The Rubio Surge Exists Nowhere Except in the Beltway Media's Own Imagination

The media has been full of stories about Rubio's surge in the polls the last few weeks.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-medias-new-narrative-marco-rubio.html

"With the summer of Trump coming to a close, it seems, we are at the cusp of a new stage of the campaign where the non-silly-season favorites begin to assert themselves and the race finally gets serious. And there is good reason why that means Rubio’s stock is on the rise: With Scott Walker out and Jeb Bush giving his own backers serious heartburn, Rubio is the only member of the GOP establishment’s former Big Three who appears to be heading in the right direction. As New York magazine’s Benjamin Wallace-Wells correctly put it Friday, "it is startling how well the race has gone for Rubio so far." If not Marco, the logic goes, then who?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/09/marco_rubio_is_not_actually_surging_in_the_gop_campaign.html

Here''s what I don't get. Why after seeing the GOP not even able to elect its own Speaker does John Voorhes believe that the silly season ever ends in the GOP primary? What makes him think the normal Republican party isn't silly?

Was Bruce Bartlett too optimistic?

"Will latest wanker stupidity finally convince mainstream media to stop taking them seriously, treat them like the fools that they are?"

https://twitter.com/BruceBartlett

By the way where is the evidence that the Summer of Trump is actually over? Carly Fiorina had allegedly owned him in that debate but her numbers are now lower than before her surge as we've seen just what a congenital liar she really is-as well as the record of not just her terrible record at HP but how she failed to ven pay campaign workers in her 2010 Senate run.

Back to Rubio. Voorhes seems to like the Rubio narrative as of course the GOP will elect an establishment candidate and Rubio is the only one that even looks plausible.

"The thing is: The race hasn’t gone that well for Rubio. Personally, I’m largely on board with this Rubio-will-win-by-default line of thinking. But it’s worth noting given the current hype cycle that, to date, he has yet to translate the buzz into anything tangible. Put simply, there just isn’t a whole lot of concrete evidence to suggest that Marco’s current “momentum” is much more than the product of the wishful thinking of a nervous Republican Party and the predictions of a bored political press corp."

Thank you. I think there's kind of a vacuum. If Trump has now lost support who has taken it from him? Not Fiorina whose surge didn't last.
Scott Walker's gone. Jeb is as Trump says a disaster.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-08/bloomberg-politics-focus-groups-jeb-bush-not-impressing-voters-in-iowa-new-hampshire?cmpid=BBD100815_POL

So kind of process of elimination the only other establishment choice is Rubio. So it's sort of assumed based on the theory that Trump is done than any actual empirical verification of this theory for which there isn't much.

Basically, there is no Rubio surge but the press thinks there should be one.

What the press still seems determined not to admit is that so far Trump's numbers are reminiscent not of Rick Perry, Hermain Cane or New Gingrich in 2012 but Mitt Romney's.

It's clear that Fiorina went through discovery, scrutiny, and decline. Meanwhile,  Rubio may have been discovered by the press but this hasn't led to any surge in the polls.

At this point Trump is Romney. As determined as the Beltway is to just keep insisting they're right and at some point in the future sometime one of their sserious caniddates is going to take over, there has been zero proof of this so far.

I understand the narrative that the establishment will ultimately win. My guess is if Trump really did start winning primary after primary in state after state the party machinery would figure out some way to cheat him. Tom Brown documents what I still think is a very plausible narrative:

"Trump as 3rd party would be great... especially if he ends up winning just a few more votes than the Republican candidate. Ideally Trump has the nomination all wrapped up, but the party leadership decides to shut it down during the convention, leading to a full rebellion of lunatics, who not only vote for the Trump / Carson (or Trump / Cruz), but permanently abandon the GOP for good. Also, wouldn't it be sweet if the lunatics insisted they should be able to "open carry" at the GOP convention and the "leadership" acquiesces to their demands... perhaps even leading to a live televised shoot out between different extremists factions right there on the floor of the convention! Lol. I'd love to see the right wing media whores explain how the real problem was not enough guns in the convention hall."

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/has-modern-gop-reached-limits-of.html?showComment=1444441587728#c1460648126903104314

I actually got into a quick tweet discussion with Jon Bernstein the other day-it was particularly quick on his end. LOL.

But his answer to my argument that this GOP primary could be different was that exceptions to the rules happen but not very often.

But isn't this the time for this rare event to happen? I mean is there any greater outlier than today's GOP whether you're looking at the presidential race or trying to elect a House Speaker?

UPDATE: I should add that the Rubio surge is kind of like Rubio's own Senate career at this point-no one ever actually sees him in the Senate anymore.