Ezra Klein has a post election post where he says that it was a great night for Hillary Clinton not just because she won big last night, but because Marco Rubio is out.
"Tuesday night was an amazing night for Hillary Clinton, and not just because her wins in Florida and Ohio made Bernie Sanders's path to the nomination nearly impossible."
"Tuesday night was an amazing night for Hillary Clinton because Marco Rubio dropped out of the race and virtually ensured she will face either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz in the general election."
"A couple of months ago, Rubio's general election strength was conventional wisdom. "I sometimes want to run around the country grabbing Republican voters by the lapels and screaming, 'You idiots! Don’t you realize Democrats are a hundred times more scared of Rubio than any of these other guys?'" wrote Matt Yglesias back in January. Rubio was seen as a smart, nimble politician who could reassure moderates, appeal to Latinos (or at least blunt their turnout), and unify the fractious Republican Party."
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/15/11243096/hillary-clinton-super-tuesday-nominee
I wonder why Yglesias wanted to do that though. Why did he want the Republicans to run their best candidate?
I agree that Rubio would have been the best candidate for them to run in a very shallow, biographical sense.
I did worry about a Rubio candidacy partly because of the ogling guys like Yglesias and Klein give him. They clearly bought the idea that just because Rubio is younger, Cuban, and goodlooking this makes him a great candidate.
The basis of Rubio's planned run against Hillary was very nasty. It was both ageist and sexist. Sexism continues to be a real problem. Last night she was again criticized for shouting at her victory speech.
And yet she is running against Bernie, a guy who never stops shouting-unless the subject is gun control-and she will probably be against the carnival barker himself-another guy who never stops shouting.
Yet, she's the one who needs to tone it down.
But I find that I'm quite irked by Klein's article. He seems to still want to have it both ways.
1. Rubio lost in about as ignominious way as possible, yet Klein still claims that he was this great candidate but was just unlucky to run in a year that forward looking optimism doesn't sell in the GOP.
2. Hillary is a mediocre candidate who just got lucky regarding the year she's running.
I think Rubio deserves a much harsher judgment than this. He wasn't a strong candidate. I certainly hadn't want him to be the nominee but this is because Yglesias and friends would have ogled the young male Cuban rising star against the aging female white female.
But Rubio clearly has some real vulnerabilities that were laid bare at that NH debate. He deserves a much harsher judgment both politically and morally. Last night I admitted that I won't miss him at all.
If you've read my blog for any length of time at all, you know that I've been a big Rubio basher. I always despised his dishonest, ageist premise of his race he wanted to run against Hillary. Because he is younger in years supposedly he's the candidate of tomorrow.
He may be young, but his ideas are those of yesterday. He now is gone, as he is not running for Senate again.
It's possible he will be missed by some. But not by me. Why lie about it?
He was always very dishonest. He ran against amnesty, then sponsored it in 2013, then has run against it for 3 years since.
No, I can't agree with anyone who says he didn't get exactly what he deserves.
Let us dispel with the fiction that Marco Rubio doesn't deserve such a cruel fate. This is exactly what he deserves."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-big-fall-for-republican-savior.html
I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one. Issac Chotiner:
"Marco Rubio Was a Moral and Political Failure. It’s Good to See Him Go."
"Marco Rubio suspended his campaign Tuesday night after a humiliating loss in his home state of Florida. Rubio’s concession speech—notable because Rubio has become known for “victory” addresses after losing primaries and caucuses—was an uncomfortable mix of everything that was wrong in his campaign, which is now thankfully over."
"Rubio declared recently that his goal was to stop Trump from becoming the nominee at all costs, but his presence in the race for the past two weeks, well after it was clear that he could not win, surely did nothing except boost Trump’s margins in the other contests tonight. It was typical of a campaign that could never do anything right. From the moment Rubio decided to make immigration his signature issue, enraging much of his base, through the moment that he backtracked from his own bill, proving to the last doubter that he was nothing more than a young man in a hurry, Rubio was never able to strike the right tone."
"In his speech Tuesday night he made clear that Donald Trump’s negativity and thuggishness did not represent his preferred approach to his party’s future. But he also committed every sin that he has been accused of committing over the past several months: He was rehearsed, overly polished in his very practiced anger, and laughably dishonest. Ranting about elites in Washington—the same elites who heroically and unsuccessfully kept his campaign on life support for these last few weeks—Rubio once again proved that he could never convincingly play the outsider in an election where GOP voters were craving one."
"And the rest of the speech, full as it was of complaints about, say, ungrateful foreigners refusing to credit all of America’s generous good deeds, was a reminder that Rubio’s campaign was a moral failure as well as a political one. The man who criticized Obama for visiting a mosque and used Trumpian fearmongering throughout was not only unable to beat a more authentically angry candidate; he also was unable to bow out with the sort of dignity that losing campaigns sometimes muster. Rubio may have a political future in Florida or in the United States, but he is unlikely to ever be the bright shining political star that so many Republicans thought (and Democrats feared) he could be."
Hey-hey-hey-goodbye.
"Tuesday night was an amazing night for Hillary Clinton, and not just because her wins in Florida and Ohio made Bernie Sanders's path to the nomination nearly impossible."
"Tuesday night was an amazing night for Hillary Clinton because Marco Rubio dropped out of the race and virtually ensured she will face either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz in the general election."
"A couple of months ago, Rubio's general election strength was conventional wisdom. "I sometimes want to run around the country grabbing Republican voters by the lapels and screaming, 'You idiots! Don’t you realize Democrats are a hundred times more scared of Rubio than any of these other guys?'" wrote Matt Yglesias back in January. Rubio was seen as a smart, nimble politician who could reassure moderates, appeal to Latinos (or at least blunt their turnout), and unify the fractious Republican Party."
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/15/11243096/hillary-clinton-super-tuesday-nominee
I wonder why Yglesias wanted to do that though. Why did he want the Republicans to run their best candidate?
I agree that Rubio would have been the best candidate for them to run in a very shallow, biographical sense.
I did worry about a Rubio candidacy partly because of the ogling guys like Yglesias and Klein give him. They clearly bought the idea that just because Rubio is younger, Cuban, and goodlooking this makes him a great candidate.
The basis of Rubio's planned run against Hillary was very nasty. It was both ageist and sexist. Sexism continues to be a real problem. Last night she was again criticized for shouting at her victory speech.
And yet she is running against Bernie, a guy who never stops shouting-unless the subject is gun control-and she will probably be against the carnival barker himself-another guy who never stops shouting.
Yet, she's the one who needs to tone it down.
But I find that I'm quite irked by Klein's article. He seems to still want to have it both ways.
1. Rubio lost in about as ignominious way as possible, yet Klein still claims that he was this great candidate but was just unlucky to run in a year that forward looking optimism doesn't sell in the GOP.
2. Hillary is a mediocre candidate who just got lucky regarding the year she's running.
I think Rubio deserves a much harsher judgment than this. He wasn't a strong candidate. I certainly hadn't want him to be the nominee but this is because Yglesias and friends would have ogled the young male Cuban rising star against the aging female white female.
But Rubio clearly has some real vulnerabilities that were laid bare at that NH debate. He deserves a much harsher judgment both politically and morally. Last night I admitted that I won't miss him at all.
If you've read my blog for any length of time at all, you know that I've been a big Rubio basher. I always despised his dishonest, ageist premise of his race he wanted to run against Hillary. Because he is younger in years supposedly he's the candidate of tomorrow.
He may be young, but his ideas are those of yesterday. He now is gone, as he is not running for Senate again.
It's possible he will be missed by some. But not by me. Why lie about it?
He was always very dishonest. He ran against amnesty, then sponsored it in 2013, then has run against it for 3 years since.
No, I can't agree with anyone who says he didn't get exactly what he deserves.
Let us dispel with the fiction that Marco Rubio doesn't deserve such a cruel fate. This is exactly what he deserves."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-big-fall-for-republican-savior.html
I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one. Issac Chotiner:
"Marco Rubio Was a Moral and Political Failure. It’s Good to See Him Go."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/15/marco_rubio_deserved_to_lose.html
"Rubio declared recently that his goal was to stop Trump from becoming the nominee at all costs, but his presence in the race for the past two weeks, well after it was clear that he could not win, surely did nothing except boost Trump’s margins in the other contests tonight. It was typical of a campaign that could never do anything right. From the moment Rubio decided to make immigration his signature issue, enraging much of his base, through the moment that he backtracked from his own bill, proving to the last doubter that he was nothing more than a young man in a hurry, Rubio was never able to strike the right tone."
"In his speech Tuesday night he made clear that Donald Trump’s negativity and thuggishness did not represent his preferred approach to his party’s future. But he also committed every sin that he has been accused of committing over the past several months: He was rehearsed, overly polished in his very practiced anger, and laughably dishonest. Ranting about elites in Washington—the same elites who heroically and unsuccessfully kept his campaign on life support for these last few weeks—Rubio once again proved that he could never convincingly play the outsider in an election where GOP voters were craving one."
"And the rest of the speech, full as it was of complaints about, say, ungrateful foreigners refusing to credit all of America’s generous good deeds, was a reminder that Rubio’s campaign was a moral failure as well as a political one. The man who criticized Obama for visiting a mosque and used Trumpian fearmongering throughout was not only unable to beat a more authentically angry candidate; he also was unable to bow out with the sort of dignity that losing campaigns sometimes muster. Rubio may have a political future in Florida or in the United States, but he is unlikely to ever be the bright shining political star that so many Republicans thought (and Democrats feared) he could be."
Hey-hey-hey-goodbye.
No comments:
Post a Comment