Why did the media love Rubio so much? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 10:03:35 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? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why did the media love Rubio so much?  (Read 1009 times)
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
« on: April 29, 2016, 02:06:36 AM »

Many political journalists are as much dimwitted empty suits as he is.
Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
« Reply #1 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
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
« Reply #2 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
Pages: [1]  
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 0.029 seconds with 13 queries.