Why did the media love Rubio so much?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:03:24 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Why did the media love Rubio so much?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why did the media love Rubio so much?  (Read 953 times)
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 29, 2016, 01:47:52 AM »

Now that the body is cold and we've all seen what a flop he was, I can ask this question without the Rubiobots saying: "NO, THE MEDIA IS RIGHT THAT RUBIO IS THE GREATEST MOST PRECIOUS HANDSOME MODERATE BEST CANDIDATE EVER! YOU'RE THE ONE THAT'S BIASED!"

Was it really just "muh Hispanic Obama", or was there more to it than that? Share your theories here.
Logged
Desroko
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 346
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2016, 02:02:18 AM »

Yes, it was almost entirely based on Republican elites' wrongheaded and tokenist views on race. They're the same people who'd mistake Rubio for a waiter if they him at a DC cocktail party ten years ago.

More broadly, future generations are going to have great fun mocking this GOP field of sociopaths, stiffs, and simpletons - which, you'll remember, was going to be "the strongest Republican field since 1860."
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2016, 02:04:38 AM »

If the Democrats nominate Castro to be VP, they will lose any ability to mock Rubio.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2016, 02:06:15 AM »

If the Democrats nominate Castro to be VP, they will lose any ability to mock Rubio.

Good to see we can still find points of agreement.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2016, 02:06:36 AM »

Many political journalists are as much dimwitted empty suits as he is.
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,650
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 29, 2016, 02:07:42 AM »

Rubio was the establishments choice.

The establishment have some level of control over the media.

The discomfort that Trump caused both parties is very attractive to Americans who are looking for a clean slate.

Rubio had a horrible spoilt private school boy persona which was attractive to no one.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,189
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2016, 02:16:53 AM »

The media are more interested in narrative than anything else.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,618
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2016, 02:30:27 AM »

It's pretty clear with hindsight that if not for his flop in the debate against Christie, he would've pulled off "3-2-1" and gone on to fairly comfortably win the nomination. People are forgetting how strong the campaign was prior to Super Tuesday -- after Iowa, Rubio was taking votes directly from Trump and holding Trump under 30 in national polling, and after his defeat in New Hampshire he still recovered enough to come in second and within single-digits in South Carolina. It's quite clear that if not for Christie, only Trump, Rubio, and Cruz (in that order) would've crossed the delegate threshold in New Hampshire, Bush and Kasich would both have left, Cruz would've seemed weaker due to the presence of a clearly stronger alternative, and Rubio would've had a decent shot at >40 in SC.

I'd go so far as to say that when this primary season started, the only two candidates who were capable of winning the nomination outright, at a non-contested convention, were Rubio and Trump. So I would say the amount of attention he received was totally deserved.
Logged
Desroko
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 346
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2016, 02:40:38 AM »
« Edited: April 29, 2016, 02:43:47 AM by Desroko »

It's pretty clear with hindsight that if not for his flop in the debate against Christie, he would've pulled off "3-2-1" and gone on to fairly comfortably win the nomination. People are forgetting how strong the campaign was prior to Super Tuesday -- after Iowa, Rubio was taking votes directly from Trump and holding Trump under 30 in national polling, and after his defeat in New Hampshire he still recovered enough to come in second and within single-digits in South Carolina. It's quite clear that if not for Christie, only Trump, Rubio, and Cruz (in that order) would've crossed the delegate threshold in New Hampshire, Bush and Kasich would both have left, Cruz would've seemed weaker due to the presence of a clearly stronger alternative, and Rubio would've had a decent shot at >40 in SC.

I'd go so far as to say that when this primary season started, the only two candidates who were capable of winning the nomination outright, at a non-contested convention, were Rubio and Trump. So I would say the amount of attention he received was totally deserved.

So you're saying that if nobody had noticed that he's an empty suit, he would have won?
Logged
HAnnA MArin County
semocrat08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,037
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2016, 03:53:49 AM »

If the Democrats nominate Castro to be VP, they will lose any ability to mock Rubio.

Holy moly, jfern and I are in agreement! Surprise ..but seriously, I repeatedly push back on all efforts of her picking one of the Castro brothers for VP, simply for the same reason why the media loved Rubio so much: tokenism. A young Hispanic relatively attractive conservative guy from a swing state. The establishment fails to forget that the majority of its voters are angry old white honkies.

Furthermore, Hillary is going to win Hispanics in a landslide, so she doesn't need to put one on the ticket with her. I am, however, standing by my prediction that she is going to pick someone who endorsed her in 2008. The Clintons are all about loyalty. Al Franken, perhaps? That would be the best antithesis to Trump's celebrity presidency. Yeah, a white guy, but a funny white guy who could bring more humor into what's already shaping out to be a humiliating primary election cycle.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 29, 2016, 04:24:03 AM »

It's pretty clear with hindsight that if not for his flop in the debate against Christie, he would've pulled off "3-2-1" and gone on to fairly comfortably win the nomination. People are forgetting how strong the campaign was prior to Super Tuesday -- after Iowa, Rubio was taking votes directly from Trump and holding Trump under 30 in national polling, and after his defeat in New Hampshire he still recovered enough to come in second and within single-digits in South Carolina. It's quite clear that if not for Christie, only Trump, Rubio, and Cruz (in that order) would've crossed the delegate threshold in New Hampshire, Bush and Kasich would both have left, Cruz would've seemed weaker due to the presence of a clearly stronger alternative, and Rubio would've had a decent shot at >40 in SC.

I'd go so far as to say that when this primary season started, the only two candidates who were capable of winning the nomination outright, at a non-contested convention, were Rubio and Trump. So I would say the amount of attention he received was totally deserved.

But they were still in the tank for him long before "3-2-1" was ever a thing and even after he imploded in the debate and in NH. In fact, they were in the tank for him since the day he announced his campaign even when he was irrelevant and polling at 3%. Watching all the pundits salivate over him and metaphorically give him fellatio was nauseating. They literally said he won like every debate, besides the NH one. I never really had a gripe with Rubio, at least no more than I had gripes with any other generic right wing senator, but the media's outright shilling and fawning made me despise him. I mean, I voted for Obama and think he's been a good president, but even to this day I cringe whenever I read some pundit talking about how he's the best thing since sliced bread. Must be PTSD from being a 2008 Hillary supporter. Tongue

Also guys, please try to stay on topic. This thread is about Rubio, not Castro. Castro has not received anywhere near as much hype from the media as Rubio did.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 29, 2016, 04:30:28 AM »

He was Jeb Bush without the Bush name, the ability to be a transformative figure and yes, ethnicity was a factor as well.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 29, 2016, 04:36:35 AM »

He was Jeb Bush without the Bush name, the ability to be a transformative figure and yes, ethnicity was a factor as well.

In terms of transformative and ethnicity...

So basically, the 90% male media cares much more about minority males making history than they care about a woman making history? What a shock. Looks like Shirley Chisholm had a point.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 29, 2016, 04:41:53 AM »

It's pretty clear with hindsight that if not for his flop in the debate against Christie, he would've pulled off "3-2-1" and gone on to fairly comfortably win the nomination. People are forgetting how strong the campaign was prior to Super Tuesday -- after Iowa, Rubio was taking votes directly from Trump and holding Trump under 30 in national polling, and after his defeat in New Hampshire he still recovered enough to come in second and within single-digits in South Carolina. It's quite clear that if not for Christie, only Trump, Rubio, and Cruz (in that order) would've crossed the delegate threshold in New Hampshire, Bush and Kasich would both have left, Cruz would've seemed weaker due to the presence of a clearly stronger alternative, and Rubio would've had a decent shot at >40 in SC.

I'd go so far as to say that when this primary season started, the only two candidates who were capable of winning the nomination outright, at a non-contested convention, were Rubio and Trump. So I would say the amount of attention he received was totally deserved.

But they were still in the tank for him long before "3-2-1" was ever a thing and even after he imploded in the debate and in NH. In fact, they were in the tank for him since the day he announced his campaign even when he was irrelevant and polling at 3%. Watching all the pundits salivate over him and metaphorically give him fellatio was nauseating. They literally said he won like every debate, besides the NH one. I never really had a gripe with Rubio, at least no more than I had gripes with any other generic right wing senator, but the media's outright shilling and fawning made me despise him. I mean, I voted for Obama and think he's been a good president, but even to this day I cringe whenever I read some pundit talking about how he's the best thing since sliced bread. Must be PTSD from being a 2008 Hillary supporter. Tongue

Also guys, please try to stay on topic. This thread is about Rubio, not Castro. Castro has not received anywhere near as much hype from the media as Rubio did.

His laughable Time Magazine cover was long before he even announced as a Presidential candidate.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 29, 2016, 04:53:30 AM »

Rubio was the establishments choice.

The establishment have some level of control over the media.

The discomfort that Trump caused both parties is very attractive to Americans who are looking for a clean slate.

Rubio had a horrible spoilt private school boy persona which was attractive to no one.

But Jeb was the initial establishment choice, and the media savagely ripped him apart like a pack of rabid hyenas and loved every second of it, so was that really much of a factor?
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2016, 04:54:56 AM »

It's pretty clear with hindsight that if not for his flop in the debate against Christie, he would've pulled off "3-2-1" and gone on to fairly comfortably win the nomination. People are forgetting how strong the campaign was prior to Super Tuesday -- after Iowa, Rubio was taking votes directly from Trump and holding Trump under 30 in national polling, and after his defeat in New Hampshire he still recovered enough to come in second and within single-digits in South Carolina. It's quite clear that if not for Christie, only Trump, Rubio, and Cruz (in that order) would've crossed the delegate threshold in New Hampshire, Bush and Kasich would both have left, Cruz would've seemed weaker due to the presence of a clearly stronger alternative, and Rubio would've had a decent shot at >40 in SC.

I'd go so far as to say that when this primary season started, the only two candidates who were capable of winning the nomination outright, at a non-contested convention, were Rubio and Trump. So I would say the amount of attention he received was totally deserved.

But they were still in the tank for him long before "3-2-1" was ever a thing and even after he imploded in the debate and in NH. In fact, they were in the tank for him since the day he announced his campaign even when he was irrelevant and polling at 3%. Watching all the pundits salivate over him and metaphorically give him fellatio was nauseating. They literally said he won like every debate, besides the NH one. I never really had a gripe with Rubio, at least no more than I had gripes with any other generic right wing senator, but the media's outright shilling and fawning made me despise him. I mean, I voted for Obama and think he's been a good president, but even to this day I cringe whenever I read some pundit talking about how he's the best thing since sliced bread. Must be PTSD from being a 2008 Hillary supporter. Tongue

Also guys, please try to stay on topic. This thread is about Rubio, not Castro. Castro has not received anywhere near as much hype from the media as Rubio did.

His laughable Time Magazine cover was long before he even announced as a Presidential candidate.

LOL, thanks for the reminder. I almost forgot about this gem.

Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 29, 2016, 05:19:47 AM »

It's pretty clear with hindsight that if not for his flop in the debate against Christie, he would've pulled off "3-2-1" and gone on to fairly comfortably win the nomination. People are forgetting how strong the campaign was prior to Super Tuesday -- after Iowa, Rubio was taking votes directly from Trump and holding Trump under 30 in national polling, and after his defeat in New Hampshire he still recovered enough to come in second and within single-digits in South Carolina. It's quite clear that if not for Christie, only Trump, Rubio, and Cruz (in that order) would've crossed the delegate threshold in New Hampshire, Bush and Kasich would both have left, Cruz would've seemed weaker due to the presence of a clearly stronger alternative, and Rubio would've had a decent shot at >40 in SC.

I'd go so far as to say that when this primary season started, the only two candidates who were capable of winning the nomination outright, at a non-contested convention, were Rubio and Trump. So I would say the amount of attention he received was totally deserved.

But they were still in the tank for him long before "3-2-1" was ever a thing and even after he imploded in the debate and in NH. In fact, they were in the tank for him since the day he announced his campaign even when he was irrelevant and polling at 3%. Watching all the pundits salivate over him and metaphorically give him fellatio was nauseating. They literally said he won like every debate, besides the NH one. I never really had a gripe with Rubio, at least no more than I had gripes with any other generic right wing senator, but the media's outright shilling and fawning made me despise him. I mean, I voted for Obama and think he's been a good president, but even to this day I cringe whenever I read some pundit talking about how he's the best thing since sliced bread. Must be PTSD from being a 2008 Hillary supporter. Tongue

Also guys, please try to stay on topic. This thread is about Rubio, not Castro. Castro has not received anywhere near as much hype from the media as Rubio did.

His laughable Time Magazine cover was long before he even announced as a Presidential candidate.

LOL, thanks for the reminder. I almost forgot about this gem.



LOL, thanks for the cover.  I thought there was at least a question mark after 'savior.'
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 29, 2016, 06:14:24 AM »

They thought he was the Obama of the race, but he was actually the Edwards
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,650
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 29, 2016, 06:23:22 AM »

It's pretty clear with hindsight that if not for his flop in the debate against Christie, he would've pulled off "3-2-1" and gone on to fairly comfortably win the nomination.

Logged
standwrand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 592
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.55, S: -2.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 29, 2016, 09:04:18 AM »

NO, THE MEDIA IS RIGHT THAT RUBIO IS THE GREATEST MOST PRECIOUS HANDSOME MODERATE BEST CANDIDATE EVER! YOU'RE THE ONE THAT'S BIASED!
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,650
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 29, 2016, 10:23:52 AM »

Rubio was the establishments choice.

The establishment have some level of control over the media.

The discomfort that Trump caused both parties is very attractive to Americans who are looking for a clean slate.

Rubio had a horrible spoilt private school boy persona which was attractive to no one.

But Jeb was the initial establishment choice, and the media savagely ripped him apart like a pack of rabid hyenas and loved every second of it, so was that really much of a factor?

Not a very big payday for his $120 M investment in the media then.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,618
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 29, 2016, 01:33:46 PM »

It's pretty clear with hindsight that if not for his flop in the debate against Christie, he would've pulled off "3-2-1" and gone on to fairly comfortably win the nomination. People are forgetting how strong the campaign was prior to Super Tuesday -- after Iowa, Rubio was taking votes directly from Trump and holding Trump under 30 in national polling, and after his defeat in New Hampshire he still recovered enough to come in second and within single-digits in South Carolina. It's quite clear that if not for Christie, only Trump, Rubio, and Cruz (in that order) would've crossed the delegate threshold in New Hampshire, Bush and Kasich would both have left, Cruz would've seemed weaker due to the presence of a clearly stronger alternative, and Rubio would've had a decent shot at >40 in SC.

I'd go so far as to say that when this primary season started, the only two candidates who were capable of winning the nomination outright, at a non-contested convention, were Rubio and Trump. So I would say the amount of attention he received was totally deserved.

So you're saying that if nobody had noticed that he's an empty suit, he would have won?

Yes, and I'm saying he came much closer to pulling it off than this thread seems to realize. In the sense that, of all of his opponents, only Christie seemed to notice, and even then he only managed to demonstrate it at the very last moment.

It's pretty clear with hindsight that if not for his flop in the debate against Christie, he would've pulled off "3-2-1" and gone on to fairly comfortably win the nomination. People are forgetting how strong the campaign was prior to Super Tuesday -- after Iowa, Rubio was taking votes directly from Trump and holding Trump under 30 in national polling, and after his defeat in New Hampshire he still recovered enough to come in second and within single-digits in South Carolina. It's quite clear that if not for Christie, only Trump, Rubio, and Cruz (in that order) would've crossed the delegate threshold in New Hampshire, Bush and Kasich would both have left, Cruz would've seemed weaker due to the presence of a clearly stronger alternative, and Rubio would've had a decent shot at >40 in SC.

I'd go so far as to say that when this primary season started, the only two candidates who were capable of winning the nomination outright, at a non-contested convention, were Rubio and Trump. So I would say the amount of attention he received was totally deserved.

But they were still in the tank for him long before "3-2-1" was ever a thing and even after he imploded in the debate and in NH. In fact, they were in the tank for him since the day he announced his campaign even when he was irrelevant and polling at 3%. Watching all the pundits salivate over him and metaphorically give him fellatio was nauseating. They literally said he won like every debate, besides the NH one. I never really had a gripe with Rubio, at least no more than I had gripes with any other generic right wing senator, but the media's outright shilling and fawning made me despise him. I mean, I voted for Obama and think he's been a good president, but even to this day I cringe whenever I read some pundit talking about how he's the best thing since sliced bread. Must be PTSD from being a 2008 Hillary supporter. Tongue

I don't know that I noticed much Rubio fawning before the fall of 2015, by which point it was clear that the candidate in the race with the largest personal following was Donald Trump; that Trump's path to victory lay through a divided field; and that the only semi-competent candidate in the race who was capable of uniting the very disparate elements in the GOP opposed to Trump (someone who could win Manhattan Island and southwest Missouri) was Marco Rubio. So a lot of the fawning made sense.

I think the fact that Rubio ran at all in 2016 might've been a hint at some of the problems with his candidacy. No path to victory for him existed at all before the entrance of Donald Trump, which neither he nor his team nor anyone else predicted. Rubio did not represent any geographic area (Bush was the Floridian candidate until quite late in the game), nor any particular ideology or cause until anti-Trumpism became a thing.

As for the Time cover from 2013, it made decent sense. Rubio had been on the VP shortlist in 2012 after just 2 years in the Senate and it was very clear that he was going to run for President eventually, even if 2016 was way too early for him.

Rubio was the establishments choice.

The establishment have some level of control over the media.

The discomfort that Trump caused both parties is very attractive to Americans who are looking for a clean slate.

Rubio had a horrible spoilt private school boy persona which was attractive to no one.

But Jeb was the initial establishment choice, and the media savagely ripped him apart like a pack of rabid hyenas and loved every second of it, so was that really much of a factor?

Not a very big payday for his $120 M investment in the media then.

Jeb's pre-Trump path to victory was in fact the same as Trump's -- to keep the field divided as long as possible and rack up first-places with under 40% of the vote; the field was so splintered before Trump that "voters who remember the Bush legacy fondly" were in fact the single largest group. Trump tore his campaign off the rails and there was no longer any path to victory for Jeb.
Logged
Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.
diskymike44
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,831


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 29, 2016, 01:34:48 PM »

I kind of miss "Little Marco"
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 14 queries.