I pick on him and even more his protege, Harry Enten, as they push this rosy Rubio scenario based on two rather dubious theories:
1. The low ceiling theory-now that Trump got 46 percent in Nevada, how low can this ceiling be?
2. The winnowing theory-as soon as the field winnows, Rubio will soar about Trump. Because whatever Trump's numbers, it's presumed that those who currently don't support him will never do so.
This Roll Call piece pokes some major holes in this:
"Rubio was left far in Trump’s wake, and the only reason to not consider him a loser is that he appeared to have bettered Ted Cruz."
"Aides to both Rubio and Cruz had downplayed expectations in advance of the caucuses, making it clear that they were viewing the contest largely as a fight for second place."
"As the apparent winner of that fight, Rubio gets a moral victory here."
"But his case is hardly compelling. Even as the field has winnowed rapidly since the Iowa caucuses, Rubio has not made noticeable headway against Trump. The gap between the two has been at least 10 percentage points in all three contests since then."
"There is no polling-based evidence that Rubio will win anywhere on Super Tuesday either."
"That would leave Rubio without a single win in 15 contests."
"The idea that someone can come from such a position to claim the nomination is an enormous stretch."
This is a crucial problem with the winnowing theory: the field has considerably winnowed. We're down to just four candidates-Ben Carson is on a book tour.
Yet Rubio has failed to gain ground vs. Trump. He has gained on Cruz. But we're way past the time when there is any value to finishing second. The Establishment lane is now down to Rubio and Kasich. Kasich is just hoping he can hang on until some races in the Midwest.
To round it out, there is no evidence that a winnowed field is more hospitable for Marco Rubio. People as why he won't attack Trump. My guess is he doesn't want Trump to start attacking him.
http://theweek.com/articles/607614/donald-trump-about-terrible-things-marco-rubio
We saw how well he did the last time he was attacked-by Christie in NH.
1. The low ceiling theory-now that Trump got 46 percent in Nevada, how low can this ceiling be?
2. The winnowing theory-as soon as the field winnows, Rubio will soar about Trump. Because whatever Trump's numbers, it's presumed that those who currently don't support him will never do so.
This Roll Call piece pokes some major holes in this:
"Rubio was left far in Trump’s wake, and the only reason to not consider him a loser is that he appeared to have bettered Ted Cruz."
"Aides to both Rubio and Cruz had downplayed expectations in advance of the caucuses, making it clear that they were viewing the contest largely as a fight for second place."
"As the apparent winner of that fight, Rubio gets a moral victory here."
"But his case is hardly compelling. Even as the field has winnowed rapidly since the Iowa caucuses, Rubio has not made noticeable headway against Trump. The gap between the two has been at least 10 percentage points in all three contests since then."
"There is no polling-based evidence that Rubio will win anywhere on Super Tuesday either."
"That would leave Rubio without a single win in 15 contests."
"The idea that someone can come from such a position to claim the nomination is an enormous stretch."
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/270553-winners-and-losers-of-nevadas-republican-caucuses
This is a crucial problem with the winnowing theory: the field has considerably winnowed. We're down to just four candidates-Ben Carson is on a book tour.
Yet Rubio has failed to gain ground vs. Trump. He has gained on Cruz. But we're way past the time when there is any value to finishing second. The Establishment lane is now down to Rubio and Kasich. Kasich is just hoping he can hang on until some races in the Midwest.
To round it out, there is no evidence that a winnowed field is more hospitable for Marco Rubio. People as why he won't attack Trump. My guess is he doesn't want Trump to start attacking him.
http://theweek.com/articles/607614/donald-trump-about-terrible-things-marco-rubio
We saw how well he did the last time he was attacked-by Christie in NH.
Mike, this is a great site, check it out (real time updates of Sumner's odd's charts)
ReplyDeleteAwesome! TK Tom. Looks like some very good news. Hillary-Trump seems to be where we're going
ReplyDeleteIt's funny, I noticed Rubin today cursing Democrats for picking Hillary... she thinks HRC won't pan out, so she's cursing Dems for sticking the country with Trump. WTF?? Hello, the GOP is picking Trump Jen. Jen? Earth to Jen, anybody there?
ReplyDeleteI didn't leave a comment, but I was tempted: Jen, you'd better get on your knees and pray to the Jebus you don't believe in that HRC has some smooth sailing ahead, and that she doesn't slip on a banana peel or something.
DeleteI'm pretty sure Jen's level of Trump loathing is at least equal to that of Erickson's: i.e. there's no way in hell she'll ever vote for Trump. Erickson titled a post of his a couple days ago with that:
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/erick-erickson-i-will-never-vote-trump
Let's see if the extreme right-tards actually learn anything this go around: Will they:
ReplyDelete1. Take extremist positions on things and tell their readers that no compromise is necessary every and that to say that compromise is necessary is to effectively stab conservatism, America and the constitution in the face.
2. Take an extreme anti-establishment position that precludes them supporting anybody with even as single impure blemish on their record?
3. Tell their readers the above until it's too late, and they yet again have to eat MAJOR crow by pushing a "compromise" candidate?
Tarded beyond all measure. Maybe it works for their business model though. The dumb-shit chumps who read their crapola seem to fall for the same scam every time.