Why Marco Rubio would have crushed Hillary Clinton

[libertybele]

My opinion:

Cruz, Rubio, or Rand Paul would have beaten Clinton.
I tend to think the 3 junior senators tended to cancelled each other out a bit in the beginning.
Cruz came out the strongest of the 3, in the primaries.
I think Rubio had the most baggage of the 3, but not near as much as Trump or Clinton have.

Guess we will never know now.

Rubio sunk his ship with the Gang of 8 and sold his soul to the establishment, though I do believe without a doubt he would have crushed Clinton.  Cruz, Rubio, Walker or Paul would have beaten her.  That is where Trump was called into play.  Clinton knew she would be facing young, articulate and very challenging opponents who (except for Rubio) had been known to buck the establishment and were seen as a breath of fresh air to the electorate.  They had to be stopped. Trump did his job. He sold the electorate a bill of goods that he was an outsider and tapped into their fears and angers; he pressed their hot buttons with issues and was able to market the Trump brand.

[GrouchoTex]

Rubio sunk his ship with the Gang of 8 and sold his soul to the establishment, though I do believe without a doubt he would have crushed Clinton.  Cruz, Rubio, Walker or Paul would have beaten her.  That is where Trump was called into play.  Clinton knew she would be facing young, articulate and very challenging opponents who (except for Rubio) had been known to buck the establishment and were seen as a breath of fresh air to the electorate.  They had to be stopped. Trump did his job. He sold the electorate a bill of goods that he was an outsider and tapped into their fears and angers; he pressed their hot buttons with issues and was able to market the Trump brand.

I agree.

[TomSea]

Unfortunate that Rubio did not win the nomination and he probably would be leading. But Rubio has ended up supporting Trump as well.

Rubio is currently winning Florida by double-digits for his reelection.

[libertybele]

Unfortunate that Rubio did not win the nomination and he probably would be leading. But Rubio has ended up supporting Trump as well.

Rubio is currently winning Florida by double-digits for his reelection.

He may get the re-election, but I'm not so sure he won't lose his seat to the DEMS.

[r9etb]

I was saying that he would have been our best candidate for the general election back at the beginning of this race... for precisely these reasons.

While Rubio would be far better than Trump, I think he'd be crashing and burning now, much as he did during the primaries.  The Democrats would have painted Rubio as a callow and inexperienced pretty boy, just as Trump did, and it would pretty much stick.  Rubio never did figure out how to be "Big" in the way that a successful candidate needs to be.

This whole mess points out one of the really serious problems of the existing primary system, as well as the ridiculous "debate" farce.  The current system rewards unseriousness.  A solid, responsible, statesmanlike candidate simply cannot get traction when the media coverage is focused on who did the best job of insulting everybody else.  There's no vehicle for deeper discussion and debate of serious issues: it's all about the sound bites.

Trump's one big advantage in this campaign is that he understood the underlying rules, and knew how to exploit them.  How can a Cruz, Rubio, or Walker -- serious men, even if flawed candidates -- compete against a guy who takes nothing seriously, in a system that is itself not serious?

[HonestJohn]

Except ... he LOST the primary in his own state.  The "Look at Me" I'm Hispanic didn't fly.  He concentrated his efforts in the Miami/Dade area which is one of the few areas that he won in and it is also very heavily populated with Latinos. Right now his Senate seat is up for grabs; two very strong conservatives jumped out of the race in order to help him retain the Senate while they retain their House seats. Rubio has more name recognition and they are hoping that will suffice and secondly,  IMHO, that move indicates to me that the House is not secure from a DEM takeover.  Because of those moves, Marco's GOP challengers are less than desirable, so he may become the nominee, but I'm very doubtful at this point he is going to be victorious over his DEM challenger.  We could very well see FL turn blue in the Senate and in a few years we may see a DEM governor.  Our current governor only won slightly by 1% and he has openly supported Trump; that doesn't bode well for the next GOP candidate for governor.

You are conflating GOP primary voters and general election voters.  They are not the same.  After nearly a generation of GOP hatred against Hispanics, most aren't registered as Republican, being either independent or Democrat.

Furthermore, there is the pool of people who just vote in November.

All those vote differently that the GOP primary voter.  (Which is why Trump won the primary and the now cratering in the general)

[HonestJohn]

While Rubio would be far better than Trump, I think he'd be crashing and burning now, much as he did during the primaries.  The Democrats would have painted Rubio as a callow and inexperienced pretty boy, just as Trump did, and it would pretty much stick.  Rubio never did figure out how to be "Big" in the way that a successful candidate needs to be.

This whole mess points out one of the really serious problems of the existing primary system, as well as the ridiculous "debate" farce.  The current system rewards unseriousness.  A solid, responsible, statesmanlike candidate simply cannot get traction when the media coverage is focused on who did the best job of insulting everybody else.  There's no vehicle for deeper discussion and debate of serious issues: it's all about the sound bites.

Trump's one big advantage in this campaign is that he understood the underlying rules, and knew how to exploit them.  How can a Cruz, Rubio, or Walker -- serious men, even if flawed candidates -- compete against a guy who takes nothing seriously, in a system that is itself not serious?

The thing is, Rubio already had (and used) a perfect response for it.

Inexperienced?  You mean, like Obama?  And don't we need a breathe of fresh air, a new generation with new ideas, to fix the problems that have piled up?

[r9etb]

(Which is why Trump won the primary and the now cratering in the general)

It doesn't mean that Rubio wouldn't also be cratering; I think he would, but far less spectacularly, and for different reasons (think Dan Quayle).

[r9etb]

The thing is, Rubio already had (and used) a perfect response for it.

Inexperienced?  You mean, like Obama?  And don't we need a breathe of fresh air, a new generation with new ideas, to fix the problems that have piled up?

Hell, that wouldn't even convince me, and I'd readily vote for him over Hillary.