Sunday, December 13, 2015

Where's Marco?

It's strange. We know he's not in the Senate-he's bored with being a Senator.

"It’s not exactly a secret that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) doesn’t show up for work much anymore. Even among sitting senators running for president, the far-right Floridian just doesn’t make an effort to keep up appearances on Capitol Hill."

"Part of this, of course, is the result of his campaign schedule, but part of it also relates to the fact that Rubio appears to dislike his job quite a bit. The Washington Post’s David Fahrenthold has a terrific piece on this today."

"Five years ago, Rubio arrived with a potential that thrilled Republicans. He was young, ambitious, charismatic, fluent in English and Spanish, and beloved by the establishment and the tea party."

"But Rubio had arrived at one of the least ambitious moments in Senate history and saw many of his ideas fizzle. Democrats killed his debt-cutting plans. Republicans killed his immigration reform. The two parties actually came together to kill his AGREE Act, a small-bore, hands-across-the-aisle bill that Rubio had designed just to get a win on something."

"Now, he’s done. “He hates it,” a longtime friend from Florida said, speaking anonymously to say what Rubio would not."

"It’s entirely possible, of course, that Republican primary voters won’t care. If much of the GOP base is enthralled by a blowhard New York land developer and an unhinged retired neurosurgeon, there’s no reason to think they’d balk at a senator who’s had an unsuccessful, five-year tenure."

"But for a mainstream audience, the fact that Rubio effectively wasted his Capitol Hill career, achieving practically nothing despite all the promise and hype, isn’t much of a selling point."

But it doesn't seem he's on the campaign trail too much either. Indeed, even Chris Christie got a good jab on him there:

"Mr. Christie began by criticizing Mr. Rubio, who represents Florida in the Senate, for missing so many votes while he campaigns. “He doesn’t show up because he’s running for president,” he said.

“Come on, Marco,” Mr. Christie continued before hitting Mr. Rubio for not being in New Hampshire enough — a charge that the state’s largest paper, The Union-Leader, leveled at the senator recently in an editorial. (It has endorsed Mr. Christie). “He’s never here. But, you know, in Iowa or in New York at hedge fund places raising money.”

But here's the sad part: he's not in Iowa either. Maybe we have to check out some NY hedge funds to see if he's there raising money. I mean he doesn't like the Senate or campaigning. You'd' almost prefer to think he's raising money at the hedge funds than just plain lazy.

Rubio is not campaigning in hard in either NH or Iowa. His campaign seems to have this theory that he doesn't need to campaign hard in these states-that hwat matters is tv and internet ads.

Now it's true that Bill Clinton won in 1992 and didn't win either state and didn't win one of the first six primaries but his campaign is an outlier. No other candidate in recent times has done this successfully. Much more common is what happened to Giuliani who also focused in neither of these early states-his campaign imploded despite leading national polls for months."

"Rubio's team has been arguing that campaigning is overrated."

If we believe what Rubio's advisers are saying, they aren't using these tactics too much because they genuinely believe their effectiveness is overrated. They're saying that they think ads and media coverage, not field or campaign events, are the keys to victory.

"More people in Iowa see Marco on ‘Fox and Friends’ than see Marco when he is in Iowa," Rubio's campaign manager, Terry Sullivan, told the New York Times. And Alberta and Johnson report that Rubio's team believes "a sprawling operation weighs down a campaign and wastes precious resources that could be spent on TV ads that reach more voters." (Presumably, Rubio isn't making more campaign trips to the early states so he can spend more time raising money that can fund these crucial ads.)"

"Perhaps Rubio's team is right, and most other campaigns are just wasting their resources by spending big on organizing. But it's a questionable hypothesis. So far this year, ad spending appears to have had little relation to candidates' poll standing. (It has definitely enriched many political consultants, though.)"

Yes, so far the oppostite seems to be the case this year. The two front-runners-Trump and Cruz both have spent little-combined they have spent barely $1 million dollars.

Ok. so if you've read me at all recently you know I don't like Chris Christie. But it would perhaps be a fine thing if Christie dogs Rubio in NH. After all, Rubio is doing ok in the national polls but it's not clear what states he's going to win. Christie scarcely has a post in natioal polls but is showing signs of life in NH.

But where does he win after that? So Christie finishing ahead of Rubio there might be a win-win. The goal is a Trump or Rubio GOP ticket-a Carson ticket is seeming remote.

No comments:

Post a Comment