FiveThirtyEight: Rubio first real candidate to enter, Cruz/Paul not serious

[Marokai Backbeat]

I remember Lief, in particular, being sick of 538 before the 2014 elections, dude.

[bedstuy]

Respect for 538 and Nate Silver should not be based on their analysis or some magical ability to predict the future using statistics.  538 just popularized a better way to contextualize and present polling data.

That shouldn't translate to any type of statistical analysis they try, because they depend on the accuracy of the underlying statistics.  In this case, it's pretty much subjective how conservative someone is and ideology is not as simple as a point of a left-right scale.  So, this article is worthless. 

[RI]

I agree with them in this case. I can envision a scenario where Rubio wins the nomination, but there is no world where either Cruz or Paul win. They may have higher floors than Rubio but they have much, much lower ceilings.

[Bull Moose Base]

Unlike Paul or Rubio, the bloc Cruz appeals to is largely the same one Perry and Cain did when they surged to big polling leads 4 years ago. Their losing last time doesn't necessarily mean Cruz will too; he's not vulnerable in the same way they were. His bigger problem is the stronger Walker appeals to the same group.

Right now, the consensus is Bush and Walker are in the top tier by themselves. In the unlikely event Bush fumbles support, Rubio would still have to compete with Walker, the other top-tier candidate, for it.
The more likely scenario is Walker becoming a sole dominant frontrunner. In the more likely event Walker stumbles, a lot of his support remains out of reach for the other top-tier candidate and it's Cruz competing against others who are less conservative than he is.

[Averroës Nix]

Jonathan Bernstein wrote just yesterday that "no one similar to [Cruz or Paul] has ever come close to a nomination in the modern era." I haven't seen an argument that credibly demonstrates that either of them is a plausible nominee.

[Bull Moose Base]

538 isn't wrong. Jonathan Bernstein wrote just yesterday that "no one similar to [Cruz or Paul] has ever come close to a nomination in the modern era."

Paul and Cruz have major differences and where they do, Cruz's views are almost uniformly the more popular among Republicans.

And I don't know how he defines "close to a nomination". Perry had a double-digit national polling lead until his being too liberal on immigration was exposed (not a problem for Cruz) and then "oops" (a gaffe that actually feels less likely to happen to Cruz than to his biggest obstacle to the nomination, Walker). Cain also had similar appeal and a big polling lead until his extramarital affair came out. Not relevant for Cruz. I'd argue Gingrich did come close to the nomination. He won South Carolina and had a comfortable lead in Florida until Romney destroyed him on his ethics problems, which again, doesn't have any relevance for Cruz.

I wouldn't call him top-tier because Walker, who the establishment doesn't mind, is stronger. But past precedent doesn't justify dismissing him. And he's clearly a different animal than Paul.

[Torie]

Paul and Cruz are definitely serious. Enough said.

The Pub establishment will not tolerate either as the nominee, and will make that clear, if need be, threatening to zip up their wallets. The thing with Cruz is that he would be an electoral disaster, and with Paul he would split the party in two, and has foreign policy positions that the Pub establishment will not tolerate (even if he moderates them, as he is currently doing). So both candidates are long shots, in my view, as Nate Silver said. Bush, Rubio and Walker are the candidates in play (maybe Kasich if he gets in), and that's it. One might not like it, but that is the way it is. Wait, and you shall see.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Sheesh, Rubio isn't even the first Cuban candidate to enter the race.

Rubio is the dictionary definition of a light-weight... he has no real natural base and no niche within the race to fill.

The Weekly Standard needs a candidate to support.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marco-rubio-announcement-2016/

The media and pundits are going to look really dumb if Rubio fizzles out.

This is just repeating the obvious: unlike Cruz and Paul, Rubio doesn't start the race already inside the clown car. They're not saying that he's going to win, just that he is a serious candidate, something that isn't true of Rand or Cruz, no matter what their supporters think.

They do miss one point though, he's on the outs with the roots of the tea party:
http://www.teaparty.org/tea-party-conservatives-turn-marco-rubio-blast-sellout-immigration-94065/

[Ebsy]

I define serious as winning primaries and delegates and not dropping out until someone clinches the nomination.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Are we forgetting that Paul jumped on the anti-vaccine bandwagon? That's far crazier than anything Cruz has done.

Rubio has a tough road right now, but it becomes much easier if Bush fizzles out. He's the candidate whose fortunes are sinking the fastest, to the point where I'm not even sure he runs anymore.

[Samantha]

538 is right, but the GOP primary voters are capable of nominating a clown.

[Maxwell]

Marco Rubio's voting record is practically identical to Cruz's. He just happens to be a nice photogenic young man who is *RED ALERT NOISES* hispanic and actually looks kind of hispanic.

Moderate Marco Rubio is a completely false notion.

[IceSpear]

This has been a mainstream media talking point for the past couple of days now, and its quite tiring. Everybody treats Marco Rubio as if he's the real deal, even though he does worse than Paul and Cruz in all the polls. Rubio is more of the same for conservative politics, whereas Paul and Cruz are drastically different and would make changes. People don't seem to like change, so they brush them off as joke candidates.

I feel like it may become a self fulfilling prophecy though. Like, a lot of random Republican primary voters thinking: "Hmm, what about Rubio? That guy that every media outlet in the country spams is a top tier contender and a great candidate? Sure, I guess I'll support him."

[King]

Clinton won in 1992 by looking kind of Hispanic? News to me.

[Angel of Death]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marco-rubio-announcement-2016/

The media and pundits are going to look really dumb if Rubio fizzles out.

This is dubious reasoning, because Rubio could simply be overshadowed ("dominated" in game theory jargon) by someone who is an even better fit, e.g. Walker, and it wouldn't "falsify" this article.

[Maxwell]

Clinton won in 1992 by looking kind of Hispanic? News to me.

Look at the words in bold, dude. I meant that he was charismatic.

He's too nervous to be charismatic.

[Mr. Morden]

Rubio is more of the same for conservative politics, whereas Paul and Cruz are drastically different and would make changes.

That's exactly why party actors are more likely to rally around Rubio than Cruz or Paul.

[Mr. Morden]

I define serious as winning primaries and delegates and not dropping out until someone clinches the nomination.

I don't.  I would define serious as "has a serious chance at the nomination if he catches the right breaks".  Pat Buchanan won primaries and delegates in 1996, and stayed in the race until the convention.  But he never had any serious chance at the nomination, because the party elite was determined to rally to stop him, as he was not in sync with them.  Phil Gramm was more of a serious contender that year, even though he dropped out after Iowa and didn't get any delegates, because Gramm was one of the people who at least had a chance of picking up support from the "mainstream" of the party if Dole had imploded.

[SWE]

If Paul and Cruz aren't serious, then it's hard to see how Rubio would be any different

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Rubio is a serious candidate for the Vice Presidency.

Yes, this too. Rubio would be a fine VP candidate.

Hmmm Walker/Rubio?