Will Rubio's "let's dispel with this fiction" gaffe become his "Oops" moment?

[Maxwell]

The gaffe is less the words (though even they are Republican conspiracy theory gibberish about him being a Marxist communist muslim) and more that Rubio repeated them when challenged on being a stiff, scripted candidate.

[Clark Kent]

What makes this a gaffe?

It's not what he said, it's that he repeated it three or four times within a few minutes and got called out on it.

[Mehmentum]

What makes this a gaffe?

Agreed, in this electorate it seems like reversing Hanlon's Razor gets further than obeying it...this seems especially true with the Republican base.

No, I'm actually in the dark about this. I watched the debate, heard the "Obama bad on purpose" vs. "Obama bad by accident" argument, thought nothing about it at the time or since, and then came here like an hour ago, and there are all sorts of comments about how Rubio said this thing which is going to ruin his campaign. What is the argument that this is a gaffe? That he gave Obama credit for not being clueless, even if it was still a form of criticism?

Rubio made the 'Obama is bad on purpose' argument.  Christie attacked it as a 25 second speech, a recited talking point.

Rubio responded to Christie's attack of only being capable of reciting talking points in literally the worst possible way, by repeating his little speech again, verbatim.  Christie's like 'See, right there.  That's the 25 second speech!' but Rubio just keeps on going.  He tries the speech for a third time, the crowd is booing him at this point.

Then, later on in the debate, Rubio tries his little speech again, and he's booed again.

Here's the entire thing in its full glory.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Ah. I didn't even notice, but then again I usually don't take censuses of the expected rehearsed talking points of politicians. (Although I do know which 2 people Carly Fiorina would call on her first day in office, because I have heard that scripted delivery like half a dozen times.)

[Mr. Smith]

What makes this a gaffe?

Agreed, in this electorate it seems like reversing Hanlon's Razor gets further than obeying it...this seems especially true with the Republican base.

No, I'm actually in the dark about this. I watched the debate, heard the "Obama bad on purpose" vs. "Obama bad by accident" argument, thought nothing about it at the time or since, and then came here like an hour ago, and there are all sorts of comments about how Rubio said this thing which is going to ruin his campaign. What is the argument that this is a gaffe? That he gave Obama credit for not being clueless, even if it was still a form of criticism?

Rubio made the 'Obama is bad on purpose' argument.  Christie attacked it as a 25 second speech, a recited talking point.

Rubio responded to Christie's attack of only being capable of reciting talking points in literally the worst possible way, by repeating his little speech again, verbatim.  Christie's like 'See, right there.  That's the 25 second speech!' but Rubio just keeps on going.  He tries the speech for a third time, the crowd is booing him at this point.

Then, later on in the debate, Rubio tries his little speech again, and he's booed again.

Here's the entire thing in its full glory.

I didn't think much of it then. Rubio's other parts nulled me of sensation when it came to gaffe-sensing.

It is ironic coming from Christie of all people, given his prior performances.

[Mike Thick]

What makes this a gaffe?

Agreed, in this electorate it seems like reversing Hanlon's Razor gets further than obeying it...this seems especially true with the Republican base.

No, I'm actually in the dark about this. I watched the debate, heard the "Obama bad on purpose" vs. "Obama bad by accident" argument, thought nothing about it at the time or since, and then came here like an hour ago, and there are all sorts of comments about how Rubio said this thing which is going to ruin his campaign. What is the argument that this is a gaffe? That he gave Obama credit for not being clueless, even if it was still a form of criticism?

Rubio made the 'Obama is bad on purpose' argument.  Christie attacked it as a 25 second speech, a recited talking point.

Rubio responded to Christie's attack of only being capable of reciting talking points in literally the worst possible way, by repeating his little speech again, verbatim.  Christie's like 'See, right there.  That's the 25 second speech!' but Rubio just keeps on going.  He tries the speech for a third time, the crowd is booing him at this point.

Then, later on in the debate, Rubio tries his little speech again, and he's booed again.

Here's the entire thing in its full glory.

I didn't think much of it then. Rubio's other parts nulled me of sensation when it came to gaffe-sensing.

I'd noted that Rubio seemed canned in each past debate, but I saw that this time it was exponentially worse. You couldn't watch Rubio for the rest of the debate without thinking he had rehearsed each line, and I suspect that will be true for every occasion people see him for a very long time.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

It was bad, but not that bad.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

No, it doesn't come close to the embarrassment of the "Oops" moment. This looks bad to people who are at least moderately politically involved. "Oops" looked terrible to everyone.

It's a real momentum-killer.  It's a fumble on an open-field run to daylight.  Running backs get benched for such fumbles all the time.

[Mike Thick]

No, it doesn't come close to the embarrassment of the "Oops" moment. This looks bad to people who are at least moderately politically involved. "Oops" looked terrible to everyone.

It's a real momentum-killer.  It's a fumble on an open-field run to daylight.  Running backs get benched for such fumbles all the time.

You really have the Super Bowl on the brain, don't you?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

What makes this a gaffe?

Agreed, in this electorate it seems like reversing Hanlon's Razor gets further than obeying it...this seems especially true with the Republican base.

No, I'm actually in the dark about this. I watched the debate, heard the "Obama bad on purpose" vs. "Obama bad by accident" argument, thought nothing about it at the time or since, and then came here like an hour ago, and there are all sorts of comments about how Rubio said this thing which is going to ruin his campaign. What is the argument that this is a gaffe? That he gave Obama credit for not being clueless, even if it was still a form of criticism?

The gaffe is that he repeated the exact same canned response, more than once, while Christie was criticizing him for being a Washington do-nothing who can't do anything but repeat canned responses.