Is Hillary worried about Rubio?

[Peter1469]

Is Hillary worried about Rubio? (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/23/us/politics/prospect-of-hillary-clinton-marco-rubio-matchup-unnerves-democrats.html?_r=0)

Rubio comes across well in interviews, even when he is asked biased questions by "reporters." He can also explain issues in ways everyday Americans can understand, without coming across as arrogant and condescending, like many other politicians do.


WASHINGTON — They use words like “historic” and “charismatic,” phrases like “great potential” and “million-dollar smile.” They notice audience members moved to tears by an American-dream-come-true success story. When they look at the cold, hard political math, they get uneasy.


An incipient sense of anxiety is tugging at some Democrats — a feeling tersely captured in four words from a blog post (http://steveschale.squarespace.com/blog/2015/5/14/so-whats-new-with-hispanics-in-florida.html) written recently by a seasoned party strategist in Florida: “Marco Rubio (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/14/us/elections/marco-rubio.html?inline=nyt-per) scares me.”


What is so unnerving to them at this early phase of the 2016 presidential campaign (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/2016-presidential-candidates.html) still seems, at worst, a distant danger: the prospect of a head-to-head general-election contest between Mr. Rubio, the Republican senator from Florida, and Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/13/us/elections/hillary-clinton.html?inline=nyt-per).

[Green Arrow]

Too bad Rubio is also part of the establishment.

[IMPress Polly]

I was under the impression that you (Peter) were backing Scott Walker?

(Although Rubio would definitely be the smarter, more pragmatic choice between those two on the Republican side, IMO.)

[Peter1469]

I was under the impression that you (Peter) were backing Scott Walker?

(Although Rubio would definitely be the smarter, more pragmatic choice between those two on the Republican side, IMO.)

I only posted the article for discussion. I am not endorsing Rubio.

[IMPress Polly]

Aaaah, okay! It just made me curious.

But yeah, I can see Rubio being tougher to beat, definitely. I mean I can already think of the perfect Democratic attack ad with which Scott Walker might be brought down and here it is: You start off by showing that fairly recent footage of Mr. Walker explaining that we need to reduce LEGAL immigration to this country in order to protect American workers...then you immediately follow that up with the footage of Mr. Walker revealing just exactly what he really thinks of American workers and their rights: his comparison of the American labor movement to Islamic State terrorists. Thus are both crucial audiences thoroughly offended and alienated. Mr. Walker's "47 percent" moment is entirely predictable and destined to happen if he's the nominee. It's a little harder to see an analogy with Mr. Rubio.

[Bob]

Too bad Rubio is also part of the establishment.

That is the most meaningless statement one can make.

Those not part of the establishment, you never heard of.

[Bob]

I was under the impression that you (Peter) were backing Scott Walker?

(Although Rubio would definitely be the smarter, more pragmatic choice between those two on the Republican side, IMO.)

I am backing (at the moment) Scott because he is the more pragmatic choice.

Rubio has not ran government yet.

We have shuck and jive in the white house now. We ought to avoid the same mistake.

[IMPress Polly]

Bob wrote:
I am backing (at the moment) Scott because he is the more pragmatic choice.

Rubio has not ran government yet.

We have shuck and jive in the white house now. We ought to avoid the same mistake.

What do you think about that in view of my idea for an easy Democratic attack ad against Scott Walker that I put out there in post #5, Bob? Walker is somebody who I feel wouldn't be all that hard to defeat in a general election really. Even Bernie Sanders might be able to pull off a victory against someone like him! Against Hillary Clinton? Not much of a contest there, I don't think. It's for that very reason that I too am kinda quietly rooting for someone like Scott Walker to end up as the Republican nominee. :tongue: Marco Rubio could appeal to a broader audience, methinks. Scott Walker only appeals to certain types of people and they're not the ones who will actually decide the outcome of the next election.

[Green Arrow]

That is the most meaningless statement one can make.

Those not part of the establishment, you never heard of.

You can't understand simple concepts. I can't help you with that.

[gamewell45]

I think Rubio, like most politicians is nothing more then a slick salesman, pushing his product hoping the American people buy into it and thus elect him president.

And let's be honest, the goal of anyone running for public office is to get elected, so your personality and how you project yourself is a critical element of selling yourself to the voters.

Reagan was the master of projecting his views to the voters and as such was elected in a landslide; Bush I rode on the coattails of Reagan and won; Clinton was a great orator and did a wonderful job of convincing America he was the person for the job, Dubya, well that's another story; Obama, with the help of a teleprompter was a very convincing candidate as well. What do they all have in common? They did a good job selling themselves to the American people. It'll be interesting to see how the race for the Presidency unfolds over the next year.

[Bob]

You can't understand simple concepts. I can't help you with that.

i admit I have huge problems with the simple minded. I understand very well why you refuse to come clean on your claims about establishment.

Were you correct, we have no such thing as non establishment because they can't get elected to dog catcher.

[Bob]

I think Rubio, like most politicians is nothing more then a slick salesman, pushing his product hoping the American people buy into it and thus elect him president.

And let's be honest, the goal of anyone running for public office is to get elected, so your personality and how you project yourself is a critical element of selling yourself to the voters.

Reagan was the master of projecting his views to the voters and as such was elected in a landslide; Bush I rode on the coattails of Reagan and won; Clinton was a great orator and did a wonderful job of convincing America he was the person for the job, Dubya, well that's another story; Obama, with the help of a teleprompter was a very convincing candidate as well. What do they all have in common? They did a good job selling themselves to the American people. It'll be interesting to see how the race for the Presidency unfolds over the next year.

President GW Bush is a man most will listen to in his talks.

Obama is one I flip off. I heard it all by now and don't need more of his lectures.

The media loved to claim Bush was not bright. Bright scholars said the man is seriously bright. I believe them over the media.

[Green Arrow]

i admit I have huge problems with the simple minded. I understand very well why you refuse to come clean on your claims about establishment.

Were you correct, we have no such thing as non establishment because they can't get elected to dog catcher.

Again, you can't understand a very simple concept. There are members of government that are non-establishment. You don't understand that the terms refer to ideology and not job description​. Not my problem.

[Bob]

Again, you can't understand a very simple concept. There are members of government that are non-establishment. You don't understand that the terms refer to ideology and not job description​. Not my problem.

You are merely mumbling. You ASSume things not in evidence.

[IMPress Polly]

Bob wrote:
President GW Bush is a man most will listen to in his talks.

Obama is one I flip off. I heard it all by now and don't need more of his lectures.

The media loved to claim Bush was not bright. Bright scholars said the man is seriously bright. I believe them over the media.

I don't know if Bush Jr. was/is bright or not, but I know he made a LOT of verbal gaffes! I still have, and sometimes review, the 2007 and 2008 calendars of them. :grin:

To his credit though, he also had/has a positive quality that you don't: humility.

[Green Arrow]

You are merely mumbling. You ASSume things not in evidence.

You don't know what you're even talking about, Bob. Half the time you aren't even coherent.