-
Marco Rubio: The Electable Conservative?
I found this read so interesting that I wanted to make a dedicated thread.
Nate Silver doing a statistical analysis on Rubio in comaparison to other republicans past and present. Check out the conservatism ranking chart. Check out where Christie sits.
[link=http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/marco-rubio-the-electable-conservative/]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/marco-rubio-the-electable-conservative/[/link]
Since winning his Senate seat, Mr. Rubio has generally sided with other Republicans as part of a party that has steadily grown more conservative over the last three decades. (Mr. Rubios [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/us/politics/senators-agree-on-blueprint-for-immigration.html?_r=0]recent support for immigration reform[/link] is more of an exception than his usual rule of sticking to the party line.)
Being reliably conservative, however, is hardly a liability for someone who might hope to win the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Indeed, one reason to watch Mr. Rubio carefully is that, among the candidates who will be deemed reliably conservative by Republican voters and insiders, he may stand the best chance of maintaining a reasonably good image with general election voters.
How does Mr. Rubios conservatism compare to [link=http://www.oddschecker.com/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election-2016/republican-candidate]the other men and women[/link] who might seek the Republican nomination in 2016 and to other candidates, like Mitt Romney, that the G.O.P. has nominated recently?
……
Since winning his Senate seat, Mr. Rubio has generally sided with other Republicans as part of a party that has steadily grown more conservative over the last three decades. (Mr. Rubios [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/us/politics/senators-agree-on-blueprint-for-immigration.html?_r=0]recent support for immigration reform[/link] is more of an exception than his usual rule of sticking to the party line.)
Being reliably conservative, however, is hardly a liability for someone who might hope to win the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Indeed, one reason to watch Mr. Rubio carefully is that, among the candidates who will be deemed reliably conservative by Republican voters and insiders, he may stand the best chance of maintaining a reasonably good image with general election voters.
How does Mr. Rubios conservatism compare to [link=http://www.oddschecker.com/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election-2016/republican-candidate]the other men and women[/link] who might seek the Republican nomination in 2016 and to other candidates, like Mitt Romney, that the G.O.P. has nominated recently?
….
Other potential candidates, including former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida and Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico, are close to Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney on the ideological spectrum.
Isnt it premature to draw attention to a candidates popularity so far in advance of the primaries? Certainly, a great deal will change between now and 2016.
What makes matters tricky for Mr. Rubio is that, at the same time he is hoping to persuade Republican party insiders that he deserves their support, he will also need to maintain a reasonably good image with the broader electorate lest his electability argument be undermined. This may lead to some strange positions, such as when Mr. Rubio recently critiqued President Obamas immigration proposal despite its [link=http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/obamas-immigration-reform-resembles-sen-marco-rubios-plan/1275699]many similarities to his own[/link].
When the wider electorate learns that Mr. Rubios positions are in fact hard to differentiate from those of other conservative Republicans, will his favorability ratings turn mediocre, as Mr. Ryans now are?
This is not meant as a rhetorical question. One measure of political talent, and something that characterized both Mr. Reagan and Mr. Obama, is the ability to sell ideas to voters across a wide range of the political spectrum. Perhaps Mr. Rubio will prove to be such a talent. Otherwise, if Mr. Rubio holds a fairly ordinary (and conservative) set of Republican positions, his popularity ratings may wind up being ordinary as well.
-
117 Replies
-
Except for the “electable” and “conservative” parts i agree.
Rand Paul ’12-
On the listing chart, Rand Paul is farther to the right than any modern republican except Goldwater. He’s to the right of Bachmann even. Rand Paul would get his ass handed to him by any democrat, certainly worse than Obama v. Romney.
-
Before the election the republican pundits were trumpeting Romney’s “electability” when dismissing [Ron] Paul. How’d that work out? At some point we need to ditch labels and vote for the good of the country.
-
I agree that Rubio is not electable as POTUS and that it’s a great idea if Rand Paul ran in 2016 for POTUS.
And the point is, neither will win the election for POTUS.
-
Considering Ron Paul’s electability, he lost the primaries in case you hadn’t noticed.
-
Conventional media declares Ron Paul unelectable and the ignorance corner (ie Bushies)of the republican party selects unelectable Mitt Romney is chosen…hmmmmm….
Paul pwns on electability:
[link]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPouHwIQmHI[/link]
-
-
Amen
Quote from Lux
I agree that Rubio is not electable as POTUS and that it’s a great idea if Rand Paul ran in 2016 for POTUS.
And the point is, neither will win the election for POTUS.
-
as an aside , are you all following the Jesse Jackson, Jr case? $43,000? for a watch( possibly related to Bipolar Disorder/reckless spending)
-
-
-
-
Interesting article. However, lets flip the terms here. How many known liberals are nationally electable? Not many. Just look at the Senate. Swing states (states that were within 2-5 pts for or against Obama last election) like Va, NC, Fl, Mo, Mt, IA, PA, OH, IN) would seldom vote a open liberal to statewide office. The exception is the “legacy” candidate of Tom Harkin (going away after this Congress is over) and Sherrod Brown (who faced an unknown in the Obama election and barely won). All the democrats in those states are centerists for political survival. Yet, all those states have republican senators who are proudly conservative and still get elected.
So in flipping the terms, it begs to be asked-what possible liberal or minority outside of the symbolic figurehead of Obama (now icon), could win another close presidential race? Even in a blue state, a minority like Corey Booker (well-groomed mayor of Newark, NJ) will have a lot of problems winning in NJ despite recent distinct moves to make him appear moderate (recent support of gun rights). Jerry Brown? -possibly. He can match Obama with the class warfare rhetoric and add a vision of the future to it, but he’s old. Russ Feingold-Kerryish, but even more boring. Biden is a functionary and not pure liberal. Hillary will try to piece together her husband’s coalition of moderates with the spin of being a woman. But she wont be symbolically or even politically that liberal. So, I ask, what liberal and his/her message could win a national election-likely none.
I once corrected Nate Silver when he was writing for Baseball Prospectus right out of college. He was going through the reasons why baseball pitchers of last generation (Randy Johnson, Schilling, Maddox, etc) were so successful pitching into their late 30s. He listed all possible reasons and gave a breakdown, (including PEDs). He forgot the most obvious reason-the advent of the 5 man pitching staffs in the mid-late 1980s when these guys broke into MLB (he was young back then) He admitted I was right.-
I don’t think a declared liberal could win either. The unspoken assumption of the piece is the issue with the republican party.
You have to be a conservative to get out of the primaries but have to have appeal to the middle to win the general.
The contrary does not hold to the same extent in the current democratic party. You don’t have to openly procalim yourself a a “liberal” to have primary cred with the democrats. As a matter of fact, you don’t hear the word “liberal” even being brought up as a self identifier within the democratic party on the national stage.
But if a republican denied being a “conservative” he would be done for.
-
Quote from dergon
You have to be a conservative to get out of the primaries but have to have appeal to the middle to win the general.
The contrary does not hold to the same extent in the current democratic party. You don’t have to openly procalim yourself a a “liberal” to have primary cred with the democrats. As a matter of fact, you don’t hear the word “liberal” even being brought up as a self identifier within the democratic party on the national stage.
I do not think you are right on this point, but only time will tell. Look at what propelled Obama in 2008 against Hillary-the base of the party having a deep desire to have a liberal. Think of the Kennedy clan, think David Geffen, think HuffPost around Feb 2008 turning the turrets on Hilliary-and all moderate democrats. Since the economic downturn and the obama prolonging the stagnation, there is now a new generation of democrats, younger and seeking activist government. I think there is a fair number, perhaps even a majority, of the democrats that are firmly left-wing, who participates in the democratic party who will demand a candidate of the left be in there.
There’s an assumed democrat group-think mandate that it’s a woman’s turn. Hillary may dress in woman’s clothing but she’s going to get challenged the same way Romney was challenged from the right (albeit probably without a pizza executive shouting numbers, Newt and his older Vegas BFFs “Moonraker” plans tailored for central Fl or a sauced-up rough rider forgetting which Washington agency he’d nuke). But, still there’s Edmund G. Brown Jr. who could pick up the liberal mantle from Obama. He’d demolish Hillary’s butt in any debate. Al Gore already won the nomination and now has transformed himself from Scoop Jackson conservadem to liberal spokesman/stateman- (but no more Tipper to kiss)
IMHO, this is changed radicalized democrat party. A moderate figure like Kerry or Hilliary very well may not hold the torch of the future of the democratic party.-
Quote from RVU
IMHO, this is changed radicalized democrat party.
You spelled racialized wrong.
-
post deleted –-
Bump
-
Overall today’s Democratic Party is much more centrists than the republicans. That’s why they are winning National elections
The only people from the far out left that could challenge Hillary have left to Join the Green Party
It’s like the the dems used this to cast off their farthest lefties
The republicans should do the same with their extremists
-
Quote from kpack123
Overall today’s Democratic Party is much more centrists than the republicans.
Are you kidding me? Only when you have gone so far overboard to the left can you lose the ability to find the true center. Is the center really a place where the global warming religion trumps drilling for domestic oil? Is it defined by those who support class warfare, social tinkering and a cradle-to-grave socialist state? Is it the place where Julia and gay rights trump all other issues? Is it defined anti-capitalist attitudes, support of higher taxes, mandates and constitutional encroachment? The problem with your center is that it is yesterday’s far left and a moving target. The new “center” is now defined as the place occupied by those willing to capitulate to Obama’s liberla dogma. If you oppose this, you are defined as a far right winger. Your center is an unstable and precarious place to be, unless you are a demogogue. -
Quote from aldadoc
Is the center really a place where the global warming religion trumps drilling for domestic oil?
Well that’s a fascinating question. I assume the center is NOT the place (besides, he said “[i][u]much more[/u][/i] centrist”, not “[i][u]the[/u][/i] center”) because that would imply there is equal evidence for both global warming and untapped domestic oil. However, there’s far more compelling data supporting global warming than there is supporting untapped domestic oil.
What data do you have about proven domestic reserves waiting to be pumped out of the ground?
And please don’t ask what data there is about global warming.
-
There’s 200 billion barrels in Canada alone (right now) and cumulative more than 100 years of oil reserves- that we know of now. If gas were ever to go up even a dollar or two more, it would make money to frack oil out of the ground and get twice as much. Gas will never hit 10 dollars until natural inflation takes it there 30 years from now. And the electric car in 30 years will possibly be able to traverse two contiguous states. Now, just whistle past the trolls, dont need to even speak to them.
-
We are EXPORTING gas, people!!! The domestic demand is soft. Yet the price keeps going up. Supply up. Demand down. Prices should be dropping. An intelligent person can only conclude inflation is accelerating. But Bernanke/krugman say inflation is a myth so can someone explain the spike in gas prices?
-
US oil boom, thanks to fracking and horizontal drilling technologies, despite wacko environmentalists, Obama and his minion libtards trying to block it every step of the way. And, yes, this oil boom is mainly occurring on private lands, extracted by private companies who employ people and pay taxes. Novel concept, eh!
[link=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57561042/u.s-on-new-track-to-catch-saudis-in-oil-production/]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57561042/u.s-on-new-track-to-catch-saudis-in-oil-production/[/link]
[link=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/af84760a-6fa2-11e2-956b-00144feab49a.html#axzz2LahsThD9]http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/af84760a-6fa2-11e2-956b-00144feab49a.html#axzz2LahsThD9[/link]
[link=http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/International/Geopolitical-Impacts-of-the-US-Oil-Gas-Boom.html]http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/International/Geopolitical-Impacts-of-the-US-Oil-Gas-Boom.html[/link] -
[b]US oil boom, thanks to fracking and horizontal drilling technologies, despite wacko environmentalists, Obama and his minion libtards trying to block it every step of the way.[/b]
No they aren’t. The only major concerns have come from local populace in these places because of mini earthquakes in Ohio and contanimation of drinking of water. other than that we are actually on our way to energy independence and no libbe is blocing anything.
You are making stuff up. The funny thing is 5 years ago you were screaming drill baby drill off shore and in ALaska claiming this would solve all are problems. How that work out for you??????
What an Fng Joke we are sitting on more freaking energy to meet are needs for several hundred years and you guys never even considered this 5 yrs ago. You know jack frickin squat and trying to create a flase argument that doesn’t exist -
Obama’s EPA clearly tried to block fracking, going as far as providing tainted data:
[link=http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/277669-vitter-political-purposes-behind-epa-fracking-study]http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/277669-vitter-political-purposes-behind-epa-fracking-study[/link]-
[link=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-21/fracking-emissions-get-review-after-epa-watchdog-report.html]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-21/fracking-emissions-get-review-after-epa-watchdog-report.html[/link]
[link=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324001104578160983268581370.html]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324001104578160983268581370.html[/link]
Obama is still blocking the keystone pipeline. The EPA has made it virtually impossible to run coal plants. This administration is ideologically opposed to the use of fossil fuel. The irony of it is that the oil industry may be the one thing keeping us out of recession.
You are right, I still think we should drill Anwar, and while we are at it, drill off-shore, drill the Bakken oil formations, drill Pennsylvania, New York, Colorado, Texas and California. “Drill baby drill”! Oil has made many a nation wealthy.
This is not only an economic issue, but also an issue of national security. Increased US oil production will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and will lower the price of oil. It would mean that Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Russia would lose a tremendous amont of influence over the wold, and China would have to suck hind tit.
If California and its Moonbeam Governor were smart, they would tap into their large oil reserves and generate huge revenues that would offset their mounting deficits, but they are too busy worrying about the ozone layer, organic arugula, gay rights, diversity, racial grievances, eco-religion and driving out the productive class. I guess people get the government they deserve!
Obama may have lucked into the biggest oil boom in America. I hope he doesn’t blow it with his global warming BS ideology. I’m not optimistic, president Icarus has a poor track record with these things. .. but who knows, he may flip if it makes him look good. As we know, it’s all about him. -
We are exporting oil. And because of retarded shipping regulations it is cheaper to ship it from the gulf coast to Venezuala than Jacksonville. High gas prices are the result of the inflation that Mrugman keeps screaming is imaginary.
-
Oh please oil is a global commodity with prices set on the open market. The price of a barrel has nothing to do with shipping regulations
The Keystone pipeline should be blocked and of course red states like Texas use eminant domain to take property for it. The biggest holdup is in Nebraska-another red state that is fighting it. The Canadians have already decided they don’t want to bring it across Canada to BC–why?
As for those brutal fracking regulations….The Obama administration tightened rules on hydraulic fracturing Friday, requiring the disclosure of chemicals used in the process when done on federal and American Indian lands.
The new rules will also require additional testing of oil and gas well construction and require the industry to have a management plan for the water used in the process.
[link=http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/04/news/economy/fracking_rules/index.htm]http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/04/news/economy/fracking_rules/index.htm[/link]
But hey if your solution is to drill everywhere we might as well forget about the debt since we won’t be here 100 years from now (and I thought Repubs cared about the future) and we can make Beijing look like a sunny city -
Quote from Thor
Oh please oil is a global commodity with prices set on the open market. The price of a barrel has nothing to do with shipping regulations
Horse excrement. Jones Act.
-
The Jones act is causing our inflation now? Really???? When was the Jones Act passed?
-
Thor you are the master of taking my comments, running off on a tangent and building a strawman. I started with our gulf coast oil and now you are talking about overall inflation. Let me clarify:
The Jones Act makes it very expensive to ship oil from our gulf coast to east coast refiners. This increases the domestic cost of gas. -
High gas prices are the result of the inflation that Mrugman keeps screaming is imaginary.
I believe you said this you can check above. Yes the cost of shipping affects price at the pump but it is a relatively fixed cost; price fluctuations are the result of the cost of the actual barrel which is a separate issue. Funny you complain of tangents when you brought up the Jones act in the first place -
Quote from thor
The price of a barrel has nothing to do with shipping regulations
Just admit you were wrong and shipping regulations—Jones Act—-do factor into the price of a domestic barrel.
-
The price of the barrel is set before shipping by the global market. Shipping is an added cost. If you want to talk price at the pump fine…it is about 10-15% of the cost of a gallon of gas at the pump above foreign shipping costs.
Now please show me how this is responsible for inflation -
Quote from Thor
Now please show me how this is responsible for inflation
You lie. I never said oil prices are RESPONSIBLE FOR INFLATION. Inflation is by definition an increase in the monetary supply–the fed is solely responsible for inflation. One of the effects of inflation is higher prices.
-
A piece on the Rubio Foreign Policy (vs Rand Paul)
[link=http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/242046/marco-rubios-foreign-policy-blind-irrational-and-dangerous]http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/242046/marco-rubios-foreign-policy-blind-irrational-and-dangerous[/link]I
n a [link=http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130325/NEWS01/303250031/Republican-Marco-Rubio-calls-for-reforms-in-U-of-L-speech?odyssey=underbox%7Ctext%7CHome]speech[/link] at the University of Louisville this week, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) warned against U.S. “retreat” from the world, which he claimed would result in a vacuum filled by “chaos” and “tyranny.”
These remarks have been [link=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/marco-rubio-rand-paul-foreign-policy-89303.html]interpreted[/link] as a rebuke to the foreign policy views of Rubio’s colleague and possible 2016 rival, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). But they are more important than an example of intra-party feuding. These statements reflect the seriously flawed assumptions of Rubio and other hawkish interventionists about what American engagement in the world requires, and they reveal just how alarmist and outdated Rubio’s worldview is. And it is because Rubio’s worldview continues to be the one that prevails among Republican leaders that it merits closer inspection.
It has become a common hawkish refrain that the U.S. cannot withdraw from any conflict or reduce its commitments anywhere in the world without inviting either chaos or risking the increased influence of authoritarian major powers or both. The idea that U.S. preeminence in the world must necessarily be “replaced” by the global dominance of authoritarian governments hasn’t made any sense in over 20 years. Today, major authoritarian powers are significantly less powerful and less ambitious in their foreign policy goals than America’s 20th century rivals. Today, many of the world’s rising powers are democratic and have no interest in falling in line behind Chinese or Russian “leadership.”
Another flaw in Rubio’s thinking: His definition of what constitutes engagement with and “retreat” from the world is heavily skewed by his apparent conviction that the U.S. should regularly entangle itself in the internal conflicts of other countries. According to that definition, failing to intervene or to become more involved in the conflict in Syria, for example, is [link=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/15/rubio_response_obama_foreign_policy]viewed[/link] as equivalent to “disengagement.” Rubio wanted a larger, faster intervention in Libya, and he wants greater U.S. involvement in Syria as well. While he said that that the U.S. shouldn’t be involved in “every civil war and every conflict,” Rubio’s record to date shows that he has yet to see a high-profile foreign conflict in which he didn’t want the U.S. heavily involved.
There is no danger that the U.S. will cease to engage with the rest of the world. But there are very real dangers that U.S. foreign policy will remain overly militarized and excessively confrontational toward other states. Rubio’s foreign policy would require more of both. The greatest damage to international peace and stability that the U.S. can do is if it keeps resorting to force to handle crises and disputes as often in this decade as it did in the last. Support for “retreat” is the last thing that Americans need to worry about from their policymakers and political leaders, many of whom remain only too eager to find reasons to sound the attack.
-
Sen. Rubio has already shown the ability to pivot fairly easily to moderate stances while keeping his conservative credibility. That’s what President Reagan did often. Marco Rubio was elected by a far margin over a fairly popular governor in a purple state running on a fairly unadulterated conservative agenda (the minority lib democrat was a literal dog in the race). All he would have to do is get his name known and he’d be a major contender. It might be presumed to be Hiliary’s time, and there’s no real data at this point to rebut that for 2016. But Sen. Rubio has a good chance of being the first hispanic President.
-
Im very thirsty
-
Too many pretzels?
-
Quote from Thor
Too many pretzels?
And too much pretzel [i]logic![/i]
-
Easy pivot & credibility used to be an oxymoron to conservatives.
How times have changed. -
Well. Rubio is in.
If he could get through the primaries I think he could be among the most formidable GOP candidates. -
He has to first prove he is up to the task and second better handle the crazies in his own party
He is young that be good and bad
The last time he was on the national stage he basically poooped himself
He needs to be more relaxed
Personally I don’t think he is up to the task but I’ve been wrong before
-
He needs to occupy a niche which won’t allow him to find a large primary following. Guessing he is positioning for the VP spot if a Repub Gov is the nominee
-
even with sugar daddies, he is B list to me…he had to correct his initial story on when his family actually left Cuba..if Jeb is the nominee then he is out of a job.
-
he finally said to the reporter if a relative of his invited him to his wedding with a significant other he would attend…like he evaded for 2 minutes…wonder what the right right will say now
..can handle tough questions..now the teabaggers will ponder he caved after 2 minutes with an aggressive reporter..sad -
Leave it to the liberals to worry about who the GOP is going to select. LOL! I’m sure you will pick a nice RINO for us.
Why aren’t you guys worrying about where Hillary stands on the issues? Why has she not had a single substantive interview? I’ll tell you why Hillary is going to lose. Hillary is going to lose because she stands for nothing. She is not likable. She is an opportunist. She’s as much a liar as Obama. She’s not trusted. Democrat voters are going to hold their nose and vote for her, because they are mindless ideologues, but the independents are going to abandon her. Blacks will not go out to vote for her. They don’t like her. White women will split 50/50. White men will go against her 80/20. The Hispanic vote will be muted and will tip GOP with either Jeb, Cruz or Rubio.
Hillary’s path to victory is looking more and more limited. She will be in a heap of trouble within 6 months.
-
Well. There [i]is[/i] a dedicated Hillary thread.
As usual I wholly disagree with your assessment of Clinton’s electoral path. All things equal (economy as is with no major foreign policy changes, domestic terror events, big scandals that reach bipartisan agreement that it [i]is[/i] a proble) and Hillary Clinton has the best chance of any person on planet earth at being the next President.
She’ll lose white mey, yes. But it won’t be anywhere near 80/20. And it is indeed a big question as to whether Jeb, Cruz, or Rubio can get enough of the Hispanic vote to make a path to victory. (“Probably not”, “certainly not”, and “maybe” would be my answers respectively). -
Marco Rubio
He is so robotic.
The moment he opens his mouth, he starts bashing Obama.
Is he paid to do that?
-
Okay Alda. Lets talk
All you do is emotionally babble of political jabs without thinking about reality
Keystone pipeline—- this is something that may gets done. The funny thing is the biggest environmental issues are coming from Locals in Nebraska and other heavily red states. That’s fng hilarious. Everyone wants this in the republican land as long as it isn’t running through their back yard
Also the major reason this is being held up—– there is no guarantee that this Canadian oil which goes to US refineries will be used to lower our countries energy costs. Simply put why the hello should we take all the risk so everyone benefits but us.
California—- yep they are sitting on oodles of shale but so far the jury is out whether or not it will be cost effective to actually get too with today’s technology. So your argument again means Jack Squat because as of now there is nothing there yet but propaganda
Also a side note- in California especially with the fault line patterns you sure as hello better be concerned about drilling techniques. Remember not to long ago tracking caused a earthquake in frickin near Youngstown Ohio.. Don’t let your political emotionalism blind you to potential reality
National Security issue—- I completely agree. We are sitting on more oil and gas than ever realized and most projections are that wee will be the worlds largest producer by 2020. Our issue is this- we need to use this energy to first acheive energy independence before we become the biggest exporter. That’s the key
-
[b]Are you kidding me? [/b]
Not at all the Dems are winning Nationally because they are closer to the center than the republcians
Aladoc The center is the center………….the center is not where the right wingnuts or the left wingnuts wish it to be.
I think you are delusional if you beleive otherwise.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from dergon
I found this read so interesting that I wanted to make a dedicated thread.
Nate Silver doing a statistical analysis on Rubio in comaparison to other republicans past and present. Check out the conservatism ranking chart. Check out where Christie sits.
[link=http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/marco-rubio-the-electable-conservative/]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/marco-rubio-the-electable-conservative/[/link]
Since winning his Senate seat, Mr. Rubio has generally sided with other Republicans as part of a party that has steadily grown more conservative over the last three decades. (Mr. Rubios [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/us/politics/senators-agree-on-blueprint-for-immigration.html?_r=0]recent support for immigration reform[/link] is more of an exception than his usual rule of sticking to the party line.)
Being reliably conservative, however, is hardly a liability for someone who might hope to win the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Indeed, one reason to watch Mr. Rubio carefully is that, among the candidates who will be deemed reliably conservative by Republican voters and insiders, he may stand the best chance of maintaining a reasonably good image with general election voters.
How does Mr. Rubios conservatism compare to [link=http://www.oddschecker.com/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election-2016/republican-candidate]the other men and women[/link] who might seek the Republican nomination in 2016 and to other candidates, like Mitt Romney, that the G.O.P. has nominated recently?……
Since winning his Senate seat, Mr. Rubio has generally sided with other Republicans as part of a party that has steadily grown more conservative over the last three decades. (Mr. Rubios [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/us/politics/senators-agree-on-blueprint-for-immigration.html?_r=0]recent support for immigration reform[/link] is more of an exception than his usual rule of sticking to the party line.)
Being reliably conservative, however, is hardly a liability for someone who might hope to win the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Indeed, one reason to watch Mr. Rubio carefully is that, among the candidates who will be deemed reliably conservative by Republican voters and insiders, he may stand the best chance of maintaining a reasonably good image with general election voters.
How does Mr. Rubios conservatism compare to [link=http://www.oddschecker.com/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election-2016/republican-candidate]the other men and women[/link] who might seek the Republican nomination in 2016 and to other candidates, like Mitt Romney, that the G.O.P. has nominated recently?….
Other potential candidates, including former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida and Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico, are close to Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney on the ideological spectrum.
Isnt it premature to draw attention to a candidates popularity so far in advance of the primaries? Certainly, a great deal will change between now and 2016.What makes matters tricky for Mr. Rubio is that, at the same time he is hoping to persuade Republican party insiders that he deserves their support, he will also need to maintain a reasonably good image with the broader electorate lest his electability argument be undermined. This may lead to some strange positions, such as when Mr. Rubio recently critiqued President Obamas immigration proposal despite its [link=http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/obamas-immigration-reform-resembles-sen-marco-rubios-plan/1275699]many similarities to his own[/link].
When the wider electorate learns that Mr. Rubios positions are in fact hard to differentiate from those of other conservative Republicans, will his favorability ratings turn mediocre, as Mr. Ryans now are?
This is not meant as a rhetorical question. One measure of political talent, and something that characterized both Mr. Reagan and Mr. Obama, is the ability to sell ideas to voters across a wide range of the political spectrum. Perhaps Mr. Rubio will prove to be such a talent. Otherwise, if Mr. Rubio holds a fairly ordinary (and conservative) set of Republican positions, his popularity ratings may wind up being ordinary as well.Hmmm. Lets take a look at Senator Rubio’s election in the quintessential/microcosm purple state of Florida. Coming in a very distant 3rd place was a doctrinaire liberal minority Congressman Kendrick Meek, with less than 20% of the vote. This is in a state that routinely puts moderate dems in the senate like Bob Graham and Bill Nelson. President Obama won now twice in Fl. So why did a liberal do so poorly and a conservative like Sen. Rubio ran away with the race, receiving over 2.5 times the vote of the democrat?
There is only really one or two answers why. First answer, people are more accepting of a small government conservative than a openly big government liberal, even in Fl where Rubio said he’d change Medicare and social security. Or, second answer-there was no symbolism of the first black Prez or cult of personality helping Congressman Meek the way it helped Obama. It’s likely a combination of both.
Calculation here-what Hillary maintains with the democrat zombie-like, kool-aid drinking believers in group-think symbolism of being the first woman President (or first housewife lifted to the Presidency), she’ll loose with moderates if she maintains the unadulterated liberalism of Obama and his followers. Hillary Clinton, like Bill Clinton, if elected will like screw up any lasting lib agenda Obama leaves. That’s if she and her sagging face is strong enough for a run at it. Raise a glass to toast Russ Feingold finding his way to Iowa and winning the caucus. This time D1ck Morris isnt going to be around to bail the Clintons out.-
Rubio is bobbing & weaving trying to decide what the safest position is to state what he “firmly” believes in.
-
[b]Hmmm. Lets take a look at Senator Rubio’s election in the quintessential/microcosm purple state of Florida. [/b]
I think this is a totally false argument. 2010 was a hyped up nearly populist election based on a lot of Tea party rhetoric that has since really fizzled. I am not sure you can compare the election of 2010 to future elections
The outcome of 2012 was a lot different than 2010 as the tea party who led to Rubio’s election fizzled-
You statement is wrong on balance for different reasons. In 2010, The democrats in this inaccurately described frenzied ” hype ” easily won CT, DE, (senate) and NY (gov) despite a much attention placed on their TP opponents. Harry Reid won in another swing state of Nevada. So there was no real magic populst “wave” or phase falsely lifting one party up over another in purple or blue states like Fl. That is unless you consider the 2010 election a time where moderates in Obama won states like Fl and MA decided to wholesale reject Pelosi/Obama liberalism, which you statement implies. Also, the Republicans easily maintained their margins in the 2012 House Races without ever a chance of the dems taking it back.
Fact is that Sen Rubio, without federal or statewide election experience, received a gargantuan margin of nearly 3 times as many votes as a known, multiterm very lib democrat Congressman in Fl whose parents were in state and national politics for years as well.
Please be a little more circumspect and sophicated with your opinions. Offer some proof to back up wishful thinking. It would be more useful.
-
Gee I seem to remember Republicans calling 2010 the second republican revolution. The first one be ing the Gingrich led election of 1994. It was rise the of the Tea party
Rubio got 49% of the vote. The other was split by Christ and a nobody. The economy and christ flipping parties were the main issues
Florida elected a Tea party governor……. Whom they now hate. Rubio won largely because Floridas economy was trashed by the real estate collapse. Charlie Christ was damaged goods then but has since made a comeback
Wisconsin did the same thing with the governor and Ron Johnson
. The house changed hands. It was a populist wave. Rand Paul Nikki Haley pat toomey
Actually 17 republican governors were elected that year
Instead of being less circumspect. Try having a 2-3 year memory
[link=http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981462817]http://politics.gather.co…icleId=281474981462817[/link]
[link=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-elections-senate-race-results-republicans-democrats/t/story?id=12003528]http://abcnews.go.com/Pol…ts/t/story?id=12003528[/link]
Go ahead and run Rubio. He’s already been exposed
How old are you 12?????? Or do you have short term memory loss
-
Quote from kpack123
Rubio got 49% of the vote. The other was split by Christ and a nobody. The economy and christ flipping parties were the main issues
And that was a 3-way race where Sen. Rubio, a relative unknown a year before that, received 60% more votes than the sitting governor; and, 2.5 times as many votes as the democratic opponent, in a state with many more registered democrats than republicans.
In the 2010 election, this ‘nobody’ you strangely refer to was Kendrick Meek. Kendrick Meek at that time was a 4 term Congressman relected by margins of greater than 80% and from a political dynasty. Mr. Meek got himself well-known by ranting night after night on CSPAN about the Iraq war with his Fl girlfriend Debbie Waserman Schultz. Both of them were richly rewarded with rapid advancement in the democratic party. Meek now sits on the coveted Ways and Means committee. That’s a somebody. In fact he is likely Florida’s most recognized liberal politician, along with now DNC chairwoman Schultz. And Senator Rubio, never running before in a fed or statewide election, thoroughly embarrassed the democrats by gaining 2.5 times as many votes as the minority party candidate agasint his well-known democrat opponent.
Quote from
Charlie Christ was damaged goods then but has since made a comeback
Charlie Christ got elected by a good margin and enjoyed a high popularity rating throughout most of his term. This popular governor was too beaten by Sen. Rubio receiving 60% more votes than him. His ‘comeback’ was to suck up to liberals and obama. Since then he’s now an fairly unconnected and obscure lawyer in Tampa.
Quote from
Wisconsin did the same thing with the governor
Gee you are using some strange pretzel logic here that’s easily turned right against you. Yes, Scott Walker was elected in Wisconsin and it was seen as a change election. He then faced immediate intimidation and heat from every union, not only in the midwest, but from just about every state. And, if the tea party movement was this ‘hyped up short lived populism’ you claim , why did Scott Walker win a statewide election in the Obama year of 2012 (Obama won the state in this year 7%) by an EVEN LARGER MARGIN than the TP dominated 2009-2010 years? Furthermore, Scott Walker won in 2012, despite being outspent by a national groups of public sector unionists stealing/siphoning money from every state coffers to target Walker with an unseemly and whopping 100 million total for a campaign that failed.
So, we are now left with the question: Why did his lavish spending liberal opponents fail to beat Gov. Walker in the year President Obama got reelected and no ‘ hyped-up short-lived tea party populism” theory for you to use as a crutch? Its more like the people of Wisconsin like the commonsense and conservative fiscal responsibility policies Gov. Walker has instituted. And conversely, they reject liberals in Madison, state expansion, and the power trappings of out of control municipal unions.
Quote from
The house changed hands. It was a populist wave.
And the House remained solidly republican and more red than ever in 2012, despite Obama receiving more of a percentage of the American vote than any other democrat presidential candidate in over 50 years. And while mentioning 1994 in your sham and easily rejected ‘hyped up temporary populism’ theorem, after 1994, despite Newt the bellicose, the republicans held onto the House for 12 more years. Only after the populism of the democrat anti-war protest ranting, did the democrats regain the House, for a mere 4 years. Send your thanks to Ms. Pelosi for losing power.
Quote from
Rand Paul Nikki Haley pat toomey
A couple of non-sequitirs here just thrown out that have may something to do with your ‘hyped-up temporary populism’ theory, but it works against you as a liberal. In KY, it’s safe republican turf that Dr. Paul was going to win, change election or not. Pennsylvania is safe blue territory, much like neighboring NJ, NY, and MA. You have to ask yourself why in a safe blue state would a lot of people even respond to the TP message of populism? Why- because moderates turned away from Obamacare and government largess in big numbers to elect a very conservative RW in Sen. Toomey. Ditto for Massachusetts and the election of Scott Brown. So, yes there was populism at play in these blue states-agaisnt liberalism in general. Or, should we just assume that the citizens of Massachusetts, where democrats outnumber republicans about 3 to 1, were just sucked into your mindless frenzy “hype” to follow tea party’s message? While you are at it offering this bizarre theory, you might as well just say something random like Massachusetts citizens voted for the tea party candidate because they were proud and protective of the namesake of the original tea party.
Quote from
Actually 17 republican governors were elected that year
Yes, and that’s a good thing. Now republicans have 30 governorships and thanks for reminding me. Firewalls against Obamacare, more right to work states, more balanced budgets, more shrinking government, fewer regulations, lower taxes, lower unemployment on balance, more and more school choice and traditionalism. Contrast that to the democrats governors presiding over financial messes and debt (IL,CA NY), unprecedented raises in taxes (CA, IL, NY), highest unemployment (CA, RI, NY) useless pandering to the gun abolitionist movement, and the need to spend/exhaust billions in surpluses, like what Deval Patrick is doing building trains nobody will use to Cape Cod and paying off MTA union legacy benefits that far exceed the private sector. They’ll probably be more of this ‘temporary frenzy’ when the Colorado politicians try to get reelected after recently gutting the second amendment.Quote from
Instead of being less circumspect. Try having a 2-3 year memory
Ummm doesnt seem like the gun abolitionist democrats are doing that right now. They should take a look at what happened in 1994 with the assault weapons ban. It subsequently forced one Clinton into being a moderate, and it likely will have the same effect on the other Clinton.-
Nice try but only in an alternate universe
Write a book because you said some stupid things trying to blur your original point……… which got taken out. Just take the loss instead of trying to broaden it
2010 was a populist election. It was definitely an anti Obama election. However If it was a real tide 2012 would have been bigger but it wasn’t. Obama won handily. The dems control the senate. The house was unchanged.
Rubio rode the Tea Party wave into office in 2010 in a state that was decimated by the real estate bubble. Despite that he still only got 49% of the vote hardly a landslide like you suggested
The bottom line is and remains. He rode a populist wave into office. Ok that’s fine but how does that translate into national force?
His first opportunity to showcase himself on a national stage…… He chokes on his own saliva then looks like a fish sucking water through a straw.
You want to run this guy Nationally??????? Go ahead.
If conservatives were smart they’d get behind Christie. He actually has a chance of winning. I don’t think they will however. Republicans are very strong geographically but have nationally they are the minority party
-
Quote from kpack123
Nice try but only in an alternate universe
Write a book because you said some stupid things trying to blur your original point……… which got taken out. Just take the loss instead of trying to broaden it
2010 was a populist election. It was definitely an anti Obama election. However If it was a real tide 2012 would have been bigger but it wasn’t. Obama won handily. The dems control the senate. The house was unchanged.
Rubio rode the Tea Party wave into office in 2010 in a state that was decimated by the real estate bubble. Despite that he still only got 49% of the vote hardly a landslide like you suggested
The bottom line is and remains. He rode a populist wave into office. Ok that’s fine but how does that translate into national force?
His first opportunity to showcase himself on a national stage…… He chokes on his own saliva then looks like a fish sucking water through a straw.
You want to run this guy Nationally??????? Go ahead.
If conservatives were smart they’d get behind Christie. He actually has a chance of winning. I don’t think they will however. Republicans are very strong geographically but have nationally they are the minority party
Nice try in lying about me. However, check it out for yourself, as none of my posts were edited after someone else had posted. No reason to fabricate and embellish unless you think I blew huge holes through your temporary ‘hyped up populism’ argument you need to dearly cling onto as a liberal minority in the US. Fact is that moderates abandoned liberalism even before Nov. 2010, as the election of Scott Brown proved, and, scores of moderate Congressional democrats proved in preventing further nuclear Obama/democrat damage to medicine. My point is rather simple-moderates wont return to your side and the mistake of Pelosism for the foreseeable future. And if you want to take on a 100 dollar bet (given to charity) about the Congressional election of 2014, just tell me.
In 2016, lets see if the democrats can replicate the obama-Chicago hate machine to fire up all the inner city lemmings to vote for the democrat in percentages not seen outside of places where they call the head of state “Great Leader” like North Korea, old Eastern bloc, or Al Capone’s Chicago roundtable. Or maybe Hillary might not engender the same loyalty or enthusiasm for the hate machine obama did. Wonder how much homosexual butt she is kissing in Hollywood nowadays to get those Geffen dollars. Or, maybe like obama this week, its really needed first to pay off the huge DNC debt it lost failing to even come close to winning the House in 2012. Democrats and debt-seems to be a familiar theme.-
You are completely out of touch about national politics. Not only that you arguments are 3 yrs old. Did you fall asleep for 3 yrs and just wake up?
You are correct about one thing
Simple moderates will not return to pelosism
Because there is no pelosism. This is another false argument. Outside of California and a few rural red states. No one cares about nancy Pelosi. She is an old argument that is dead
-
[b]Fact is that moderates abandoned liberalism even before Nov. 2010, as the election of Scott Brown proved, and, scores of moderate Congressional democrats proved in preventing further nuclear Obama/democrat damage to medicine. [/b]
Duuuuuhhhhhh Mr Selective memory
Scott Brown Lost in a re-election bid to Elizabeth Warren last fall
Are you Serious??????
Please tell me you are being sarcastic????? You can’t have a memory this selective
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[link=http://www.salon.com/2013/04/14/sunday_show_roundup_marco_rubio_goes_full_ginsburg_talks_tough_on_immigration/singleton/]http://www.salon.com/2013/04/14/sunday_show_roundup_marco_rubio_goes_full_ginsburg_talks_tough_on_immigration/singleton/[/link]
Rubio pulls the “Full Ginsberg” ( plus a [b]Señor Ginsberg) [/b]
[b][/b]
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) joined the ranks of [link=http://www.salon.com/2013/03/08/george_w_bushs_art_teacher_says_hell_go_down_in_the_history_books_as_a_great_artist/]famous artist[/link] George W. Bush, [link=http://www.salon.com/2013/03/20/michele_bachmann_runs_away_from_reporter/]marathon sprinter[/link] Michelle Bachmann and others by going full Ginsburg on Sunday to promote the Gang of Eight immigration reform proposal. (Full Ginsburg is a reference to Monica Lewinsky lawyer William Ginsburg, who was the first to appear on all five of the major network shows on the same day.)
But Rubio did Ginsburg one better during his immigration reform-themed media blitz. Two better, actually.
In addition to appearances on NBCs Meet the Press, CBS Face the Nation, ABCs This Week, CNNs State of the Union and Fox News Sunday, Rubio stopped by Univision and Telemundo to promote a bipartisan package and swear up and down that he was really, really not offering amnesty to more than 11 million undocumented immigrants.-
A republicantries to get to the middle, and the right hammers him:
[link=http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/05/03/can-rubio-survive-the-rights-onslaught-immigration-reform/]http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/05/03/can-rubio-survive-the-rights-onslaught-immigration-reform/[/link]
[b]Can Rubio Survive the Rights Onslaught?[/b]NR and a host of other conservative critics, including Rubios erstwhile friend, former Senator Jim DeMint, who steered the Heritage Foundation into the fight against reform, have established the meme that Rubio was rolled by Democrat Chuck Schumer and the other liberals on the gang. Their point is that promises about border security in the bill are either imaginary or not to be relied upon. NRs formidable writer Stanley Kurtz [link=http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347175/schumer-rubio-backs-assimilation-dont-believe-it]adds to this indictment [/link]by claiming today that the funding for efforts to integrate immigrants into American society is similarly fraudulent. But that piece, like many other critiques of Rubio and the bill, seem to take the position that the only responsible position for conservatives to take is to oppose any further immigration at all under the current circumstances. With liberals threatening to add poison pill amendments about including rights for gay spouses into the bill, its little wonder that Rubio has at times sounded worried about the bills chances of passage in the GOP-controlled House.
This is the point in the drama where a relatively inexperienced senator who has been promoted to the political big leagues too fast might falter or, even worse, panic and lash out at his critics, leading to a meltdown that could doom his ability to ever go back to conservatives to ask for their votes for president. But so far Rubio has not only kept his cool but also maintained a balanced approach to critics of the bill that speaks well for his ability to survive the onslaught against it, which has increasingly been focused as much on him as the details of the scheme.
In his [link=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324766604578458933649759710.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop][i]Wall Street Journal[/i] op-ed[/link] on the issue published today, Rubio has made it clear he has no intention of letting the bills opponents seize the issue of border security. He may well have to insist, as [link=http://townhall.com/columnists/hughhewitt/2013/05/02/for-gop-wouldbe-presidents-the-border-fence-is-2016s-panama-canal-n1585238/page/full]Hugh Hewitt advises[/link] him today at Townhall.com, on the building of a fence between the United States and Mexico in order to convince conservatives that the U.S. can regain control of its border.
But as much as Rubio has rightly resolved to use the legislative process to toughen up the bill, he also seems to have caught onto the basic dynamic of the immigration debate:
[blockquote] Of course, there are those who will never support immigration reform no matter what changes we make. Even if we address every concern they raise, they will likely come up with new ones. They have a long list of complaints but typically never offer a solution of their own.
[/blockquote] ——-
The maelstrom surrounding the immigration bill is beginning to look more like a new chapter in [i]Profiles in Courage[/i] than the purely a cynical attempt on Rubios part to assimilate into the Republican Party and get elected president that many conservatives have assumed it to be. The outcome of the struggle and its effect on his reputation is far from certain. But if he stays positive and manages to strengthen the enforcement mechanisms in the legislationwhich is the key test that will determine whether it will passRubio may emerge from this battle stronger than he was before it started.-
[link=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/13/the-desperation-of-marco-rubio.html]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/13/the-desperation-of-marco-rubio.html[/link]
The Cruzification of Marco Rubio[/h1]The junior senators blatant pandering in bashing the budget deal shows the shameless lengths he will go to get back into the GOP bases good graces.
Lets give it up for Marco Rubio! After months of getting his butt whipped in the rabid-obstructionism department by Ted Cruz, the junior senator from Florida emerged the hands-down winner in the race to trash the Murray-Ryan budget deal. The entire political chattering class expressed awe this week at just how quickly Rubios team pushed out his this deal sucks statement. It was as though some poor staffer had been assigned to sit around 24-7 with his finger hovering over the send button, just waiting for the deal to drop.
Senator Rubio strikes me as a person not only highly attuned to criticisms of him from the base, but overly reactive to them, adjusting and responding moment by moment. One senses that believing he badly hurt himself with the base because of his stand on immigration, hes now scrambling to ingratiate himself with it. It isnt a particularly impressive thing to watch.
………
Ah, yes. Marco Rubio. Political pragmatist. Except when it comes to this weeks exceedingly modest budget compromisethen suddenly the man is as pure as the driven snow: a slash-spending, overhaul-government, brook-no-compromises, go-big-or-go-home guy.
No question these are fraught times for Republican lawmakersespecially those who fancy themselves contenders for 2016. But Rubio needs to tread carefully when executing such dramatic and blatant panders. Its hard to convince the electorate that youre a man of principle when youre so visibly soaked in the cold sweat of desperation.
-
They just don’t get it. They keep leaning into the punch.
What’s up with that?
-
Lindsay Graham jumps on Rubio, calling him “Not ready” as Graham himself toys with a Presidential run.
[link=http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/politics/graham-rubio-weekly-standard-running-for-president/index.html]http://www.cnn.com/2014/1…r-president/index.html[/link]
I think Graham running would make for lots of fun.
-
-
-
-
-
[b]
[h1]Marco Rubios biggest weakness may be math[/b][/h1]
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/15/marco-rubios-biggest-weakness-may-be-math/?tid=hpModule_79c38dfc-8691-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z14]http://www.washingtonpost…eafdd1394&hpid=z14[/link]
That’s because {Rubio’s} economic agenda has a simple arithmetic problem. He wants to balance the budgetin fact, he wants to amend the Constitution to make that mandatorybut at the same time he wants to cut taxes by $4 trillion or so, increase defense spending, and keep antipoverty spending where it is. That doesn’t leave a lot of places to find savings. There probably aren’t any in non-defense discretionary spendingthings like roads and researchwhen it’s already at a 40-year low. So you’d have to get them all by cutting Social Security and Medicare, and cutting them now. Rubio, though, only wants to “reform” entitlements for future seniors, not current ones. And that leaves you with big, fat deficits for a good, long while.
Just more supply side hokus pokus. But Rubio knows why he has to play the magic GOP fiscal shell game:
This is the same problem Republicans have had for 35 years now. That’s how long they’ve been running on deficit-financed tax cuts and fiscal responsibility. So Rubio, who’s trying to portray himself as a new kind of Republican, is seizing on the only thing that makes that combination work: saying tax cuts will pay for themselves. Specifically, he’s [link=http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/04/14/exclusive-marco-rubio-on-why-is-running-for-president/]said[/link] that the way to balance the budget is with “dynamic economic growth,” which, of course, his tax cuts are supposed to provide. That’s saying you can eat your cake and have it too, because eating it will make more of it appear. But anyone who remembers the big deficits that came after Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush’s big tax cuts knows that’s not the case.
But that hasn’t stopped the usual supply-side suspects, like the right-leaning [link=http://taxfoundation.org/blog/rubio-lee-plan-cuts-taxes-business-investment-grow-economy-15-percent]Tax Foundation[/link], from claiming that Rubio’s trillions of dollars of tax cuts would, after nine years of bigger deficits, actually make tax revenues go up after that by supercharging growth so much. If this sounds like wishful thinking masquerading as actual analysis, well, you’re in touch with empirical reality. “This would not pass muster,” economist Laurence Kotlikoff [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/upshot/tax-cuts-still-dont-pay-for-themselves.html?abt=0002&abg=1]told[/link] the New York Times’s Josh Barro, “as an undergraduate model at a top university.” Though those last four words might not be necessary.
It’s a case of fiscal dissonance.[b] Republicans think tax cuts are the solution to everything, but they also think the debt is one of our biggest problems. The only way to make this compute is to cut spending more than you cut taxes. That’s what Paul Ryan, for example, has proposed in his budgets that would cut safety net and non-defense discretionary spending down to[link=http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-worst-part-of-paul-ryans-budget/254845/]almost nothing[/link]. The problem here, though, is that specific government programs are a lot more popular than government in the abstract. Voters, in other words, might [i]say[/i] that they want smaller government, but not if that means, well, actually making the government smaller by slashing Medicaid and R&D spending. Besides, it’s bad politics to make the trade-off between more tax cuts for the rich and less spending for the poor more explicit.[/b] That would make a lot of voters think the Republicans don’t care about people like them, which Rubio doesn’t want to doom the party in 2016 like it did in 2012.bb
-
[b]
[h1]Marco Rubios biggest weakness may be math[/b][/h1]
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/15/marco-rubios-biggest-weakness-may-be-math/?tid=hpModule_79c38dfc-8691-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z14]http://www.washingtonpost…eafdd1394&hpid=z14[/link]
That’s because {Rubio’s} economic agenda has a simple arithmetic problem. He wants to balance the budgetin fact, he wants to amend the Constitution to make that mandatorybut at the same time he wants to cut taxes by $4 trillion or so, increase defense spending, and keep antipoverty spending where it is. That doesn’t leave a lot of places to find savings. There probably aren’t any in non-defense discretionary spendingthings like roads and researchwhen it’s already at a 40-year low. So you’d have to get them all by cutting Social Security and Medicare, and cutting them now. Rubio, though, only wants to “reform” entitlements for future seniors, not current ones. And that leaves you with big, fat deficits for a good, long while.
Just more supply side hokus pokus. But Rubio knows why he has to play the magic GOP fiscal shell game:
This is the same problem Republicans have had for 35 years now. That’s how long they’ve been running on deficit-financed tax cuts and fiscal responsibility. So Rubio, who’s trying to portray himself as a new kind of Republican, is seizing on the only thing that makes that combination work: saying tax cuts will pay for themselves. Specifically, he’s [link=http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/04/14/exclusive-marco-rubio-on-why-is-running-for-president/]said[/link] that the way to balance the budget is with “dynamic economic growth,” which, of course, his tax cuts are supposed to provide. That’s saying you can eat your cake and have it too, because eating it will make more of it appear. But anyone who remembers the big deficits that came after Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush’s big tax cuts knows that’s not the case.
But that hasn’t stopped the usual supply-side suspects, like the right-leaning [link=http://taxfoundation.org/blog/rubio-lee-plan-cuts-taxes-business-investment-grow-economy-15-percent]Tax Foundation[/link], from claiming that Rubio’s trillions of dollars of tax cuts would, after nine years of bigger deficits, actually make tax revenues go up after that by supercharging growth so much. If this sounds like wishful thinking masquerading as actual analysis, well, you’re in touch with empirical reality. “This would not pass muster,” economist Laurence Kotlikoff [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/upshot/tax-cuts-still-dont-pay-for-themselves.html?abt=0002&abg=1]told[/link] the New York Times’s Josh Barro, “as an undergraduate model at a top university.” Though those last four words might not be necessary.
It’s a case of fiscal dissonance.[b] Republicans think tax cuts are the solution to everything, but they also think the debt is one of our biggest problems. The only way to make this compute is to cut spending more than you cut taxes. That’s what Paul Ryan, for example, has proposed in his budgets that would cut safety net and non-defense discretionary spending down to[link=http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-worst-part-of-paul-ryans-budget/254845/]almost nothing[/link]. The problem here, though, is that specific government programs are a lot more popular than government in the abstract. Voters, in other words, might [i]say[/i] that they want smaller government, but not if that means, well, actually making the government smaller by slashing Medicaid and R&D spending. Besides, it’s bad politics to make the trade-off between more tax cuts for the rich and less spending for the poor more explicit.[/b] That would make a lot of voters think the Republicans don’t care about people like them, which Rubio doesn’t want to doom the party in 2016 like it did in 2012.bb
-
Reagan already proved the merits of that type of math wishful thinking. Or fantasy thinking. It’s when deficits exploded.
[attachment=0]
-
Alda’s projection brings smiles to the Hillary campaign…
-
Roll ack the clock 8 years. Hillary had 70% of the black vote to Obama’s 30%. She was the “inevitable” Democrat nominee. This devolved into a stunning loss. The scenario is not too different now. Hillary has a phantom advantage…until the intangibles come to bear:
– Enthusiasm is decidedly against her.
– Identity politics. The Politics that Democrats have been so carefully sowing will come back to bite her in the a$$. The two “historic first Hispanic” candidates who could potentially carry the GOP ticket are both Republicans. Do you really think that Hillary is going to carry that vote? When Paco is ready to pull the lever, he’s going to pick one of his own.
-History is against her. It would be very rare to have a party win three presidential elections in a row, especially after the last admininstration which has departed so radically from the American ethos and has forfeited the projection of American power.
-The generational gap is decidedly against her. She is now a member of a minority demographic that projects staleness.We shall see. Mark my post and talk to me in a few months.
-
Paco?
-
yeah and that’s why the GOP will lose in 2016…people are not fooled by just putting out 2 Cuban Americans that are both stuck in the 50’s and don’t represent all of latin americans
see Anna Navarro: u may make comments on Hill’s estrogen but you still have people in the party that you support saying things like paco and calves like cantaloupes
Christie dug another nail when he praised Obama’s skill as a candidate=Frumious
Paco?
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
We shall see. Mark my post and talk to me in a few months.
I always do. And you’re almost always, often catastrophically, wrong.
You’re pretty much the Dick Morris of AM predictions.
I would add as well that there is almost nothing to be learned in the next few months. 2015 will be a lot of jockeying on the GOP side but probably a big wash on Hillary until we get closer in. I’d say instead “talk to me in a year”.-
I’m pretty sure in the mind of many if not most Latinos in America…….the average Cuban American does not speak for them or their beliefs
At least that’s his it is where I am at
-
Dick Morris of aunt Minnie predictions
Hahahahaha
Now that’s some good sheet
-
“a minority demographic that projects staleness.”
I don’t think Hillary expects to do well with the GOP-
Republicans be like
We ain’t racist
PACO…..pull that lever
-
One thing I agree with Alda on to a degree
Hillary is not the most likeable canidate
Who she is running against will be very important
-
also who she is running with will make a big difference as well
Quote from kpack123
One thing I agree with Alda on to a degree
Hillary is not the most likeable canidate
Who she is running against will be very important
-
Very funny Dergon… The guy who predicted the Democrats would hold the Senate and maybe win the House is now handicapping the GOP field. LOL!
I’m very encouraged by the way this election is shaping up. Hillary is a VERY weak candidate. That Scoobie DooDoo van nonsense is not going to win an election, despite half of the country being brain dead. The Septegenerian, Wellesley College privileged girl is trying to sell herself as a flag bearer for the downtrodden. Her positions shift more rapidly than a prostitute at a cowboy convention.
There is a very good chance that we will see a conservative get elected. Not one minute too early, either, before the liberals complete the dismantling of the Constitution, the military and all institutions. Right now Rubio looks the strongest, followed by Jeb and Ted Cruz. Walker and Paul are losing luster. None of the others have a chance in hell.
Which one is going to be Duke and which is going to be Wisconsin and Kentucky?
-
Quote from aldadoc
Very funny Dergon… The guy who predicted the Democrats would hold the Senate and maybe win the House is now handicapping the GOP field. LOL!
I think you’re misremembering, Dr. Defund-2nd inning- Romney 2008 -going galt out of the market in 2011- Romney debate wins changes the game- Landslide Romney 2012- climate change will be proven for a hoax- jobs report is a sham -Romney 2016.
I predicted 2014 as a bad year for democrats and had the House both staying Republican [i]and[/i] the GOP gaining seats.
Quote from dergon
[b]2014 is likely to be a bad year for democrats.
Mid-term electorate favors the GOP and all things as they are now the issues favor the GOP as well.[/b] 2nd term president’s mid-term election is generally a referendum on his performance.
[b]House definately stays republican – probably +5-10 seats [/b]
Senate is a toss-up. A lot depends on how many Tea Party candidates get in to races against more viable mainstream republicans who can win state-wide races. I give democrats a 70% chance to hold but at 50/51 votes. -
Alda still honestly believes stockpiles of WMD’s are in Iraq
Sometimes I feel like I’m picking on the handicapped kid when I bring up his past prognostications
-
They were sent to Syria, don’t you know, kpack?
And we have the self-serving attempt at Judith Miller’s resurrection of her reputation. No need to resurrect it, she has it still. Still a chump at best or a participant in Administration lying to justify a war that proved to be unjustifiable. -
[url=http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni-pr/1671775-here-comes-marco-rubio-4.html] Read my lips![/url]
Rubio makes the Norquist pledge.
-
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/larry-ellison-marco-rubio-fundraiser-117895.html#ixzz3a7VmfDpI]http://www.politico.com/s…895.html#ixzz3a7VmfDpI[/link]
Marco Rubio snags a another billionaire
Sen. Marco Rubio now has another billionaire in his corner: Oracle founder Larry Ellison.
Ellison will host a fundraiser for the Florida Republicans White House bid at his mansion in Woodside, Calif., on June 9, according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO. -
wasting money…not ready for prime time…still in belief of 50’s cuba
-
Wow
Ellison was a Bill Clinton supporter
That’s Not small potatoes
-
Rubio always looks thirsty after talking for 30 sec
-
Nerves. What would he do if called at 2AM? Or while reading My Pet Goat?
-
Rubio as president would look like North Korea’s leader–> a joke/kid playing an adult
-
Quote from Noah’sArk
Rubio as president would look like North Korea’s leader–> a joke/kid playing an adult
You mean, like our current president? -
No Obama is the black JFK…and he got elected twice
Quote from Cigar
Quote from Noah’sArk
Rubio as president would look like North Korea’s leader–> a joke/kid playing an adult
You mean, like our current president?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ugh …. what a weird Rubio performance at the Manchester, NH debate.
People now calling him the “canned-idate” and “Mr. Roboto”. It’s a meme that he’ll now have to find a way to break or it will hurt him badly.
Secondarily —interesting that because he is essentially the mirror image of Obama he has to argue against the line of thinking that Obama is incompetent and in over his head.
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/gop-debate-marco-rubio-performance-218885]http://www.politico.com/s…bio-performance-218885[/link]
What was Marco Rubio thinking last night in Manchester, New Hampshire? Why would he repeat the same canned talking point four times, even after Chris Christie accused him of constantly repeating his canned talking points? And if he had to repeat a canned talking point during a Republican debate, why on earth would he choose one about how Barack Obama knows what hes doing?
The knows-what-hes-doing debacle felt like Rubios political Fredericksburg, a futile repetitive charge into overwhelming enemy fire. Christies brutal mockery of Rubios memorized 25-second speech evoked the fictional President Bartletts whats the next 10 words? smackdown of an opponents 10-word debate answers on []i][i]The West Wing[/i]. But there was an actual point that Rubio was trying to make, even if his embarrassing inability to deviate from his political script overshadowed his political argument.
…
Why would he dissent from the Republican party line that Obama is a clueless incompetent? Obviously, he wasnt suggesting that Obama has been a good president, since his entire campaign has been dedicated to the proposition that Obama is a disaster. He was suggesting that Obama, despite his relative pre-White House inexperience, has been effective at getting his way. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country, Rubio said. Then he listed some of the ways the president has succeeded in doing that: Obamacare, the $800 billion stimulus, the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, and the nuclear deal with Iran.
-
Apparently even before the Christie zinger people were dressing like Marco-bots outside events. “The Marco Talking Point 3000”
-
Domo Arigato
Marco before the debate
[image]http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr36/altreel/Top%20Ten/Worst%20Music%20Videos%20Two/styx.jpg[/image]-
Rubio is annoying. Tired of hearing his pressed the speech and his rehearsed lines, over and over again.
-
Sorta like your ineligible boy Cruz
(who is close, but not as bad, but sounds more annoying) -
Quote from aldadoc
Rubio is annoying. Tired of hearing his pressed the speech and his rehearsed lines, over and over again.
You are so right. We need a great orator in the whitehouse.-
I doubt Rubio would win Re-election in Florida
His only hope at Political survival is to win the Republican Nod or get on the ticket as a VP choice
Politically he is pretty much like Rick Santorum if he does not because he’d lose pretty big in Florida as of now if he’d even make it to the fall ballot
Rubio has some Obama-like Qualities but Obama is much smarter and so so so much more his own man……….like him or not-
Not very familiar with NYmag but ran across this Rubio ideas on energy article.
[link=http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/rubios-ideas-about-energy-terrifyingly-stupid.html]http://nymag.com/daily/in…rrifyingly-stupid.html[/link]
I find this kind of an interesting observation as Marco does act like he’s the fresh new person we all need but his thinking may actually be outdated.
“It seems bizarre to frame Rubios plan to reject the scientific consensus and redouble American reliance on fossil fuels as new, and to mock a plan to transition to emerging green energy sources as old. ”-
the debate really hurt him and Trump will win SC..this means he is really now on the vp list
-
SLN, why do you think all these naysayers haven’t realized, or didn’t want to believe that I was right all along about Trump?
-
How does Trump expect to deport all illegals and let them back in legally? Are we looking forward to expensive vegetables, and fruits? There’s an economy just around the types of jobs illegals do. Donald appeals to the anger, but how will he really be able to accomplish any of the over the top stuff he says? Like Mexico’s going to pony up and build a wall to keep illegals out.
-
How do we spend money on wars and move people all around the globe? It’s a national security subject like anything else. I am flabbergasted by these type of questions because [i]they presume[/i] that it can’t be done, but it’s very obvious and easy how and why it should be done.
Trump’s message is encapsulated in his rhetorical question “Do we want to have a country”?
That covers the obvious necessity of having borders and enforcing them, not flooding our marketplace with 3rd world workers here or abroad so Americans can’t get jobs as easily, obeying the Constitution. You know, the stuff our country was founded for and should always strive to protect. If it makes certain things more expensive, so be it — there’s always a price for desiring something that is worth anything.
Mexico will pay for it. Or they will suffer in trade. Just like Donald says. -
People really need to sit back and reflect, I’m being very serious here, and THINK. Why is Trump so popular? It’s because he says what is so obvious, and chooses subjects which show very simply and easily where our so-called leaders have betrayed us. The first issue, which is vitally important and resonates through anyone who cares about the country (a lot of people) was immigration. That alone is basically going to propel him to the presidency.
It’s not “anger” but rather righteous anger that the elites have sold us out. It’s not irrational. They have done all manner of things for their benefit and to the detriment of the American people. Anyone who is sane and loves his country would be outraged at this.
I have told you guys for months, it really is this simple. And it’s why he is going to be the next President. -
The Russians had the Iron Curtain, the Chinese the Bamboo Curtain. What’s ours? The Red-White & Blue Curtain? The Freedom Curtain? The KeepEmOut Curtain? The Mexican Curtain?
Ban immigration. -
It’s a real question. You can do anything with enough man power, look at the pyramids. What’s his plan to deport everyone? Are we going to have an SS style force that hunts illegals down, drives them to the border and drops them off? It would be a humanitarian crisis.
Things I think he can realistically do would be build up the military. Maybe some new boats, more troops, drones. You’re just left with the question of where’s the money coming from.
-
now Marco Robots have followed Rubio to SC
apparently Murdoch is calling Christy a suicide bomber because of what he did but Christy has a duty to out the boy in the bubble who apparently gets easily rattled from a story I read on the net but do we need him to have a robot moment during a crisis -
The pundits/media are not telling an accurate story. The truth was Rubio had used “dark money”. He went after Christy w adds etc. when Christy was doing well in NH and papers were endorsing him. MSNBC covered this the morning. Christy was just responding to Rubio going after him. Rubio paid the price. The exchange between the two of them will go down in history and will be played over and over as one of those debate moments.
-
Christie just stated the obvious. Not real sure why some are upset
Rubio new it was coming but is not smart enough to think quickly on his feet. He does what his handlers tell him to do
Manchurian type canidate -
kpack’s shaking in his boots. I wonder if he will even post here anymore when Trump wins.
-
Rubio is toast.
-
[link=http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/marco-rubios-campaign-declares-war-on-math.html]
[/link]
[h1][link=http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/marco-rubios-campaign-declares-war-on-math.html]Marco Rubios Campaign Declares War on Math[/link][/h1]
The [link=http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000606-an-analysis-of-marco-rubios-tax-plan.pdf]Tax Policy Center[/link] released on Thursday its analysis of Marco Rubio’s ginormous-tax-cut plan. The figures are pretty staggering. Once fully in effect, Rubios plan would increase the budget deficit by almost a trillion dollars a year. Rubios tax cuts would overwhelmingly accrue to the rich. The highest-earning one percent would take home 40 percent of the benefit. The lowest-earning two-fifths of the country would see its income rise just over one percent from the Rubio tax cuts, while the richest one percent would see its income rise by almost 9 percent:
…
So, in total, Rubio promises an enormous tax cut, higher defense spending, no changes to Medicare or Social Security over the next decade, and a balanced budget. All of those promises are necessary commitments one must make to be the candidate of the Republican Establishment, as Rubio hopes to be. But because these promises are so impossible, he cant accept the legitimacy of standard budget accounting and must rely on fantasy promises of massive economic growth, even though neither standard economics nor the history of the last 25 years provides much reason to believe debt-financed tax cuts do anything at all to increase economic growth. (Some studies suggest debt-financed tax cuts like those enacted under the Bush administration slightly reduced economic growth, if anything.) Rubio can either follow sane budget accounting principles, or he can make himself acceptable to Republican elites. Hes chosen the latter. -
Quote from aldadoc
Rubio is toast.
Still think so? I don’t know, but my guess more likely is that your guy Cruz is -
Welll…. 5 years later and a fresh cycle.
Rubio was slated to be the first speaker at CPAC this morning but now some reporting that he is scratched from the schedule.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[link=http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-21/races-shape-up-around-clinton-and-rubio]http://www.bloombergview….ound-clinton-and-rubio[/link]
Watch for a big Rubio bump as the establishment gets behind him.
I wonder if Bush, despite the bad blood and hurt feelings, will endorse Rubio soon.
In his victory speech, Trump ridiculed the pundits who added up the non-Trump votes and predicted he will be in trouble once the field consolidates.
So far, however, thats exactly what is happening: Polls in which few voters consider him their second choice also predict he wont benefit when other candidates leave. So do polls that show his favorable ratings are considerably lower than his competitors’. So does his campaign style, which makes it likely that supporters of the other candidates have felt personally insulted by the reality TV star.
And so does the simple fact that Trump has dominated the media for months, making it likely that most voters who are likely to support him already do so, and those who dont have made a relatively firm decision not to.
…
Rubio also seems likely to receive many more endorsements in future contested states, as well as plenty of money to fuel his campaign (including Florida money previously pledged to Bush).
-
[link=https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/editorials/os-op-marco-rubio-january-6-commission-vote-20210527-yxvdv4ovejfkrbnsjq3zms7uje-story.html]Orlando Sentinel[/link] editorial board —
[h1]Time to give up on Marco Rubio, who will never do the right thing if theres any risk[/h1]
Consider these words: We need to learn as much as we can: A, because it was a shameful day something that should never happen again and B, because I think our enemies of this country, terrorists and others, will look to learn from that day, potentially, one day take lessons learned from it to attack us here. Thats not from the Heralds editorial.[b] Thats what Rubio himself said less than two weeks ago.
…
[/b]
Rubios stated reasons are phony. Hes afraid an honest inquiry would make his party look worse than it already does ahead of the midterm elections.
Even more terrifying to him is the prospect of getting primaried if he stands up to the party. Just look at all the Trump family members flocking to Florida. Any one of them could step right in and probably squash Rubio like a bug if he gets out of line.
[b] [/b][/QUOTE]
-
I used to have hopes for Rubio but he really just never amounted to anything of substance.
-
-
just a reminder
[link=https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/.amp/news/rubio-received-1-5m-in-campaign-donations-from-russian-oligarch-linked-firm]https://mavenroundtable.i…n-oligarch-linked-firm[/link][h1][b]Rubio Received $1.5M In Campaign Donations From Russian Oligarch-Linked Firm[/b][/h1] Len Blavatnik contributed $1.5 million to PACs connected to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio during the 2016 election cycle.
-
Cuban connection
-
