Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sounds like a guy who is leaning strongly towards a 2016 presidential bid. I think he would be another strong contender. Like Scott Walker, I think he has the ability to unite the conservative and moderate/neocon wings of the GOP. Unlike Walker, Rubio oozes charisma. I remember seeing this speech of his early in his national career. After watching it, my only comment was that it damn near turned me gay.
He should be more focused on retaining his Senate seat. He's gonna have a huge fight on his hands hanging on to that in a swing state in a presidential year. Many in Florida think he's been too busy seeking the national spotlight and not paying enough attention to the state.
I believe that the three most electable candidates on the GOP side--in this order--are Rubio, Christie, and Bush. What makes Rubio the most electable is the combination of his ethnicity and his charisma. (In an ideal world, neither trait should matter, but that is not how swing voters behave.) The fact that he is a one-term Senator apparently means little to swing voters.
However, I don't believe that he has much of a chance of getting the nomination, nor do I think that he will run. Should the GOP lose, however, the current opposition that the far right has to his stance on immigration will largely dissipate, thereby making him the 2020 frontrunner.
A few years ago, CC was electable, but not now IMO, even if the Blue Wall were smaller. His last few years have ruined much of the high national public opinion he once had. He was a "Candle in the Wind" in terms of endurance, IMO.
I'd also place Bush somewhat above Rubio for odds of success nationally.
Rubio is not going to come close. He's not even popular in Florida and his chances of being the candidate are about zero. If Bush is the GOP candidate, he has no chance of even being on the ticket. I think he projects the opposite of charisma, coming off as a cold, fascistic person. His popularity with Republicans has dropped to 4% and Dems dislike him.
He should be more focused on retaining his Senate seat. He's gonna have a huge fight on his hands hanging on to that in a swing state in a presidential year. Many in Florida think he's been too busy seeking the national spotlight and not paying enough attention to the state.
In conjunction with the above comments, the following may be worth noting.
In 2010, Charlie Crist, stupidly, abandoned the governorship and ran for senator as an independent and the democrats ran a throw-away candidate. In the event, Marco Rubio won with less than 50% of the vote.
I voted for Mr. Rubio, mainly to help the legislative branch make effective checks and balances to the executive branch, which is the Constitution, and I am satisfied with that specific result.
By the way, in 2010 Rick Scott won the governorship with less than 50% of the vote. I voted third party candidate, an economist, not a libertarian, who came across as reasonable.
By the way, in 2014, Charlie Crist, stupidly, sought back the governorship and as a democrat, and Mr. Scott won again, and again with less than 50% of the vote. I voted for Mr. Scott mainly because the libertarian candidate came across as quite childish, I could not fathom Mr. Crist, and the other third-party candidates made no impression on me at all, yet as a whole they seem to have taken a few more votes away from Mr. Crist than from Mr. Scott, and that is Constitutionally meaningful.
Anyway, as mentioned, Mr. Rubio is not even guaranteed a repeat win of his senate seat in 2016, and I personally will base my vote on the circumstances at the time with a view to Constitutional balance.
Overall, I have the impression that Florida's other and senior senator, Bill Nelson, who is a senior member of the Senate finance committee (or some such) but hardly makes a peep in that forum, focuses more attention on Florida issues and Florida's interests in the Union (e.g. flood insurance). So even though I do not like much of his rhetoric, which mainly tows the democrat party line, when we look at his effective focus, he's okay and on top of that he really does give the impression of being a true gentleman; just for example, I received an email letter from Mr. Nelson warning Florida citizens about the car air-bag safety issue a few hours before it hit the national headlines, no other Florida politicians did that, at least to my knowledge.
In conjunction with the above comments, the following may be worth noting.
In 2010, Charlie Crist, stupidly, abandoned the governorship and ran for senator as an independent and the democrats ran a throw-away candidate. In the event, Marco Rubio won with less than 50% of the vote.
I voted for Mr. Rubio, mainly to help the legislative branch make effective checks and balances to the executive branch, which is the Constitution, and I am satisfied with that specific result.
By the way, in 2010 Rick Scott won the governorship with less than 50% of the vote. I voted third party candidate, an economist, not a libertarian, who came across as reasonable.
By the way, in 2014, Charlie Crist, stupidly, sought back the governorship and as a democrat, and Mr. Scott won again, and again with less than 50% of the vote. I voted for Mr. Scott mainly because the libertarian candidate came across as quite childish, I could not fathom Mr. Crist, and the other third-party candidates made no impression on me at all, yet as a whole they seem to have taken a few more votes away from Mr. Crist than from Mr. Scott, and that is Constitutionally meaningful.
Anyway, as mentioned, Mr. Rubio is not even guaranteed a repeat win of his senate seat in 2016, and I personally will base my vote on the circumstances at the time with a view to Constitutional balance.
Overall, I have the impression that Florida's other and senior senator, Bill Nelson, who is a senior member of the Senate finance committee (or some such) but hardly makes a peep in that forum, focuses more attention on Florida issues and Florida's interests in the Union (e.g. flood insurance). So even though I do not like much of his rhetoric, which mainly tows the democrat party line, when we look at his effective focus, he's okay and on top of that he really does give the impression of being a true gentleman; just for example, I received an email letter from Mr. Nelson warning Florida citizens about the car air-bag safety issue a few hours before it hit the national headlines, no other Florida politicians did that, at least to my knowledge.
I believe that the three most electable candidates on the GOP side--in this order--are Rubio, Christie, and Bush. What makes Rubio the most electable is the combination of his ethnicity and his charisma. (In an ideal world, neither trait should matter, but that is not how swing voters behave.) The fact that he is a one-term Senator apparently means little to swing voters.
However, I don't believe that he has much of a chance of getting the nomination, nor do I think that he will run. Should the GOP lose, however, the current opposition that the far right has to his stance on immigration will largely dissipate, thereby making him the 2020 frontrunner.
I believe that Jeb Bush is MORE Latino than Rubio. Rubies ancestors are White and come from Cubas aristocracy that tend to look down on mestizos (the majority of Latinos in the US). At least Jeb married a Mexican national ( who looks mexican) and has children that resemble us. I still wouldn't vote for either one, but would vote for Jeb over Rubio any day of the week if I had to.
I believe that Jeb Bush is MORE Latino than Rubio. Rubies ancestors are White and come from Cubas aristocracy that tend to look down on mestizos (the majority of Latinos in the US). At least Jeb married a Mexican national ( who looks mexican) and has children that resemble us. I still wouldn't vote for either one, but would vote for Jeb over Rubio any day of the week if I had to.
Link? I don't know much about his ancestors, but I recall him saying that his grandfather who had polio couldn't do farm work, and thus was the only sibling in his family to go to school. That doesn't sound like much of an aristocracy.
In any case I don't most Americans are interested in these racial subcategories. Look at Pres. Obama--he was descended from elite politcos of Kenya, not from West Africans brought here as slaves, as are most black Americans. Nobody cares about that, though. He still got 95% of the black vote, so your insistence on certain skin tone and certain appearance in a candidate is atypical of US voters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
