue Jeb Bush was Bush 2000 , Marco Rubio was Bush 2004

Kasich was George W. Bush 2.0 (maybe Bush 2000 w/ Jeb as Bush '04). Bush never proposed eliminating the capital gains tax. He only wanted to end Dividend Taxes because his plan had Corporate Taxes as being high, Rubio wanted both Corporate Taxes slashed and Dividend Taxes abolished. Bush expanded medicare, Rubio viciously attacked the Governors who expanded Medicare in the race for being 'liberal'. Rubio also attacked Common Core, the same way Bush was attacked by conservatives for No Child Left Behind.

Bush supported Planned Parenthood Funding.

Kasich was McCain 2000


There is a difference between Medicare and Medicaid and more Republicans voted for Medicare Part D than Republicans.


https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00459

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/elec04.medicare/index.html



Only 11 Democrats voted for Medicare Part D , while all but 9 Republicans Voted for it




No Republican in 2016 had a platform representing anything close to Mccain 2000. Mccain advocated for campaign finance reform limits, every republican running in 2016 backed Citizens United.

Mccain in 2000 also ran on no cuts to entitlements. Mccain backed Gun Control efforts after columbine, Mccain backed cap & trade, there are gigantic differences between Kasich's record both as a governor and a congressman vs. Mccain. In contrast to Mccain, Kasich's record is pretty conservative, with a few sparks of moderation here and there on various policies, very similar to George W. Bush. In contrast, neither Rubio/Cruz had any policies representing moderation.
Logged
Coastal Elitist
Tea Party Hater
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 813
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.19, S: -2.61

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 10, 2018, 04:40:12 pm »

Rubio, but I wanted Kasich to win.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,484


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: January 10, 2018, 04:40:48 pm »

Rubio easily, and he would have lost in the general

Yeah no. Almost any Republican would've crushed Hillary, and Trump was the least decisive of them all.

With that said, Rubio would've secured the nomination and gotten between around 330 and 380 electoral votes.
That's simply not true...what States could Rubio flip from 2012 to beat Clinton? Maybe Nevada, maybe New Hamsphire, that's not good enough... in the primary the guy lost every county in Florida to Trump besides Dade, so I doubt he would have flipped his home state either. Cruz wouldn't have flipped anything, he's even less likable than Clinton and Kasich would have only flipped Ohio and maybe the Moderate suburban Republicans in NOVA.  

He was also reelected on the same day in Florida by almost ten times the amount Trump won by. To dismiss the idea that he wouldn't have flipped his own damn state when he won 47% of hispanics is foolish. That number, by the way, would have easily given him Colorado and maybe New Mexico. With your own concessions, that's 259. I agree he wouldn't have flipped the closer WCW states, but Hillary was a terrible fit for Ohio, so there's that, and his potential youth appeal may narrowly give him Iowa. 283 right there. Not as generous as some would think, but he still wins, and will still be a very strong nominee if ever nominated when he inevitably runs again, especially if it's in 2028 if Trump loses in 2020, or 2032 if he is reelected.

I really don't think you would see a mass exodus of Hispasnic Voters to Rubio just because he's Latino. He publicly flip flipped on amnesty and would be hammered for It by Clinton, safe to say Clinton would run to his left on immigration. Several states were weighing on expanding Obamacare to allow coverage of undocumented immigrants, Rubio wanted to repeal Obamacare, he voted against Santuary cities etc. Also we are assuming that Hispasnic voters are single issue minded, which isn't true.

And no way he flips Colorado with his opposition to legalized marijuana, an industry that has created billions for that state.  
Rubio would still make inroads with all minorities, maybe not by a significant amount, but enough to make a difference.

Also, Colorado is not a single issue state.

Mel Martinez won 60% of the Hispanic vote in FL 2004. Keep in mind that FL has a high percentage of Cubans. In terms of non-Cubans (the key demographic you should use if you want to extrapolate the performance to other states, he basically performed with them by the standard GOP numbers) If you look at the polling Clinton v. Rubio in FL was consistently tight, while Rubio v. Murphy always had him up +7.

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

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

If Rubio was presumptive and tried to ignore the state in the GE and take it for granted, it's not implausible he could lose it.

So what particular issue would he offer attractive to Colorado? He is full-on tea party in terms of economic and social policies, not a degree of moderation in his policies. He is no 'compassionate conservative' (that was Kasich). If you just say 'Guns' and 'but Hillary', well that would apply to any republican, but it wouldn't be a unique argument for rubio.



No Rubio literally is George W Bush 2.0



Bush also proposed eliminating the dividends tax , cutting capital gains more than he did .



On Social Issies Bush was pretty right wing as well



Rubio Immigration plan was basically Dubya’s as well



I would argue Jeb Bush was Bush 2000 , Marco Rubio was Bush 2004

Kasich was George W. Bush 2.0 (maybe Bush 2000 w/ Jeb as Bush '04). Bush never proposed eliminating the capital gains tax. He only wanted to end Dividend Taxes because his plan had Corporate Taxes as being high, Rubio wanted both Corporate Taxes slashed and Dividend Taxes abolished. Bush expanded medicare, Rubio viciously attacked the Governors who expanded Medicare in the race for being 'liberal'. Rubio also attacked Common Core, the same way Bush was attacked by conservatives for No Child Left Behind.

Bush supported Planned Parenthood Funding.

Kasich was McCain 2000


There is a difference between Medicare and Medicaid and more Republicans voted for Medicare Part D than Republicans.


https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00459

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/elec04.medicare/index.html



Only 11 Democrats voted for Medicare Part D , while all but 9 Republicans Voted for it




No Republican in 2016 had a platform representing anything close to Mccain 2000. Mccain advocated for campaign finance reform limits, every republican running in 2016 backed Citizens United.

Mccain in 2000 also ran on no cuts to entitlements. Mccain backed Gun Control efforts after columbine, Mccain backed cap & trade, there are gigantic differences between Kasich's record both as a governor and a congressman vs. Mccain. In contrast to Mccain, Kasich's record is pretty conservative, with a few sparks of moderation here and there on various policies, very similar to George W. Bush. In contrast, neither Rubio/Cruz had any policies representing moderation.


Well but your main charge on Rubio not being George W Bush was Medicare Part D but the fact is significantly more Republicans voted for Medicare Part D than Democrats . For example, Kennedy , Byrd , and Feingold all voted against it while Brownback, Hatch, and Sessions all voted for it.




Even on No Child Left Behind More Democrats Voted against it than Republicans including Wellstone(https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00371) and the Republicans who voted against it were the more Moderate Republicans.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines