Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Rubio/Fiorina: Does it Matter Who Leads the Ticket?
Many said during the debate last night that they would love to see a Rubio/Fiorina ticket or a Fiorina/Rubio ticket, and they didn’t care how the ticket was ordered. Does it matter who leads the ticket? I believe it does. The best order for that ticket would be Rubio/Fiorina for the following reasons:
- Fiorina would be much more effective attacking Hillary from the VP slot. Doing so from the top of the ticket would risk making her look mean and unpresidential to all those mushy independents out there — the people that want everyone to play nice. Nobody is too concerned if the #2 person on the ticket goes into attack mode. Besides, I think Carly would be more effective attacking Hillary, and that would allow Rubio to play the forward-looking optimist. Although it would be fun to see Carly debate Hillary, we saw last night that Marco could easily handle her.
- Fiorina’s CEO experience would make a fat target for the Dems, who would accuse her of being a heartless Richie Rita laying off thousands of common folk while wiping her feet on the poor. They did it effectively to Romney and they can do it to Fiorina. Those attacks fall flat against a VP candidate.
- I believe the Dems will have a very hard time mounting a successful smear campaign against Rubio. The stuff they’ve tried so far via their media organs has been very weak tea. Barring some hideous unknown scandal, they won’t be able to lay a glove on the young, handsome, Hispanic, middle-class Senator.
- Fiorina is not much younger than Hillary. Nominate her and you lose the youth advantage Rubio brings. It would be harder for Carly to appeal to the kids.
- The Dems would attack Fiorina’s complete lack of political experience. I know it doesn’t matter to some people, but it will matter to a lot independents. Attacking Rubio’s short career in the Senate doesn’t really fly given the current occupant of the White House.
I love Carly and would love to see her on the ticket, but I really think she would be better in the number-two slot. No matter who gets the nomination, they could do much worse than Carly. If she won’t take the job, give it to Susanna Martinez. We need a woman on the ticket to balance Hillary who, despite my doubts, says she’s a woman.
Published in Elections, General, Politics
Not Repudiated. Changed his position temporarily for political expediency. Rubio did this to himself.
Consensus Candidate of whom?
Well this is tough given the terrible field from which to choose. (none are perfect – so you have a fertile field to plow here to show me I’m so, so wrong)
I LIKE Jindal. He could rise. He could. If we’d all stop discounting him.
I like Cruz, but, unlike you, I can accept that someone I like is not acceptable to so many others and can move on in the interest of finding compromise.
Trump is great (fun) but a wild card. But he’s shown that if a candidate will take the average American’s side in the immigration debate, he might have a shot at winning. Who could have imagined HE’D get this far?
Jeb! No!
Huckabee? Have you ever noticed that his jaw moves from side to side when he talks? Distracting! moving on….
Kachich? Not a chance
Carson – I have a soft spot for this man. Maybe impractical but, golly, I just LIKE him. My daughter, in her 1st ever primary, is voting for this man.
Christie – He’d be a disappointment as #1, but I like him for VP.
Fiorina- (sp?) – unconventional choice, will probably be a disappointment, but I put her above Rubio.
Who’d I miss?
So if I’m understanding you correctly, you’d be more willing to vote for two former Democrats (Trump and Carson) than Rubio? Because somehow their changes are genuine Damascene conversions, but Rubio is a liar?
And you think this field is terrible?
I’m really struggling to find common ground here. (I do agree with you about Jindal, though.)
And by the way, please stop this type of rhetoric. You are wrong about who and what I can accept.
Sorry, I think I edited out that Trump in a ‘no’ too. But my guess is that he wouldn’t meet the terms for a compromise with you either. (had to edit the post for size – I bought the cheap membership!)
I’m sorry, but you’re accusing others of being the “problem”. Just trying to point out that you’re doing the same when you decide who you like then accuse others of wanting Hillary because they won’t sign up for your plan.
If you give Republican voters a choice between a Democrat and an open borders, Chamber of Commerce-shilling, amnestymonger, don’t complain when a bunch of them stay home. Rubio isn’t worth the gas it would take to walk to the polls.
You mean Trump? I mean he held almost all of these positions at one point and you can tack on socialized medicine, punitive taxation, epic crony capitalism and a love affair with the Clintons.
Consider: is there an underlying element of self-delusion in this conversation? Hint: the Ricochet Poll is completely out of sync with all the others. Second hint: substitute Scott Walker for Marco Rubio, and this could have been posted here in early summer.
Isn’t ignoring Donald Trump and his following, and blowing off his chances of being the nominee the job of the mainstream media? If the conservative intelligentsia wants to follow that path — and some, like Steve Hayes, are waist deep in the big muddy along that trail even as others retreat — expect to encounter deeper quicksand along the way.
Marco Rubio performed admirably in the recent debates. A quick study, he’s learned to tread carefully around Donald. Not quite at the Mike Huckabee, “I’m wearing a Trump tie (and would like to be VP)” level, but give him time.
Fiorina? Tracking downward. Only left-brained logicians and those attracted by her staunch interpretation of women’s social issues like her. She’s a moralistic scold, not easily liked. Her record at HP makes her the least accomplished of the three non-politicians. Carly has a good brain and debates point by point, but despite that she got clobbered in her race for the Senate in California. It’s useful to have her around jabbing at Clinton, but her political career will not begin on a national ticket.
People who expect Trump to vanish don’t seem to want to be on the side of a national political phenomenon. Look at the crowds around him. The Donald’s following, which includes many independent, intuitive talk radio-listening voters who don’t read NR or listen to political podcasts, can’t be dismissed as if they’ll have no influence in the process. Ignoring him, and them, is an insult.
At this point, expect Trump followers to vote for him in primaries. The establishment may dump Bush and gather around Rubio, joining the intelligentsia. That won’t end the process. Immigration will resurface. Hard right conservatives will be more emotionally fulfilled by Trump or Cruz. In Bill O’Reilly’s words tonight “this time around, GOP voters not only want a president, they want an avenger, someone to dismantle the liberal philosophy.”
Rubio and Cruz are first term senators. Both are suitable candidates for VP in this cycle. At this point the person most likely to be the nominee is still Donald Trump.
I see no scenario where I would vote for Trump. But, like Peter Robinson observed, Trump LIKES Americans and America. Its endearing. But president? No.
Carson – Like the man, he is a decent human being. Better than most. He has my respect – but he has no shot at president. And, most people from hardscrable backgrounds were at some point democrat voters. Nature of the beast. Give him break!
There IS a difference between lying for expediency and really changing your view. Often you can only see the difference in retrospect. As for Rubio – its too soon to know, but I put him as more of a McCain figure. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
On Jindal: why can’t we rotate some of the lower polling “top tier” candidates out of the main debate and bring some of the better candidates from the kids table up? Might give some of them a chance to rise. They need to be heard – and seen on the main stage.
(I’d ax Huckabee – and suggest booting Kasich too – I personally don’t know why Kasich isn’t running on the democrat ticket. He’d give Hillary a run for her money! )
I love how so many are able to look into the soul of Rubio and know he isn’t genuine when he changed his mind on the gang if 8 deal.
Or is it just Levin who sees into the souls of men and then spreads the truth to everyone?
I’d love you know how you’re so sure he’s not lying again. You don’t know and neither do I.
If he were just some guy I knew, I’d give him the benefit of the doubt. But, he’s asking to be my president. He may sound sincere now – probably about as sincere as he sounded in his senate race. Is just too risky. With Rubio as president and Ryan as Speaker, we’d have, what, 40 million shiny new amnesty’d residents before the voting machines had cooled. No thank you.
Rubio+Ryan = 0*borders.
Yep, and that’s why neither of them will get my support.
President Reagan said that someone that agreed with him 80% was his ally, not his enemy (paraphrase, Peter, please correct me). Am I understanding this correctly? If the choice is Rubio or Fiorina vs. Herself, are some of us really saying that your choice would be…neither? Third-party? Ceremonially set your ballot on fire?
You understand that by not voting for the person that you agree with 80+% of the time, that’s half a vote for the person you agree with .0000000001% of the time?
Policy discussions and disagreements are good (I seem to have heard that from a certain P. Ryan today). We should be arguing about policy. Advocate for the candidate that most reflects your views. But at the end of the day, like the House Freedom Caucus, we have to decide against burning the house down and support someone we can agree with most of the time. The cause of freedom isn’t advanced when we look like the gang that could only shoot straight at our own feet. An election is a win-or-lose proposition. I’m sick of losing. I’m sick of seeing an Executive Branch being run by someone who clearly thinks he is above the law. I don’t want someone who has likely committed multiple federal crimes to take the oath of office in 2017. I want us to choose winning, and then we hold the winner to account. Please.
I’m a Fiorina/Rubio supporter, but I haven’t decided on the order.
Fiorina would be much more effective attacking Hillary from the VP slot.
I don’t agree. The presidential candidate always has more visibility. Carly’s attacks as presidential candidate would get much more visibility.
Fiorina’s CEO experience would make a fat target for the Dems
I don’t agree. I think Carly is effective defending herself on this point. Her defense of this in Debate #3 got positive responses from several outside of the conservative media.
I believe the Dems will have a very hard time mounting a successful smear campaign against Rubio.
Probably true, but also true about Carly. Barbara Boxer found nothing she could use against Carly except HP.
Fiorina is not much younger than Hillary. Nominate her and you lose the youth advantage
Carly is 61, Hillary is 68. Hillary comes across as much older. I’m not sure what the “youth advantage” is. If you mean the Millennials, they may be looking for a more experienced person after their choice of Obama in 1908 and 1912. In fact, Rubio may remind them negatively as a young, first term senator, with no other extensive experience.
The Dems would attack Fiorina’s complete lack of political experience.
They probably will. In today’s environment I’m not convinced that is a winning argument. A do nothing senate term and a disastrous term as Secretary of State don’t make Hillary’s experience a positive resume.
The gang of eight pulled Rubio into the immigration issue to destroy him and it worked. He has learned from that experience that he can’t trust the establishment from either party, and that some issues must be approached with extreme caution and simplicity. The fact is he gets the immigration issue right, better than any of the other candidates. Rubio obviously studies and learns. I don’t know if Rubio is for real, he does a great imitation of reality if he isn’t, so does Carly if she isn’t, but we can’t know. It would be a crime if the stealth amnesty that Trump offers were to sink Rubio.
I’m sort of equally divided between Fiorina and Rubio. I have a consideration no one’s mentioned. Carly IS 61. This is her only shot at president. I think both Fiorina and Rubio are good choices. Rubio will still be a good choice in 8 years. Fiorina/Rubio.
Two things.
First, even if we elect Rubio, David Brat is still in Congress, and Eric Cantor is not, and Congress is very well aware of that fact.
Second, the Speaker of the House has pledged not to push anything that does not have the support of the majority of the majority, and applied that to immigration specifically. If he breaks that pledge, he destroys the credibility with the caucus that put him in the position in the first place. And I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that Ryan thinks immigration is the hill he wants to die on — and split the party over. He also never supported the Gang of Eight. I would expect he is quite willing to pass border security measures and let the rest stand or fall on their own. That’s a far better chance than you’re getting with Clinton.
It wouldn’t matter what Ryan passed if Rubio didn’t enforce/implement it. Ryan+Rubio – 0*borders.
I hope we get this resolved soon because there are only about 90 days until the first caucus.
If we come from the position that Rubio and Fiorina are equally capable, there is another reason for Fiorina to be VP.
The Democrat bench is as deep as a speed bump. All current signs point to Clinton selecting Julian Castro as VP. When we play by the Democrats identity politics we lose. Female vs female and hispanic vs hispanic matchups will lose because they are fixed in the context of the mainstream media. For success, it is best to complement the ticket, not fight fire with fire, and allow for Rubio and Fiorina to make tangental indirect attacks and comparisons. Fiorina is much more disciplined than Castro and could ably handle him while also benefiting from his potential overstep. If Clinton complaines about Rubio being sexist, I would bet Castro would have the potential to be visibly worse against Fiorina. And the optics matter to the independent.
Also, as quick a study as Fiorina may be, Rubio has the foreign policy chops to jujitsu with Clinton on stage with understanding, wit, and grace. I could see a “respect your elders” line from Rubio being both biting and respectfully charming against Clinton.
For the most part, I agree with Frozen’s analysis. At this stage, it feels like Rubio/Fiorina is the most likely ticket, but of course it is still light years from a certainty.
While we dislike identity politics, the fact is that a woman is a necessity on the ticket. With Fiorina in the VP slot, it wouldn’t appear as (or be) pandering, though, because she has been a serious contender for the top spot. Both Rubio and Fiorina are perceived as strong on national security and foreign affairs, and the electorate understands that the world is a mess right now.
Rubio’s not being an old WASP is a help, too. But that’s the icing on the cake. He also happens to be articulate and smart and is as close to a Reagan as we’re likely to get.
I’m pro-Rubio, but I get why strict restrictionist people don’t trust him on immigration. For example, his H1-B answer was his weakest of the night. It betrayed a misunderstanding of how the program works in practice.
iWe makes the best case for Carly: she would be an excellent executive. She’s also more capable of countering the Romneyesque demonization the Clinton’s would renew. I’d wish she’d come to the table with more policy specifics, though. She’s relies a lot on the “lots of good ideas, I’m the only really good leader” argument. The most salient criticism of her HP days is that she stumbled into a valid strategy, she didn’t pursue it.
Thanks, iWe. Yours is the first comment that addresses which would be the better president. Yes, winning is important, but let’s not lose sight of that.
Not Carly. Not President, Vice President or Secretary of State, but some type of cabinet position. She is an unknown in the political world, and the executive branch’s most important role today is in the foreign area. The best fit for me is a Cruz presidency. Rubio is fine with me. He is a conservative and as Milt Friedman said you have to make the bums do what you want, not vote new ones in. Rubio is malleable in some areas.
We don’t need a woman, in particular. We need truth and constitutional government. The only way to “balance” Hillary is to institutionalize her, not game the political system the way the progressives do.
Excellent analysis. Thank you.
Brent, you are absolutely correct. We need to resolve this quickly in a way that enhances the conservative position in November 2016. Hillary must not become the next president of the United States. I’m confident that the voters in the Republican primaries will sort this out.
We should cancel the primary?
This isn’t going to be resolved anytime soon, nor should it be.
If the republicans are so worried about President Hillary maybe they should get their act together and stand for something other than not her.
I am old enough to remember Reagan attracting the same qualms in 1980. Heck, I remember sharing those qualms about Reagan’s electability. But Reagan managed to close the deal with the American voters during his debates with Carter.
Of course that doesn’t mean that Cruz is guaranteed to accomplish the same thing. (Win over the voters that is. I have no doubt, should he make it there, that Cruz will leave Hillary’s blood all over the debate stage floor.) That said, I believe that Cruz–like Reagan–can close the deal with the voters if he gets a chance to make his case to them.
That said, I ruefully notice that today–as back in 1980–I again have the same qualms regarding the best conservative in the race, Cruz. But my experiences from 1980 makes me less wobbly this time.