What would be the main factors affecting the outcome of a Clinton vs. Rubio election?

Well, Bernie Sanders certainly doesn’t agree that the economy is good. Worker stagnation, 9.9% unemployment by his calculation, an increase in wealth inequality, slow economic growth, etc.

What it comes down to, most likely, is whatever happens in the world and at home in the next 8 months. There are a lot of experts warning of another financial crisis about to hit. Citibank just issued a global recession warning. Personal and public debt is back to levels seen before the 2008 crash, and the economy is growing sluggishly.

Worse, if another recession hits, the government is going to be out of options. Interest rates have little room to move, QE has just about run its course, etc. So things could be significantly worse economically by the time the election hits.

Another wildcard is what’s going on in the world. Another major terrorist attack or another aggressive move by Russia or China could suddenly turn this into a foreign policy election. If the immigration situation in Europe causes more dramatic problems, it could become a ‘nativist’ election favoring people like Trump or Cruz.

Remember 2008? The financial crisis changed the entire tone of the election. McCain was doing quite well until he decided to suspend his campaign to run back to Washington to ‘manage the problem’. He was widely derided for that, and his campaign never recovered.

So it’s still early days. I still think it’s possible that the Democratic candidate will be neither Hillary or Bernie, but someone like Elizabeth Warren or Biden/Warren. I also think this is a year in which we could easily see the rise of a third party on either the left or the right. If Trump is the nominee, the Republican convention will be very heated. If Hillary beats Bernie and then gets indicted, it would throw the nomination to the convention.

Overall, I’d say this year has the most potential for volatility as any election I can remember. So any predictions at this point need to have a big asterisk beside them.

We are talking here about Rubio as the Republican candidate and Clinton as the Democratic one. Trump or Cruz would be history by then. In that case I do think that the experience of Clinton will be one big factor in her favor as compared to Rubio.

Huh. I thought the black vote percentage was lower before Obama. Thanks for the facts.

Looking at this Washington Post article, it shows that in exit polling in 2004, the black vote went 88/11 for Kerry, but in 2012 it went 93/6 for Obama. So Obama definitely benefited from a higher black vote percentage. And more importantly, he also increased black voter turnout. In 2004 61.4% of black voters turned out at the polls. In 2008 it was 69.1%. So almost 8% more blacks voted, and the percentage of them that voted for the Democrat also increased.

So what do the Democrats lose if the black vote goes back to historical levels? After all, the two current candidates on the Democratic side are not really talking about black issues very much. They are two old, white WASPS pushing a lot of progressive issues that do not resonate with the black community. Gay marriage? Free college? Open immigration? The War on Women? These are white middle class and upper class issues. I think it might be hard to get a poor black person from Compton worried too much about free birth control or campus activism. Black Lives Matter has not shown a lot of fondness for either Bernie or Hillary.

She will definitely campaign on that, and I agree that it’s a good issue for her. Much would depend on whether Rubio can come across as competent and project a bit of gravitas. The narrative will certainly be that he’s too young and inexperienced, so if he does anything to feed that, it’s going to be trouble for him.

The Republican counter to Clinton claiming experience will be to argue that her record is terrible. She didn’t exactly cover herself in glory at the State Department. The right will trot out the Russian ‘reset’ button, the Libya fiasco (not Benghazi, but the whole project of overthrowing Khadafi), etc. If Rubio’s the nominee that will be defused somewhat, because as I recall he was a big supporter of overthrowing Khadafi.

Sanders is a WASP? Your “outsider” perspective of our election continues to entertain…

Oh, sorry. Of course he’s not a protestant. But he IS an old white guy from Vermont. Not exactly your prime candidate for winning over the hearts and minds of the black community.

And if Trump isn’t the nominee, he goes rogue. Kind of a pickle for the GOP.

So his boots had high heels.

Wouldn’t it be funny if one part of one of the R- debates coming up had each of the candidates walk out on stage in high heels with a book on their head… and they had to make it to their podium w/o dropping the book in order to have their microphone turned on? :stuck_out_tongue:
I picture Christie in tears up at the judges podium… one leg up on their table… because his heel was broken and he wanted a “do-over”…

Bonus Points: They hold up placards after: “395, 396, 395, 396, 396, 390… oh, the crowd didn’t like that one.” “The West Virginia judge always seems to score low…”

“No, Mr Trump… a swim-suit portion is just plain OUT. This isn’t a Beauty Bageant, this is a Scholarly Program…”

Yup. Trump was a gift to the Democrats. He also sucked up all the oxygen when some of the more serious candidates were in the race, causing them to burn through their campaign money without being able to get enough traction to raise more. So goodbye Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, and others.

I think that there are very few Sanders supporters who hate Hillary. When she wins the nomination, most of them will fall in line.

I’m not so sure the same can be said for Republicans if Rubio wins. The Republican party appears to me so splintered that Rubio would lose a substantial portion of Cruz supporters if he won, and vice versa. The general mood in both parties is anti-establishment, but I think that Democrats have a clearer view of just what “establishment” means. My impression from looking at right-wing news sources is that much of their base is too swayed by cockamamie conspiracy theories and a true belief that the country is being totally ruined by anybody who doesn’t agree with them that a lot of them really might only be willing to support “their” candidate.

The only voters who would be swayed by news of Clinton “scandals” have already made up their minds. Unless something new and huge comes out, her past will not affect her in the general election.

One thing I find interesting about the prospect of a Clinton vs. Rubio race: Rubio supporters point to the fact that Obama didn’t have any accomplishments to point to when he was elected as evidence that Rubio is electable too. However there are two major differences between 2016 and 2008. One is that the economy was terrible, making things ripe for regime change. The other, possibly even bigger factor was that McCain didn’t have nearly the name recognition that Clinton enjoys now. Even people who don’t like her feel a sense of inevitability about her.

Personally I was hardcore for Sanders until the last debate when he messed up the foreign policy questions, and Clinton came across as more human and engaging than I’ve seen her.

I predict Clinton by a healthy margin, if not a landslide.

I think there are a ton of us who don’t like her, but I agree we’ll bite the bullet and vote for her over any of the Republican candidates.

All true IMO.

The challenge for both parties, but the D in particular, is getting their disillusioned partisans to actually vote after a more mainstream candidate gets the nomination. This is doubly true for their first-time partisans who just woke to politics and are fired up over Sanders or Trump or …

Substantially zero Sanders supporters will vote for any R in preference to Hillary. But if they don’t vote at all the outcome is almost as bad for her.

The Rs face the same problem, but they have a much more effective media cheering section in Fox et al, and as a group have a mindset that’s more prone to following the orders coming out of the box which tell them to vote.

And why would an old blonde WASP from Illinois appeal to them more? (The possibility that Trump or Cruz or Rubio could appeal to them more does not, of course, merit discussion.)

Ha, it’s funny that this is the exact opposite of how I perceive the likelihood of each party supporting their more establishment candidate, though I’m aware that many people agree with you. But I really feel that Sanders supporters will still be highly motivated to get out and vote for Hillary, while Cruz’s evangelical supporters will stay home if Rubio wins, or Republican moderates will stay home if Cruz or Trump wins, etc.

In the meantime I think independents are much more likely to vote for Hillary. Despite what the Republicans would have us believe, there really is not nearly as much hate and distrust for her among the general populace as there is among Republicans.

Ultimately I think the Republicans are already on track for the same shock they got in 2012, when they were so ensconced in their Fox bubble that they were convinced the rest of America hated Obama as much as they do. The economy isn’t great but I don’t think most people blame Obama for it. We’ve got a good shot at 16 straight years of Democratic presidency.

After watching Rubio’s debate performance tonight, one thing is for sure: Clinton will make mincemeat out of him in a debate. The guy has no record to stand on and he keeps repeating the same canned responses over and over.

Um, and Clinton doesn’t? Rubio would actually be more exposed against Sanders. Christie’s attacks on Rubio won’t come off as well made by Clinton. Christie is one of the few pols who can speak totally off the cuff and sound like he knows what he’s talking about. Clinton probably could, but she doesn’t. She’s one of those weird candidates who is canned and rehearsed to death even though she doesn’t need to be, but she’s just so darn cautious because she’s always afraid of saying something damaging.

I’d also note that Clinton utterly failed to expose Obama’s lack of accomplishments in office and was very reluctant to even engage the inexperience issue. Then when she did(3am phone call), it arguably did her more harm than good.

Rubio is a lot like Obama in terms of resume and what makes him attractive to voters(good looking, young, good speaker, represents change). I’d imagine Clinton will probably approach Rubio much as she approached Obama, with some tweaks to get her from the 49% she won to the 51% she needs. She probably won’t go back to lines of attack that burned her last time.

Every time I see that I think he’s talking about the hotel - not the man.

No–Bush got 11% of the black vote in 2004 (2004 exit polling) and 9% in 2000. (2000 Exit Polling)

While the difference between ~10% and 5% may not seem like much, in swing states like Virginia or Ohio with with 15-20% of the electorate being black it can be all the difference. Now of course 30% isn’t in the realm of possibility unless you had a true electoral collapse due to some extreme scandal.

If I may take a moment to clarify, this post was meant to satirize Qin Shi Huangdi’s ridiculous and unfounded claim that Rubio is a closeted homosexual.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that if he is…I’d still vote for him.