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.
A Thought Experiment: Inspired by Sen. Rubio
Senator Marco Rubio is back in the news thanks to his decision to seek reelection for his Florida senate seat. From the beginning of this election cycle, I was ambivalent toward him as a presidential prospect and the ambivalence remains to this day. Simply put, Rubio’s talents qualify him well for some parts of the presidency, but poorly for others. From the start, I’ve felt that he would make the perfect head of state. An eloquent public speaker, clear eyed about America’s role in the world and with the bi-partisan instincts needed to function as a truly national figure, the Florida senator would be uniquely well suited as the face of the American Republic. And as much as conservatives shun this kind of thinking, Rubio’s ethnicity and family history would add a certain symbolic value.
Symbolism, however, is the key and therein lies the problem. Due to the Founders’ inability to predict the rise of the imperial presidency, we are left with a unitary executive that combines the functions of a head of state and head of government. To the former office, Rubio would excel; to the latter, his thin resume and proclivity to “work across the aisle” — as well as his somewhat shaky conservatism on domestic issues — would be far less well-suited. Our country is greatly polarized and precious few of our problems will be solved without a nasty partisan fight, the kind that would pose a major obstacle to any would-be unifying figure attempting to represent America abroad with a united voice. For the job of head of government, the present moment requires not just a true conservative, but also a leader who does not mind being hated, perhaps even one capable of reveling in his own unpopularity. A certain Texas senator — ironically, of similar ethnic heritage — comes to mind.
Given that the current situation is nearly impossible to contemplate, let’s turn to a hypothetical. Suppose that the modern presidency were not the noxious combination of chief executive and deified celebrity that we see today. Suppose further that it were possible to separate the necessary task of symbolic leadership from the even more necessary task of, you know, actual leadership. Whom would you support for president, if we still had a choice? More importantly, whom would you support for prime minister?
Published in General
With the usual 20-20 hindsight, I’d say that the debates were not the issue, although I recognize Rubio did have some success when he went after Trump. IMO, he did not do enough to insert himself into voters’ awareness from Day 1, and there was some grumbling about his failure to really campaign.
Obviously, Trump’s antics were tremendously appealing to free media, and would not have been matched, but Rubio did little in the early stage of the campaign, supposedly because he had little chance in those states. But MIA is MIA, and a candidate can slip from the public’s consciousness. Unless you’re a bloviator like Trump, a candidate has to fight for attention. I don’t really think that Rubio did.
Certianly not among the contributors.
I do not think the problem is the combination of Head of State and Head of Government. The problem stems from Congress giving too much power to the President and executive branch.
Congress, with its protected districts (and I mean the House) just does what it wants. It does not want controversy or to actually make hard choices, which is funny, because they are all coming back most of the time. Instead of using that insulation for the good of the Republic, they instead work to not rock the boat.
Congress is the problem, not the POTUS
Rubio did a lot in the early campaigns. Rubio’s “miracle” in Iowa was the result of him spending more time and money in the state than any other candidate including Cruz and Trump (especially Trump who didn’t do any spending and just a few big rallies).
From when I was following the polls obsessively before I called the primary for Trump back in February, Rubio spent more money per state than anyone in the 2016 primary other than Jeb.
It’s possible to argue that the way the primaries, and the Republican party in general, are set up Rubio’s hard work didn’t give him as much of a chance as they should have however his failures had nothing to do with traditional spending, retail politics, endorsements or free media. In my opinion they have everything to do with Marco Rubio as a national candidate – and maybe just as a candidate period.
If you can still find the exit poll crosstabs the data tells a story: his strongest polling groups were Republicans in traditionally liberal districts (urban CD’s loved Rubio) and traditionally liberal sociological groups (two that I remember are post-grads, upper middle class incomes). Which explains why he’s so popular on Ricochet since so many here are little islands of red in ocean of blue as Peter Robinson(?) once put it.
Not so. He said the other day that he favors keeping “2 amendment.”
Is that before or after the Corinthians?
I’m going to mildly disagree with this, based on one piece of little-known trivia I found by accident.
I’ve read, more than once, that one big warning sign about how much the electorate cared about immigration was Eric Cantor’s loss in VA-7. That it should have been the warning sign. And there’s truth to that. But it’s not quite so simple, either. I’ve seen absolutely nobody go back to look at who actually won that district in the presidential primary.
Marco Rubio. 35% to Trump’s 32%.
That doesn’t mean that immigration wasn’t a factor in the district; it may be that the anti-Gang of Eight vote split between Cruz and Trump. But had the other candidates or the electoral calendar fallen differently, that split could’ve worked in Rubio’s favor elsewhere. Considering the presumptive nominee’s history on healthcare and abortion (for a start), we should probably not assume that a position on any one issue is decisive in itself.
Gang of Eight hurt Rubio, but Jeb Bush probably hurt him just as much.
Congress certainly share a portion of the blame for the current state of our system of checks and balances, however, people simply don’t identify with institutions the way they do with individuals. Hypothetically a strong speakership could go along way to solving this problem, but it’s unclear if the nature of the office could allow for that, as evidenced by Gingrich’s failure become Clinton’s defacto prime minister. Every nation needs a figurehead but when that figurehead is invested with actual power over domestic policy the result can be toxic. A portion of the electorate will assume that has the symbol of the nation the presidents wishes should be deferred, while another segment will refuse to invest in the president at such a symbol over partisan differences. It’s no surprise then that The president uses foreign policy to score points at home, slamming republicans in speeches abroad.
Me, too.
All my friend group here in SoFl were big time Marco fans. I made excuses for him until I couldn’t anymore. South Florida Miami Dade County still commands, even as a minority R in big blue sea, the largest share of GOP voters by county in the state. So I think it bodes well for the GOP to have him back in the running.
Marco is a thousand times better than Patrick Murphy, the dilettante Democrat who will win if Marco loses. If Hillary carries the state Murphy the dim Democrat will be our new Senator. <horror> Just listen to the idiotic rambling of Bill Nelson, current Democrat Senator from Florida,for a preview of Patrick Murphy.
Marco reminds me of a cake that needs more time to bake; he just needs to grow up a bit, and I do think his failed candidacy will help him grow as a man. He’s a decent good man who probably doesn’t have the gravitas for POTUS, but with maturity he can yet be effective as a conservative Senator.
I’m a pragmatist. I have to vote for a rebuttal of liberal immoral Democrat demagogues. I will vote the party ticket as I’ve done my entire life.
According to exit polling conducted Rubio fared no better than Cruz or trump in those areas.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/15/us/elections/florida-republican-poll.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/01/us/elections/iowa-republican-poll.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/09/us/elections/new-hampshire-republican-poll.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/20/us/south-carolina-primary-exit-poll.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/01/us/elections/texas-republican-poll.html
Rubio’s arguably strongest group of support was the somewhat conservative category and he wasn’t leading trump or Cruz by much in educated categories either, the main difference was that trump just did well in the uneducated groups better than Rubio and Cruz.
It was definitely true in Virginia, one of Rubio’s stronger states: he did very, very well in the highly-educated north.
Leigh, I tried to quote you earlier, but I can’t work an iPad today. Good to see you active again.
I think absent Trump his Republican support would’ve been more apt to support Cruz, especially below the Mason Dixon line.
I never understood the Jeb Bush/Mike Murphy fascination with attacking Marco Rubio so relentlessly.
You’re kidding right?
Congress can stop the president. They just care more about getting re-elected than using the power of the purse.
Congress doesn’t wish to explain anything. It’s just easier to surrender.
They didn’t surrender when it came to confirming someone to replace Justice Scalia, so obviously it can be done.
…
Rubio and Kasich should have left the race after Super Tuesday after Rubio had only won only 1 of 15 states. The Trump phenomenon was at red alert maximum crazy. You needed one person confront Trump. That never happened. Trump saw no need to attend any debates, and the race was essentially over except for Wisconsin and Utah and small blips at Colorado and Wyoming.
After Super Tuesday, Rubio lost the states of Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Hawaii, Michigan, Mississippi, and Wyoming.
Would he get out then? No! He went on to lose Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and he lost his home state of Florida by capturing only 27% of the vote and winning only 1 of 67 counties.
Cruz wasn’t going to win much in the liberal Northeast, but he had about 3 to 4 times as many delegates or Rubio or Kasich.
Cruz was almost even with Trump until Mid-March, but Rubio and Kasich wouldn’t leave.
Rubio and Kasich are two of the biggest reasons we are stuck with Donald Trump today.
Thanks. My internet involvement may continue to be off and on over the next few months — but I’m not planning on going away altogether!
Hard to tell how it would’ve turned out. Yes, in the South Cruz would’ve done better, while in the Northeast Rubio would have had a better shot. And for all we know absent Trump Scott Walker or Chris Christie or even Jeb Bush is the nominee… ultimately pointless speculation.
But the evidence that Gang of Eight alone doomed Rubio seems lacking.
It’s definitely part of what happened but I think his appeal was more selective to begin with than many assumed.
Hard to tell. To what extent was the result determined by things baked into the cake ahead of time, and to what extent was it determined by events — by the electoral calendar, by the actions of the other candidates and a couple major mistakes by Rubio himself? Give him only a few more points in Iowa and he’s in 1st, not 3rd; take away the debate stumble in NH after that, and he could be the nominee.
Likewise — if Cruz had put more effort into Missouri, if he’d handled McConnell more diplomatically, and if he’d made a better case that a contested convention was not only technically legal but democratically legitimate, I still think he could have pulled it off. It also might’ve helped if Indiana had come after Wisconsin instead of the northeast.
I think that this is related to your suggestion that polls are dominated by Never Trump voters; you spend a lot of time with people who think like that. If you look at the polls, substantial portions of Trump’s base supported amnesty. The difference in immigration views between amnesty architect McCain voters and almost uniquely anti-amnesty Romney wasn’t all that great (Trump’s mix was somewhat more anti-amnesty, but that’s partly a result of their being poorer and less educated, both of which correlate).
The issues that matter here are not the same as the issues that matter to the electorate in general.
Maybe absent Trump, Cruz would have won in South Carolina. Perhaps Sen. Graham’s state is particularly focused on amnesty as a disqualifier. I think the Florida claim is less supportable: Check Cruz’s favorables and look at the second choice table, in particular the second choice for Trump voters.
That’s not to say that absent Trump, Rubio would have won; there were a lot of moving parts this cycle, and I don’t think it’s easy to know what would have happened. Just that, while, yes, in the last couple of cycles there was an almost 0.25% rate at which Congressional primary contests demonstrated that Republicans were particularly mad about the G08, there doesn’t seem to be strong evidence that even the fringe-y districts are particularly opposed; they’re as likely to go with an Amash as with a Gowdy (wait, no, Gowdy was a Rubio guy)… As with a Gomert.
Anecdotes about Ricochetti aren’t great ways of analysing the general electorate.
I think that Cruz could have stopped Trump from becoming the nominee with any number of about a dozen things going differently. I don’t think that Cruz could have become the nominee by Missouri. There was a lot of excitement about Trump delegates who were really Cruz supporters, but the numbers never rose close to the level of half of the delegates, and there were numbers of Cruz delegates who’d prefer other candidates. It’s hard for a regional candidate to win a nomination that requires victories outside one’s home base.
If his base had been bigger; if he’d been able to win in South Carolina, Georgia and Virginia, for instance, rather than coming third in each, he might have had the momentum, but that’s a gap of 10-18% in each. Once he’d lost in the South on Super Tuesday there wasn’t a path. No one but Trump could get an uncontested convention after Super Tuesday without a total Trump collapse, and Cruz was almost uniquely unsuited to the “everyone’s second choice” outcome from contested conventions.
Part of Cruz’s problem was conservative spending going into Super Tuesday: he really should have spent more than he did to help his numbers in the early states instead of waiting to Super Tuesday (although he probably still spent less than he should have then.) Hindsight is 20/20 of course.
I thought it was very interesting that Trump’s victory in the 2016 primary resembles Romney’s victory in 2012. He kept a sizable number of voters with him and ambitious rivals sniped at each other for the not-Romney/not-Trump position which allowed both Trump and Romney to carry the day.
I thought it was more McCain-ish (absent McCain’s slip in the previous year’s polls); Jeb’s objectively pro-Trump advertising spending, Christie’s explicit debate support, Cruz’s advocacy for his issues, each of them somewhat resembling Huckabee’s and Giuliani’s support for McCain. 2012’s most prominent Romney backer was Bachmann, who wasn’t terribly effective at it. Romney was good at gathering the endorsements of people who didn’t declare for anyone in the campaign, but the 2008 field mostly bonded in their dislike of him and in 2012 he retained the objections of Trump, Palin, and such right to the end.
You know, I guess the General portion will be more 2012; it appears that Cruz, Graham, etc. are going to hold out till the end.
The power has been invested by Congress. Congress can defang the President. They just won’t. They don’t want to upset the boat.
A Congress and POTUS from the same party could reset the system in 4 years and it would be fine. None of them want too, because almost all of them are antisocial, power mad fiends.