Why did the media love Rubio so much?

[IceSpear]

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.

[IceSpear]

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.

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.

[IceSpear]

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.

[IceSpear]

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?

[IceSpear]

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.

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.