Has Trump not run, who would have won the Republican nomination?

[uti2]

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.

A lot of Dems wanted to back the Part D bill, but the Republican senate wouldn't allow a debate on the open floor and blocked amendments such as allowing the importation of drugs from Canada. Reimportation was a heated topic of debate with regards to Medicare Part D.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

A lot of Dems wanted to back the Part D bill, but the Republican senate wouldn't allow a debate on the open floor and blocked amendments such as allowing the importation of drugs from Canada. Reimportation was a heated topic of debate with regards to Medicare Part D.

Im sure Rubio would have voted for Medicare Part D if he was in the Senate at the time as really the only Republicans who voted against it were the moderate ones.


I mean Sam Brownback , and Jeff Sessions voted for it .



Also Rubio also sponsered this bill : https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/rubio-heres-how-to-make-college-affordable/430614/

[uti2]

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.

A lot of Dems wanted to back the Part D bill, but the Republican senate wouldn't allow a debate on the open floor and blocked amendments such as allowing the importation of drugs from Canada. Reimportation was a heated topic of debate with regards to Medicare Part D.

Im sure Rubio would have voted for Medicare Part D if he was in the Senate at the time as really the only Republicans who voted against it were the moderate ones.


I mean Sam Brownback , and Jeff Sessions voted for it .



Also Rubio also sponsered this bill : https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/rubio-heres-how-to-make-college-affordable/430614/

Well, Rubio's talking about market based reforms there, you know very well that's a far cry from Bernie's proposals, for instance.

Let's put this another way, if Kasich were president and pushed a watered down healthcare reform bill, do you think democrats would vote for it, or would conservative republicans be more grudgingly inclined to support it? That's basically the analogue to the Part D voting issue.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

A lot of Dems wanted to back the Part D bill, but the Republican senate wouldn't allow a debate on the open floor and blocked amendments such as allowing the importation of drugs from Canada. Reimportation was a heated topic of debate with regards to Medicare Part D.

Im sure Rubio would have voted for Medicare Part D if he was in the Senate at the time as really the only Republicans who voted against it were the moderate ones.


I mean Sam Brownback , and Jeff Sessions voted for it .



Also Rubio also sponsered this bill : https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/rubio-heres-how-to-make-college-affordable/430614/

Well, Rubio's talking about market based reforms there, you know very well that's a far cry from Bernie's proposals, for instance.

Let's put this another way, if Kasich were president and pushed a watered down healthcare reform bill, do you think democrats would vote for it, or would conservative republicans be more grudgingly inclined to support it? That's basically the analogue to the Part D voting issue.

Well see Immigration is the big difference between Rubio and Cruz Also Rubio isnt as willing to gridlock congress or shut the government down like Cruz is and those things are big. Another major difference is the Establishment really likes Rubio while they hate Cruz.

[uti2]

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.

A lot of Dems wanted to back the Part D bill, but the Republican senate wouldn't allow a debate on the open floor and blocked amendments such as allowing the importation of drugs from Canada. Reimportation was a heated topic of debate with regards to Medicare Part D.

Im sure Rubio would have voted for Medicare Part D if he was in the Senate at the time as really the only Republicans who voted against it were the moderate ones.


I mean Sam Brownback , and Jeff Sessions voted for it .



Also Rubio also sponsered this bill : https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/rubio-heres-how-to-make-college-affordable/430614/

Well, Rubio's talking about market based reforms there, you know very well that's a far cry from Bernie's proposals, for instance.

Let's put this another way, if Kasich were president and pushed a watered down healthcare reform bill, do you think democrats would vote for it, or would conservative republicans be more grudgingly inclined to support it? That's basically the analogue to the Part D voting issue.

Well see Immigration is the big difference between Rubio and Cruz Also Rubio isnt as willing to gridlock congress or shut the government down like Cruz is and those things are big. Another major difference is the Establishment really likes Rubio while they hate Cruz.

Immigration is not a left/right issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3yesvvYEvs

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/7/mitt-romney-warns-against-government-shutdown-defu/

Rubio supported the shutdown, he signed the Mike Lee letter and voted against the Reid–McConnell bill to end the shutdown. Interestingly enough, Walker opposed the shutdown.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Y'all underestimate the degree to which Trump upended the primaries.  I personally think the answer is Scott Walker.  He had all the momentum in the spring and early summer of 2015, but failed to adjust to the curveball that was Trump getting in the race (particularly since he was eyeing a late announcement anyway).  The analogy I would use is a Survivor contestant on track to win the show until a tribe swap messed everything up and they got voted off the next episode.

[dw93]

No Trump means Mr. Ruboto, the Zodiac Killer, or Kind Kasich ends up getting nominated and they may end up getting it through a brokered convention. As for the General, Hillary beats the Zodiac Killer and Hillary Vs. Ruboto is a toss up race. Kind Kasich on the other hand would be favored to win.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

If Trump had not run, dudeablides would still be here, partying like it's 2016.

Jeb Bush would have won the nomination.  And he would have picked Ted Cruz as his running mate.

Would such a ticket have won?  I don't know that a Bush-Cruz ticket would have won WI, MI, and PA.  But I do think they may have pulled off CO and NV, and MAYBE VA and NH.  I also think that MAYBE the Maine CD would have gone for Bush.  Maybe. 

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Bush would have won the nomination, and he would probably have chosen Susana Martinez as his running mate.

[Medal506]

Cruz
Kasich
Rubio

Cruz would have won the nomination

[Gustaf]

I Think it might be a mistake to assume the Winner must have come from the Cruz, Kasich, Rubio trio that remained in the race against Trump. The entire dynamic of the race would have been entirely different and it's hard to tell how that would have played out.

I also suspect a more normal Republican would have beaten Hillary more easily than Trump did.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Hear me out on this, but Scott Walker.

Walker was in a good position in the race (grassroots support, money, growing enthusiasm from the elites) before Trump entered.  Trump entering fundamentally transformed the race, and Walker was caught off guard.  His momentum was stalled and those three things started to dry up.  The analogy I use (and may have used on here a year ago) is a pre-merge tribe swap on Survivor.  Someone can go from being in a great position in the game and a real contender to win to being the next one voted off due to being dealt a tough hand by a twist.  That's exactly what happened to Scott Walker.

EDIT: I see it was actually this thread I made that analogy in a year ago.

[Alabama_Indy10]

I think Rubio.

[morgankingsley]

Cruz is the only correct answer

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Scenario one: Ted Cruz harnesses the rank and file GOP resentment against the establishment, and wins the nomination.

Scenario two: The GOP establishment closes ranks, and Cruz, who actually plays by the rules, is much easier to shut down than Trump, who actively flouts them. Marco Rubio wins.

I can see either one.

[morgankingsley]

Scenario one: Ted Cruz harnesses the rank and file GOP resentment against the establishment, and wins the nomination.

Scenario two: The GOP establishment closes ranks, and Cruz, who actually plays by the rules, is much easier to shut down than Trump, who actively flouts them. Marco Rubio wins.

I can see either one.

I would not mind number 2, since Rubio was a relatively uncontroversial bloke

[Kingpoleon]

Cruz or Carson wins Iowa, Kasich wins New Hampshire, Rubio or Bush wins South Carolina. The race takes off from there, but I’d bet on Kasich. With Jeb and Rubio edging each other out, Cruz and Carson fighting for the non-Florida South and the empty Western interior states, Kasich could easily sweep the Northeast, Midwest, and the Pacific states.

Even if Kasich loses his somewhat iffy states (though I think, without Trump, he has a floor of ~40% in almost all of these states), he’s basically guaranteed a delegate majority from New England+the Pacific Coast+NY+OH+PA+IL+MI+CA. If he can get Sandoval’s early endorsement and win Nevada, he has a huge head start.