Nate Silver says Marco Rubio is as Unelectable as Mitt Romney Was
The name of rock star statistician Nate Silver will be forever linked with the results of the 2012 Presidential election. You may recall that against the tide of Republican strategic hubris, and despite rampant voter suppression efforts taking place in communities representing large populations of poor and ethnic constituents, Silver warned the GOP talking heads that Obama was on his way to a sweeping victory. And he was right. In President Obama’s historic conquest over Mitt Romney, Silver correctly predicted the winner of all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Let’s take a moment to savor once more the epic meltdown of Karl Rove on Fox News as it finally sank in that there was zero chance of a Romney presidency.
It never gets old does it?
In 2010, Silver’s blog, FiveThirtyEight: Nate Silver’s Political Calculus, was presciently licensed for publication by the New York Times. The blog is making news this week with an intriguing post entitled, “Marco Rubio: The Electable Conservative?”
As we know, Rubio is being championed by the beleaguered, delusional and hopelessly out of step Republican Party as the key to returning to mainstream acceptability. Rubio, a Cuban American native of Miami, Florida who rose to prominence after the humblest of beginnings, is seen as the key to making inroads with the nation’s Latino voters. Once a dependable GOP demographic, Latinos have fled the party in droves given its hard-line stance against immigration reform.
Looking to shake the Etch-a-Sketch Romney-style, the GOP has recently attempted to reverse course, proposing to get behind the Dream Act, a plan that would provide a pathway to citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. Though many of the party's recommended measures are tied to border security improvements, the changes mark a critical pivot for Republicans – and Rubio is offered by the right as the face of that change.
Tasked with delivering the rebuttal to the President’s well-received State of the Union address last week, we know that Rubio stumbled: awkward, sweaty and apparently very thirsty. Rubio’s performance stirred reminisces of the 1960 televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon that many have theorized cost Nixon the election. But really, it was one of Rubio’s first appearances on the national stage. Is it any surprise his rehashed talking points would fail to excite, set in relief against the President’s smooth and energized delivery? The question remains: given more time to develop, could Rubio pose an electable challenge to Democrats in 2016?
Though Nate Silver presents a wealth of data in his piece (naturally) that points to Rubio’s strengths in a Republican primary, he hedges when discussing the senator’s general appeal against more moderate candidates. Silver writes, “This is not to say that Mr. Rubio is extraordinarily popular. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey has favorability ratings that are much stronger than Mr. Rubio’s, for example.”
Silver goes on to say, “What makes matters tricky for Mr. Rubio is that, at the same time he is hoping to persuade Republican party insiders that he deserves their support, he will also need to maintain a reasonably good image with the broader electorate lest his electability argument be undermined. This may lead to some strange positions, such as when Mr. Rubio recently critiqued President Obama’s immigration proposal despite its many similarities to his own.”
In other words, a Republican candidate of any color may still have to adopt the 2012 losing strategy of Mitt Romney. Go hard right fringe during primary season to secure the nomination, then try to fox trot your way back to the center so you can appeal to the mainstream.
A full three and a half years before the next Presidential election, Rubio is already being setup to fail as John McCain and Mitt Romney did before him. To return to President Obama’s “lipstick on a pig analogy,” the ethnic makeup of a candidate cannot possibly surmount a losing game plan.
Rubio was a foo-el to speak at Romney's convention. It was clear he wasn't going to win but Rubio managed to cover himself in the opportunistic slime anyway. He's damaged goods and it's funny that nobody on their side can see that.
He's thirsty, very thirsty.
The Repugs have no chance of winning a Presidential election for at least the next decade.
Last time I checked, Obama was just sworn in. A little early, I believe. There will be some pissed off voters if gas prices continue to go up. Obama's energy secretary said gas prices should be as high as Europe to reduce consumption. That dumbass failed to mention what high gas prices do to goods that are trucked all over the country. Shipping prices are passed on to consumers.
And local politicians are too shortsighted to put in light rail systems. Too socialistic. They'd have to raise taxes.
We have a fairly new light rail, in Charlotte. Most ride free, lots of petty crime.
I mean light rail for intercity commerce instead of trucks.
Nate needs to hold his cards closer to his chest.
What R4 is getting at -- even if R4 didn't necessarily mean to -- is the subject of a realignment presidential period. That we're in one now that favors the Democrats to win the majority of nine or ten election cycles which began with Barack Obama's first-term victory in 2008. Previous one, for Republicans, started in 1968. From that point forward, the GOP won seven of ten cycles: 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004. Previously, the Democrats won seven of nine which began with Franklin Roosevelt: 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1960, 1964. Only Republican who won during that FDR/Democratic realignment period was Dwight Eisenhower (1952, 1956). The Democrats who won during that Nixon/Republican realignment period was Jimmy Carter (1976) and Bill Clinton (1992, 1996).
It seems silly to get into that here. As if I can say that seven of nine or seven of ten -- which began with the Obama/Democrats in 2008 -- can be assured over the next 30-plus years. But we've been experiencing it for at least the last 150 years: 1860 (Abraham Lincoln/Republicans) and 1896 (William McKinley/Republicans). So it's crazy to talk about what will happen in the future, perhaps, but it's not at all crazy to reference past performances.
But, but, but, he's Latino.
Clueless Repugs, media, public...and Rubio himself
Rubio cannot campaign for the Iowa straw poll or the Iowas primary. There's a drought in the Midwest, his throat will close up and he'll die of thrist.
I love Nate, but I do wish he'd save this stuff for oh, September, 2016. After the nominating convention.
Rubio needs more of the Republican't kool aid in order to lie without dry mouth.
Stay thirsty, my friends!
Too bad for the silly Repubs, who don't have the common sense to focus on innovative economic solutions, and permanent solutions to unemployment, as the only way they have a sliver of a chance of political success. Looking forward to more "train-wreck" entertainment, until they tell their phony moralistic right-wing the "realities of presidential politics."
Marco is the stand-in Hispanic until stealthy Jeb and his Hispanic wife emerge.
R17, Does Jeb Bush have any brains or a good heart?
Nate Silver: "Marco Rubio is sexually straight but ethnically unelectable".
Gas prices are not a problem for Democrats because no Republican has ever offered a plan that would lower them. I do with we had a president with more brains though, one who look less like a Pentagon-CIA stooge.
He did the same thing as Jesse Jackson, Junior.
Bingo, but in the USA, black men go to prison first.
See, fellow Freepers, I told you Nate Silver was in the bag for the Democrats.
Ignore this fool!
He **wants us to believe** that Rubio cannot win. Why, Rubio is our best brown hope and if we don't run with him, we are sure to lose!
RUBIO ALL THE WAY!
That tiny water bottle is to Rubio what the backward-baseball-cap was to Paul Ryan.
R21 Dems have been in charge of the Senate for years. They block every plan to increase supply.
Hmmm, what's the word I'm looking for to describe Rubio? Ahhh, oh yeah: Douchebag.
How did Nate do in predicting the Super Bowl?
[quote]Obama's energy secretary said gas prices should be as high as Europe to reduce consumption.
Those interested in the truth should read the link.
I think we need to wait before we make any predictions. Obama can and will do plenty of damage in 4 years.
Well, it couldn't be any worse than the Cheney/Bush debacle.
I think it would be exciting to have a dynamic, handsome young President again. It would remind people of JFK.
Rubio /Jindal 2016
BTW. If Hillary runs against Rubio she will lose in a Landslide.
You're such a card, r34! Yes, that is the ideal ticket for Southern Republicans!
Jeb Bush has brains, bur heart? Note the surname.
[quote] Rubio /Jindal 2016
The ugliest bumper sticker I've seen in years.
[quote] Nate Silver says Marco Rubio is as Unelectable as Mitt Romney Was
Shhhh. Keep it quiet Silver. Let the repugs do themselves in again
R34, Please let it be Rubio/Jindal 2016. Can't wait to start hysterically laughing again at the Repubs.
R35, I like being entertained. Please tell me how you you can be so delusional in fantasizing that Hillary will lose against Rubio.
Does Rubio want to take back his lie about his parents being exiles from Cuba? The truth is that his parents freely came to the U.S. nearly three years before Castro took power.
Rubio has a shot at winning some Republican primaries as long as the tea party is running them. He's a full-court bagger.
If he does manage to take the nomination (which he probably won't) then Hillary will crush him.
Batshit crazy Rand Paul is going to be the dark horse to win the Republican nomination.
PLEASE make it a Rubio/Paul ticket.
But Jeb is sitting there saying that HE could unite them all.
As Jessie Jackson warned us in 2001, "Stay out of the Bushes".
R43, Not up the the latest antics of Rand Paul. Come on, make me laugh. Any links to the worst/most amusing?
R41, Why would Rubio lie about something that could be easily dissed? He could've just found a close family friend who had a horrific experience escaping from Cuba.
R47 He has been telling this lie for so long and it was never questioned by he party faithful, so he figured he could just keep telling it and no one would ever catch on. Just like his lie about living in the same working class neighborhood he grew up in. That's a total lie and was debunked 24 hours after his speech. Regressives never question what their leaders tell them. There are still some who insist Iraq had WMD but the liberal media covered it up.