I’m basically inclined to give Nate Cohn credit for examining the hype around Marco Rubio, but I still feel like he didn’t go far enough in his quest to burst these bubbles. Let me give a couple of examples.
Cohn comes out of the box by noting that Rubio has been repeatedly called the “best communicator” in the Republican Party. Why, then, does gonorrhea basically poll better than Rubio among likely Republican primary voters? For, Cohn, the explanation is that Rubio is positioned all wrong on the issues.
Could be.
But maybe he actually isn’t a good communicator or a “polished” politician. Maybe people are just saying that he is because they heard someone else say it. When he had a chance to respond to the State of the Union speech, he pulled a Bobby Jindal. Does anyone remember his speech at the 2012 Republican National Convention the way that they remembered the speech Barack Obama gave at the 2004 Democratic National Convention? Does anyone remember any speech or public appearance that Rubio has ever made in a positive light?
Here’s another example.
Cohn notes that Rubio’s support with the Republican base collapsed when he became associated with the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform bill and the support has never come back. This is the central fact about both Marco Rubio and the Republican base. If Ben Carson starts pushing reparations for slavery, his support will also collapse and never come back.
Why, then, do we need to look for other reasons for Rubio’s lack of support? Why are we wondering whether Jeb is sucking up all Rubio’s campaign cash when we know that the problem is that the Republican base only supports minority candidates who bash minorities, not ones who try to get “amnesty” for millions of “illegal aliens”?
All we need to do is compare Rubio to another Cuban-American senator to see the problem here. Sen. Ted Cruz wanted to shut down the government to force the president to deport every possible Latino. This is how a Republican minority is supposed to act. Seems to me like Cruz is the better communicator.
Who will raise more money and get more delegates?
I don’t enjoy harping on this stuff, but you can’t do analysis of American politics if you don’t first understand the Republican Party as xenophobic and obsessed with racial purity.
Can you explain to me why in the WORLD Nate Silver, I guy I used to think was pretty smart, thinks that Rubio has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the nomination? I don’t know what happened to him in the years after 2008 where he had a ground up view that overlapped with his grasp of numbers and polls.
Now when I read his stuff I feel that he’s just another Slate wannabe, as opposed to Vox which seems to not start from a contrived premise and work backward.
Nothing against Nate, but I haven’t been reading anything he’s written lately, so I can’t offer an opinion.
Now when I read his stuff I feel that he’s just another Slate wannabe, as opposed to Vox which seems to not start from a contrived premise and work backward.
Vox publishes a lot of garbage too. Maybe you just don’t read enough of their site.
I’m simply comparing the two, and for me it isn’t always about whether there is any garbage or no garbage it is about the intent of the site and whether they generally put out good quality work of phone it in.
Vox, and I have read a great many of their articles, is much more the former than the latter.
Nate’s a baseball stats guy. He doesn’t have a nose for politics. What passes for politics in the media is so godawful that Nate gets credit for predicting that Obama will wipe the floor with Mitt.
They just keep coming.
Boston Globe Former Gov. Deval Patrick to join Bain Capital
The continuing illusions that capitalism is the solution to social problems.
Ironic when you consider that socialism arguably is the solution to capitalism.
WFLAGene:
Dartmouth Business Journal: U.S. Sugar Protectionism
Marco has been the Sugar Daddys man in the Senate. Demonstrating that his anti-regulation/libertarian speech is just more fake rhetoric.
Another historical and political tidbit about one of the Fanjuls:
Jose “Pepe” appears to be the Republican Fanjul. Plenty more that a big donors to Democrats.
Fanjul loves him some DWS too. Maybe not as much as Rubio but Pepe likes her nonetheless.
Checked out the 2008 election cycle and DWS was the only Democrat that Pepe donated to.
Other Fanjuls threw some money to Republicans and the RNC, but the bulk of their donations went to a laundry list of Democratic Senators, FL House Reps, Pelosi, and the DNC. Maxxed out to Clinton and Obama, but I neglected to note if both were supported early or they shifted from Clinton to Obama when he was close to or won the nomination.
Oh yeah,
just love the Cubo-splaining to Latinos about immigration.
Hey Marco, how about we give ALL immigrants the SAME DEAL that the CUBANS get?
Generally Cubans aren’t exactly well liked among Puerto Ricans and other Latinos either.
Could you disclose to me why in the WORLD Nate Silver, I fellow I used to believe was really savvy, conceives that Rubio has a snowball’s chance in damnation of winning the selection? I don’t comprehend what transpired in the years after 2008 where he had a ground up perspective that covered with his grip of numbers and surveys.
Presently when I read his stuff I feel that he’s only one more Slate wannabe, rather than Vox which appears to not begin from a thought up reason and work in reverse.rcb
vs csk