Leon Wolf, the editor-in-chief of Red State, has just endorsed Rubio, and he makes some good points in the process. Be sure to read the article by Dan McLaughlin that he links. And other arguments for Rubio could be added to the list. He does significantly better against Clinton in the polls. He helps Republicans in a state where they need more help (Florida, in contrast to Texas). Etc.
I hope Cruz does the right thing by dropping out no later than early March. I'd like to see him drop out in the last two days of February if his polling doesn't improve a lot before then. But if he's going to stay in beyond February, I hope he at least doesn't stay beyond early March. And if Cruz doesn't do the right thing, his supporters had better do it.
Since Cruz is so young and has so many positive attributes (along with some weaknesses), he has a promising future in some political contexts (as a senator or potential governor of Texas, Supreme Court justice, etc.) But he's not good as a presidential candidate. Even if he still wanted to be president, this isn't his year. He has time to run again at least twice, given how young he is. He ought to leave the 2016 race sooner rather than later. If he would do that, it would do far more good than the alternative, and it would improve his standing in the party and his political prospects over the long run.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI'm neither a US citizen nor in the US, but do follow US politics with some interest, since it concerns us all.
The linked article says: "you would have to assume that Trump would get the lion’s share of the “moderate” voters that are currently allocated to Rubio."
I wonder how good an assumption that is. I wonder if the vast bulk of the people for whom they're choosing between Trump and Rubio aren't already voting for Trump. And that, of those who are currently voting for Cruz, if significantly more of those won't move to Trump rather than Rubio, if Cruz drops out.
Rationale: Rightly or wrongly, Rubio's seen as an 'establishment' candidate, and Cruz and Trump as outsiders. (I underline the "rightly or wrongly" - to me, Trump looks as much like the political establishment incarnate as you could get, once you actually look at his life and positions). Cruz and Trump are more, in voters' perceptions, (and it's the comparison that counts) fishing from the same pool than Cruz and Rubio are, with the exception of if you look at it as the "not Trump" pool. i.e. Potentially, I fear, once Cruz and Trump stop splitting the "not establishment" vote, Trump gains a lot more than once Cruz and Rubio stop splitting the "not Trump" vote.
My basic feeling is that this is all theory, and that in practice, unless something big happens, both Rubio and Cruz are likely to see their side of the argument more clearly right up until it's too late... someone whom they both respect needs to bang their heads together and force them to agree a deadline before that point is reached. Can that happen? I have not the slightest idea.
I thought that with the collapse of discernment and rise spin and the cynical elitism of the political class, we'd see a dangerous, egotistical braggart like Trump arise to capitalise on the gullibility of disenchanted voters arise in about 10-15 years time. It seems that once you start running downhill, things can go a lot quicker than you realised. May God have mercy.
David
I would tend to agree with you overall. I also think the rise of Trump is a reflection of the immorality, superficiality, and ignorance of the American electorate in general.
DeleteIt's a sad indictment.
Hi David,
DeleteYou wrote:
"I wonder how good an assumption that is. I wonder if the vast bulk of the people for whom they're choosing between Trump and Rubio aren't already voting for Trump. And that, of those who are currently voting for Cruz, if significantly more of those won't move to Trump rather than Rubio, if Cruz drops out."
I've heard from multiple sources on that subject over the months of this campaign season, and I don't remember what all of the sources were. But here's a recent one.
You write:
"Trump looks as much like the political establishment incarnate as you could get, once you actually look at his life and positions"
That's true in many ways, but not in others. Trump hasn't gotten many endorsements yet from sources that would commonly be considered establishment. Even if he gets a lot more later on, the fact that it took so long for it to happen is significant. Trump has really bad electability numbers, he's had close ties with racist groups and other disreputable individuals and organizations, he's highly ignorant of political issues in an obvious and embarrassing way, etc. On a lot of levels, he's repulsive to the establishment. At the same time, he's appealing to them in other contexts.
You write:
"My basic feeling is that this is all theory, and that in practice, unless something big happens, both Rubio and Cruz are likely to see their side of the argument more clearly right up until it's too late... someone whom they both respect needs to bang their heads together and force them to agree a deadline before that point is reached. Can that happen? I have not the slightest idea."
I recently heard Cruz say, in his own words in a clip played on the radio, that he considers March 1 the most important day of the presidential campaign. And there are a lot of other indications that he's aware of how much is at stake for him on that day.
There are many scenarios in which a Trump nomination could be avoided. For example:
- a brokered convention in which somebody other than Trump is chosen
- Cruz drops out early, and Rubio wins
- Rubio drops out early, and Cruz wins
- Cruz doesn't drop out early, but his supporters leave him for Rubio, and Rubio wins
- Rubio doesn't drop out early, but his supporters leave him for Cruz, and Cruz wins
In order for all such scenarios to be avoided, a lot of bad decisions would have to be made by a lot of people. That could happen. I give Trump a much higher chance of winning now than I did previously. But it still seems unlikely that he'll win.
By the way, David, your knowledge of the presidential race and your wisdom in evaluating it are much better than the average American's. That's commendable, but it's also a reflection of how irresponsible most Americans are.
I disagree. Rubio has yet to win a caucus or primary while Cruz has won one and beat Rubio in two. He and Rubio essentially tied in the last two races and Cruz is ahead of Rubio in delegates won. I don't buy the MSM spin that Rubio is more electable. Cruz is a consistent conservative who walks the walk while Rubio has a checkered past and only talks the talk.
ReplyDeleteDavid wrote:
Delete"I disagree. Rubio has yet to win a caucus or primary while Cruz has won one and beat Rubio in two. He and Rubio essentially tied in the last two races and Cruz is ahead of Rubio in delegates won."
Four states have voted. Cruz did better than Rubio in the first two, and Rubio did better in the two more recent ones. In all of them, they were within a few points of each other. But their performance in those four states isn't all that we take into account. I've cited evidence that's far more extensive than that, and you aren't interacting with it. Just as it would be misleading to take Trump's percentage in Nevada as being representative of Trump's status everywhere (that state is one of the most favorable to Trump in the nation), it's also misleading to limit your analysis of Cruz and Rubio to the first few states while ignoring how the later states will differ from the first few.
You go on:
"I don't buy the MSM spin that Rubio is more electable."
Polling data aren't "MSM spin". Here's Rubio's RealClearPolitics average. Here's Cruz's. Electability has to be judged by more than polling averages, but not less. Here's an article where I've argued for Rubio's better electability on other grounds as well, not just polling. I've seen people say that Cruz looks like Count Chocula and sounds like a televangelist. That's hyperbolic, it doesn't represent my view of Cruz, and I like him and wouldn't want to insult him with that sort of language. But there's an element of truth to that description of him, and it reflects how a lot of people seem to view him. Have you spent much time reading and listening to what people say about Cruz in online forums and other places? It goes beyond the reaction people normally have to a political opponent. It's reminiscent of how a lot of people have an irrationally negative view of Rick Santorum, Dick Cheney, or Sarah Palin. That's largely not Cruz's fault. But it's something that has to be taken into account.
You go on:
"Cruz is a consistent conservative who walks the walk while Rubio has a checkered past and only talks the talk."
That evaluation is ignorant enough to suggest that you haven't made any significant effort to study these issues. Rubio has recently gotten a 98% percent rating from the American Conservative Union and a 94% rating from the Heritage Foundation. How do you think he got those scores? Do you know anything about the work Rubio has done on tax reform, eminent domain, health care, etc.?
I also disagree. Rubio is 5 months younger than Cruz so he has just as many opportunities to run again as well. Cruz is the man we need right now. He's strong and is an expert debater. He would have no problem going against Clinton or Sanders. Plus there's talk that the Dems might have an independent run and split up there vote. It could turn into a Ross Perot thing all over again, except this time it would benefit Republicans. Not only that, but it's being reported that Rubio is surrounding himself with people that I strongly disagree with: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/marco-rubios-deputy-campaign-manager-is-a-gay-marriage-activist
ReplyDeleteThe article you link to says that "The Rubio campaign announced the formation of a "Marriage and Family Advisory Board" consisting of outspoken supporters of marriage, including Everett Piper of Oklahoma Wesleyan University and Alan Hawkins of Brigham Young University. Heritage Foundation scholar Ryan Anderson. Andeson, who has authored multiple books defending traditional marriage, is advising both Rubio and Ted Cruz. ("I'll advise anyone who will listen," he said.) “The Supreme Court’s decisions in Windsor and Obergefell are only the most recent example of our failure as a society to understand what marriage is and why it matters," said Eric Teetsel, the Rubio campaign's director of faith outreach, who also co-authored a book defending traditional marriage."
DeleteRyan Anderson is the leading public figure against gay marriage. So even if Beeson is on Rubios campaign, there is no evidence that Rubio is pro-gay marriage and plenty of evidence that he isn't.
zipper778 wrote:
Delete"Rubio is 5 months younger than Cruz so he has just as many opportunities to run again as well."
My comment about Cruz's age wasn't meant to contrast him to Rubio.
"He's strong and is an expert debater. He would have no problem going against Clinton or Sanders."
Cruz is a good debater in some ways, but not others. See my previous posts on the debates, and my comments about electability in response to David above, where I go into more depth about Cruz's problems. There are problems with how he looks, how he sounds, how scripted he often seems to be, how much he smirks and scowls, etc. He's right on the issues, intelligent, has a good memory, and has a lot of other good qualities, but those advantages are accompanied by some disadvantages that our immature culture often overestimates. That's unjust. It's unfair to Cruz. But that's reality.
"Plus there's talk that the Dems might have an independent run and split up there vote."
I hope it happens. But citing "talk" of such a thing doesn't carry much weight.
"Not only that, but it's being reported that Rubio is surrounding himself with people that I strongly disagree with: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/marco-rubios-deputy-campaign-manager-is-a-gay-marriage-activist"
In addition to what Jonathan has cited above, Cruz also has had associations with advocates of same-sex marriage.
This commentary is a dud, It makes a lot of claims but provides absolutely no case for why Rubio is ahead of Cruz in any clear sense of the word. Could you post data, instead of trying to speculate as to what you think voters are thinking?
ReplyDeleteYou should have just typed "I think everyone should support Rubio!" That would have saved you more time!
Leon Wolf's piece, that Jason links to, provides the data.
DeleteIt doesn't take Texas into consideration, or Ohio. In fact, one could make the same argument to vote for Kasich instead of Rubio or Cruz! Rubio is not the "clear choice"
DeleteJustin wrote:
Delete" This commentary is a dud, It makes a lot of claims but provides absolutely no case for why Rubio is ahead of Cruz in any clear sense of the word. Could you post data, instead of trying to speculate as to what you think voters are thinking?"
That's a remarkably careless and inaccurate response. The article I cited provides a lot of documentation, and I added some arguments of my own after citing it. To claim that it's a matter of "speculation" about "what I think voters are thinking" is far from the truth.
" It doesn't take Texas into consideration, or Ohio."
First you suggested that an article citing a lot of data doesn't cite any data. Now you're objecting that particular types of data aren't cited in the article. You've changed your argument without any explanation.
And your second argument is false, like your first one. McLaughlin's article, cited by Wolf, does address Texas and Ohio. It does so both in its text and in its charts.
Furthermore, even if Wolf hadn't taken Texas and Ohio into account, it wouldn't follow that he cited no data or that his overall argument is wrong.
"In fact, one could make the same argument to vote for Kasich instead of Rubio or Cruz!"
Kasich is far behind Rubio in the voting so far, national polls, most state polls, funding, endorsements, etc. Why are we supposed to think there's a good argument for Kasich over Rubio? He's better than Rubio in some contexts, but why think he's better overall?