Marco Rubio

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Let's have a discussion.

Does anyone else think Rubio's chances of winning the nomination are vastly overrated? He has a weak campaign structure in the early primaries (except Nevada, which no-one cares about). He has an Achilles heel on immigration. He's not as charismatic as he's billed up to be. He's neither the first choice of the establishment or of the insurgents.

If Iowa is Cruz/Trump/Carson 1/2/3 and NH (not a good state for Rubio) is something like Trump/Cruz with Bush/Kasich/Christie (who all like the state) in second or third, where does that leave him? The best performing moderate candidate in the early states will get the establishment backing into Super Tuesday. Does anyone see a path to the nomination for him?

To be honest I think his candidacy is a lot of media hype. Wouldn't be surprised if Jeb ends up as the establishment candidate beating Cruz or something.

[I support Sanders]

I agree, Alex. I would be surprised if Rubio came above 5th place in either Iowa or New Hampshire. Jeb Bush continues to have more money and more endorsements than Rubio, and certainly has more experience and is a better speaker (Rubio is nothing but talking points). I think Jeb Bush has better shot at being the "establishment" alternative to Trump, although John Kasich has a better chance than both. Rubio will probably fade and drop out around February, and endorse Bush, Kasich, or Graham (if he is still in the race), as they all agree on immigration. He may be a good VP contender, but I can't see him beating Trump, Bush, or Kasich in the primaries. His chances are greatly overstated.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I agree. I've been saying for some time that I think Rubio is vastly over-rated. One prepared zinger at an early debate and a huge push in the main-stream media (that he has been unable to translate into even Fiorina-level gains) does not make a nominee.

His advertising so far is weak, his video presence is weak and shaky save when he's regurgitating a previously prepared spiel. Eventually, he's going to face an aggressive interviewer and fall flat on his face.

And that's aside from the fact that he's not running a particularly good campaign. Which is only to be expected - while he may have legislative experience, he lacks executive experience or talent, and it shows.

He appears to be an eager and willing Koch-sucker though, so if a real alternative doesn't emerge, their billions might be able to push him over the top. I wouldn't bet on Rubio though, I think Jeb still has a better chance at the nomination, much less the presidency.

[Maxwell]

#NotReadyForPrimeTime

but neither is Jeb Bush or John Kasich. Jeb Bush came into the race thinking it would be a cakewalk and I believe he had a Ted Kennedy 1980 level flop when he couldn't answer for his Brother's disastrous Iraq invasion. John Kasich has proven to be the least likable candidate in some time for actual Republican voters, and some people here seem to forget that appealing to actual Republican voters is the name of the game, not appealing to beltway Republicans who sneer at actual Republicans while at the same time selling them a bill of goods.

Marco's problem is that he's just not ready yet. His ad shows it, his speaking shows it. He's so nervous, he looks like a baby, and he's getting things wrong left and right lately (Paris Attacks improved my campaign, Gods Laws > Gay Marriage decision). He has more skill than Jeb Bush it seems like (he knows when to give a pre-prepared answer), but not enough to actually win.

Chris Christie is a better candidate than Marco, but the question is if he'll rise right on time or if it'll be just a bit too late.

[Figueira]

I still think he's the most likely nominee, but only because everyone else is so terrible. I think he's certainly overrated as a GE candidate.

[I support Sanders]

I agree. I've been saying for some time that I think Rubio is vastly over-rated. One prepared zinger at an early debate and a huge push in the main-stream media (that he has been unable to translate into even Fiorina-level gains) does not make a nominee.

His advertising so far is weak, his video presence is weak and shaky save when he's regurgitating a previously prepared spiel. Eventually, he's going to face an aggressive interviewer and fall flat on his face.

And that's aside from the fact that he's not running a particularly good campaign. Which is only to be expected - while he may have legislative experience, he lacks executive experience or talent, and it shows.

He appears to be an eager and willing Koch-sucker though, so if a real alternative doesn't emerge, their billions might be able to push him over the top. I wouldn't bet on Rubio though, I think Jeb still has a better chance at the nomination, much less the presidency.

[Likely Voter]

The logic of the betting markets and a lot of conventional wisdom that is saying Rubio will be the nominee is based on two assumptions
1. The eventual nominee will be an "establishment" candidate.
2. Bush is done (and Kasich and Christie are never getting out of the basement).

However, there is a strange irony in the betting markets where Cruz is favored to win IA and SC and Trump is favored to win NH. So the betting says that Rubio will lose three in a row, but somehow go on to win the nomination. In the modern era no GOP candidate has won the nomination without wining IA or NH. Losing three in a row and then winning the nomination seems impossible. I think Rubio needs to find a way to win NH.

[socaldem]

The logic of the betting markets and a lot of conventional wisdom that is saying Rubio will be the nominee is based on two assumptions
1. The eventual nominee will be an "establishment" candidate.
2. Bush is done (and Kasich and Christie are never getting out of the basement).

However, there is a strange irony in the betting markets where Cruz is favored to win IA and SC and Trump is favored to win NH. So the betting says that Rubio will lose three in a row, but somehow go on to win the nomination. In the modern era no GOP candidate has won the nomination without wining IA or NH. Losing three in a row and then winning the nomination seems impossible. I think Rubio needs to find a way to win NH.

I like the way you break this down.

I think assumption 1 is errant.

Assumption 2 is absolutely correct. Bush is toast. The toastiest toast I have ever seen. I'm shocked he hasn't dropped out. He is an inept campaigner. He lacks charisma. He has HUGE baggage. Bush has huge negative ratings. He has 100% name recognition--and voters likely have relatively strong impressions of him. His campaign and surrogates have spent tens of millions promoting the candidate to no avail. He has lost so much support with polls putting him at 5% that he literally has nowhere else to go but up (unless he enters Walker territory).

And he is running against Donald Trump who has shown himself to be perhaps the most aggressive and effective negative campaigner since LBJ. Trump LOVES attacking Bush and his attacks stick.

Perhaps through the ineptness of the Christie/Rubio/Kasich alternatives, he will end up being the de facto establishment choice. Maybe he will rise to 15% in national polls and come in second in New Hampshire. But there is no way he beats the Trump/Cruz juggernaut.

Rubio, by the way, is totally overrated. I'm thinking Christie might get a second-look. With each candidate's weaknesses, I can totally see the establishment continue to be divided.

I absolutely despise Trump and Cruz. But they are both very smart and effective politicians. Trump is a brilliant media tactician. The way he corrals support and is able to use controversy, gaffes, and free media to INCREASE support is just amazing. Cruz, meanwhile, has built an organization that puts all of the other candidates to same. He has very strong conservative bonafides and has positioned himself in Iowa and among pivotal activist voters.

[Mr. Morden]

However, there is a strange irony in the betting markets where Cruz is favored to win IA and SC and Trump is favored to win NH. So the betting says that Rubio will lose three in a row, but somehow go on to win the nomination. In the modern era no GOP candidate has won the nomination without wining IA or NH. Losing three in a row and then winning the nomination seems impossible. I think Rubio needs to find a way to win NH.

To be clear, the betting markets don’t say that Rubio will be the nominee.  They say that he’s the most likely, but that he has a less than 50% chance.  And it’s not like they’re giving him a 0% of winning any of the early states.  So it’s still possible that in a supermajority of the scenarios that the markets contemplate, the nominee is someone who won at least one of the early states.  I don’t think it’s correct to say “the betting says that Rubio will lose three in a row, but somehow go on to win the nomination”.

That said, I’m not sure I buy the idea that anyone losing the first three contests is a super duper longshot at the nomination this time, just because it’s never happened on the Republican side in the modern era.  Keep in mind that every single open GOP contest in the modern era except for 2008 and now 2016 had a reasonably strong establishment frontrunner who was already over 50% likely to win the nomination at this point in the cycle.  This race isn’t like that, so historical parallels only go so far.  It’s not clear to me that, if the early states are all won by “outsider” candidates, that the voters are quickly going to coalesce around those candidates just like they have in past contests when the frontrunner was an “insider” candidate.  There are several reasons why it might not play out like that, such as:

-Trump may be first in the primary polls on voter preference, but also first in “I would definitely not vote for this person” polling.

-He doesn’t stand to benefit as much as others in hypothetical scenarios explored in such polling as this, where Rubio’s “establishment” rivals drop out.

-Speaking of which, Trump could beat Rubio in NH because of a crowded field, but then, in a party elite panic, Bush, Christie, and Kasich exit the race as party elites rally to 2nd place candidate Rubio (or someone else; doesn’t have to be him), and they spend boatloads of $ on negative ads against Trump leading up to Super Tuesday.

-In general, I think part of the momentum towards the leading candidate that you see when said leading candidate scores early primary victories comes about because both the media and party elites decide that it’s over, and signal that to the voters.  But if an “outsider” candidate was the one scoring early victories, this wouldn’t happen.  The party elites wouldn’t just give up, so the momentum is diffused.

-There’s something of “correlation vs. causation” issue here.  Most previous cycles had reasonably strong GOP frontrunners who eventually won the nomination.  And because they were reasonably strong frontrunners, they were invariably strong in either IA or NH (if not both).  But the extent to which winning IA or NH contributed to their victory varies from race to race.  In an alternate reality 1996 race, for example, if Buchanan had won Iowa as well as New Hampshire, he still would have lost the nomination.

etc.  I could go on, but this is already too long. 

[The Mikado]

Rubio might be better off if people cared about Nevada.

The way things have worked out, NH is Rubio's must win and yet he's barely trying. He's in NH today...for the first time since early November. This is the New Hampshire primary. Voters expect to meet the candidates face to face or at least to see them in person. Christie and Kasich basically live in NH. If Rubio wants this he needs to show more effort.

[Gustaf]

I think this discussion easily gets confusing because it ignored the whole Trump thing. Something obviously needs to happen to Trump for another candidate to have a shot. I think this is reasonably likely though. The non-Trump scenario I imagine looks something like this:

1. Trump loses Iowa (probably to Cruz). Since Trump's whole thing is being successful this reflects poorly on him especially to a non-savvy electorate that expected him to win. The media jumps on it.

2. This leads to a decline in his poll numbers that allows someone from the establishment (say Rubio but who knows) to get a strong 2nd place finish say within single digits in New Hampshire. This is spun as more negative momentum for Trump.

3. At this point most other candidates are exiting the race or becoming irrelevant, leading to a consolidation of the anti-Trump vote.

Some version of this is really the only credible path I can see for a Trump loss. I'm unconvinced that after he wins the first 10 primaries a second guy left standing will bounce back or something.

[Mr. Morden]

Rubio might be better off if people cared about Nevada.

People might care about it more once caucus day arrives.  Maybe.  It's hard to predict.

I mean, for the Republicans it's the last contest before Super Tuesday, so the media might play it in a way that sets the narrative for Super Tuesday.  E.g., if Trump/Cruz were to sweep IA/NH/SC, and then Rubio won NV, then there'd be talk of "Is the establishment making a comeback?" as we head into Super Tuesday.  Conversely, if he lost Nevada after having lost the other three as well, then the media would have an easier time writing his political obituary.

[Torie]

How much evidence is there that if Trump fades, Cruz will get the biggest chunk of his support? That seems key as to whether Cruz has a better chance than Rubio. Cruz has shown he can cut in to Carson's evangelical support. But he needs to also cut into Trump's support more than Rubio does, to have a path to the nomination. If Trump does not fade, and Cruz remains unacceptable to the establishment, then it does seem possible to me, that we may be headed into a brokered convention.

[Maxwell]

How much evidence is there that if Trump fades, Cruz will get the biggest chunk of his support? That seems key as to whether Cruz has a better chance than Rubio. Cruz has shown he can cut in to Carson's evangelical support. But he needs to also cut into Trump's support more than Rubio does, to have a path to the nomination. If Trump does not fade, and Cruz remains unacceptable to the establishment, then it does seem possible to me, that we may be headed into a brokered convention.

I'm trying to find the link, but a poll without both Trump and Carson gone had Cruz leading the race 27-15.

[DS0816]

Let's have a discussion.

Sure.

Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio is an incompetent dolt.

He won't be president of the United States.

[Torie]

How much evidence is there that if Trump fades, Cruz will get the biggest chunk of his support? That seems key as to whether Cruz has a better chance than Rubio. Cruz has shown he can cut in to Carson's evangelical support. But he needs to also cut into Trump's support more than Rubio does, to have a path to the nomination. If Trump does not fade, and Cruz remains unacceptable to the establishment, then it does seem possible to me, that we may be headed into a brokered convention.

I'm trying to find the link, but a poll without both Trump and Carson gone had Cruz leading the race 27-15.

Here it is. It's question number 13. One thing to ponder is whether Carly Fiorina's 12% chunk is viewed as "establishment" support of not. Her support from an SES demographic standpoint tends to be pretty upscale, as I recall.

[Eomer]

People might care about it more once caucus day arrives.  Maybe.  It's hard to predict.

I mean, for the Republicans it's the last contest before Super Tuesday.

Isn't Wyoming the last contest before Super Tuesday?

[RI]

In the modern era no GOP candidate has won the nomination without wining IA or NH. Losing three in a row and then winning the nomination seems impossible. I think Rubio needs to find a way to win NH.

Clinton lost the first four contests and ten of the first eleven states in 1992. It can be done; it's just really difficult.

People might care about it more once caucus day arrives.  Maybe.  It's hard to predict.

I mean, for the Republicans it's the last contest before Super Tuesday.

Isn't Wyoming the last contest before Super Tuesday?

FHQ lists Wyoming as a Super Tuesday state.

[The Other Castro]

I think this discussion easily gets confusing because it ignored the whole Trump thing. Something obviously needs to happen to Trump for another candidate to have a shot. I think this is reasonably likely though. The non-Trump scenario I imagine looks something like this:

1. Trump loses Iowa (probably to Cruz). Since Trump's whole thing is being successful this reflects poorly on him especially to a non-savvy electorate that expected him to win. The media jumps on it.

2. This leads to a decline in his poll numbers that allows someone from the establishment (say Rubio but who knows) to get a strong 2nd place finish say within single digits in New Hampshire. This is spun as more negative momentum for Trump.

3. At this point most other candidates are exiting the race or becoming irrelevant, leading to a consolidation of the anti-Trump vote.

Some version of this is really the only credible path I can see for a Trump loss. I'm unconvinced that after he wins the first 10 primaries a second guy left standing will bounce back or something.

Interestingly, it may actually be better for Cruz to come in a close second in Iowa instead of a close victory over Trump. Trump losing in Iowa provides a more plausible path for Rubio and therefore a murkier path for Cruz, as you described. However, Trump barely winning in Iowa means he'll probably win New Hampshire and Cruz will probably win South Carolina, setting up Cruz's clearest path to victory in which the establishment concedes on Rubio and backs Cruz to prevent Trump.

[Xing]

He's only now being considered this unstoppable force, since Bush, Christie, Kasich, Paul, and Walker (the other formerly "unstoppable" establishment Republicans) have all flopped, in one way or another. If Rubio makes some enormous misstep, people will probably start saying that another candidate is flawless, and has a 99.9% chance of beating Clinton.

[Holmes]

I'm really annoyed at the narrative that Rubio has to and will be the nominee, considering it's mostly all coming from people who aren't really paying attention or are in denial. They never even give a reason why or how he'll even end up winning.

Step 1. Rubio is the only acceptable Republican who can win the nomination and the only one who can win the general.
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Rubio wins the Republican nomination.

[Mehmentum]

Looks like Atlas is getting off the Rubio hype train, excellent!

[Torie]

Looks like Atlas is getting off the Rubio hype train, excellent!

How many purported Trump/Carson/Cruz supporters here really don't want Hillary to be POTUS? I would posit you could count them all on one hand myself. It is flattering however that so many red and socialist avatars take such an intense interest in Pub primaries, however.

[Maxwell]

Looks like Atlas is getting off the Rubio hype train, excellent!

How many purported Trump/Carson/Cruz supporters here really don't want Hillary to be POTUS? I would posit you could count them all on one hand myself. It is flattering however that so many red and socialist avatars take such an intense interest in Pub primaries, however.

Red-New York

complaining about red's taking an interest in Pub primaries.

yawn.

[Torie]

Looks like Atlas is getting off the Rubio hype train, excellent!

How many purported Trump/Carson/Cruz supporters here really don't want Hillary to be POTUS? I would posit you could count them all on one hand myself. It is flattering however that so many red and socialist avatars take such an intense interest in Pub primaries, however.

Red-New York

complaining about red's taking an interest in Pub primaries.

yawn.

I'm not one of those disingenuously hawking one or more of the terrible troika however.