Posted on 04/13/2015 12:59:40 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Marco Rubio, who announced his bid for the presidency on Monday in a call to donors, has been called the “best communicator” in the Republican Party. Over and over and over again.
But he has little to show for it.
He enters the fray with surprisingly low support. Despite four years of national prominence, he has averaged 6 percent of the vote in primary polls over the last few months. That’s the same or worse than five candidates who are thought to have a much smaller chance of winning the nomination: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie. Mr. Rubio is acceptable to many but, so far, the first choice of few.
Mr. Rubio has yet to prove himself an exceptional candidate. In today’s digital era, one would expect truly exceptional candidates to distinguish themselves fast. Mr. Obama, after all, already held 25 percent support according to polls by this time eight years ago. Mr. Rubio’s 6 percent pales in comparison, and it’s less than the amount held by all but one of the 13 candidates who have won their party’s nomination since 1980. The one exception, Bill Clinton, faced a weak field in a late-developing race.
Mr. Rubio is not a stealth candidate. He is well known and has had ample opportunities to earn the trust of Republican voters. He might be in third place in his own home state. At a certain point, one wonders whether he is like the first-round draft pick who doesn’t make the All-Star team after four years. His form might look perfect, but, for whatever reason, he just doesn’t perform the way many thought he might. Fans can be forgiven for continuing to hold out hope that he might break out.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
A polished, transparent con man, you mean.
They had to get Ted Cruz’s name in there. Hahahaha!
He is well known and has had ample opportunities to earn the trust of Republican voters.
NYT sees that apparently it is stuck with Hillary, and therefore it wants to be sure that we are stuck with Jebbers and that no young guns and whippersnappers gain traction to confirm what everybody knows— that Hillary defines “old news”.
NYT Decoder ring: “McCain took out Rubio, don’t waste time attacking him”
Gads, am I glad that the NYT is there to let we conservatives know things that just might hinder our selectees.
As if anyone with a real education even comes close to believing any tripe out of that rag.
NYT Decoder ring: “McCain took out Rubio, don’t waste time attacking him”
Target practice...
So, according to the New York Times, Ted Cruz has less of a chance of winning the republican nomination than Marco Rubio.
In what parallel universe?
Obama had that level of support because of black solidarity/pride. Blacks are almost 1/3 of the Democratic vote.
The mission of The Ministry of Propaganda is to make sure we do not elect anyone who will stop the cheap labor importation/invasion that they like to call immigration.
Ted Cruz is a threat, Marco Rubio is not.
I’ll be kind and say that anybody naïve enough to get sucked into the the Gang of Eight does not possess the maturity or good judgment required for the Presidency.
Rubio is an excellent communicator.
What he lacks, however, is anything of substance to communicate.
Methinks the NYT doth protest too much.
Rubio needs to relax and LOWER HIS VOICE. He sounds 14 years old.
The NYT abandoned reality at least 40 years ago.
Obama had that level of support because of black RACISM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.