February 24, 2016

"The senator has gone to bed..."

Marco Rubio declined to show his face last night.

Why did Marco Rubio decline to appear on camera after the Nevada caucus?
 
pollcode.com free polls

56 comments:

Brando said...

Odd--it's not like this should have been unexpected.

readering said...

On Morning Joe hosts speculating that Rubio is avoiding attack on Trump because angling for veep spot.

dreams said...

He just needed to get his beauty sleep because its not easy when you're just a pretty-boy lightweight.

CStanley said...

I like Rubio and would prefer to have a positive spin on this, but I cant- I think it was a mistake.

I think the calculation was that he wasn't able to come out and project confidence, so it was better not to show his face at all. That leaves me with one more reason to doubt his readiness to serve as POTUS.

They should have given him a shot of liquid confidence and sent him out to make a short statement, congratulating the winner and thanking all of his supporters, and then get ready to move on to fight the next battle.

AprilApple said...

Perhaps he was feeling sick. Lotsa crap going around this winter.

Brando said...

"They should have given him a shot of liquid confidence and sent him out to make a short statement, congratulating the winner and thanking all of his supporters, and then get ready to move on to fight the next battle."

Yeah--no reason to not give any statement at all. Weird.

Tank said...

He was on the phone with Chuckie Schumer asking him what to do next.

MaxedOutMama said...

I can't answer the poll, but of course it is expected and raises questions.

amielalune said...


Sounds to me as if Marco has received certain assurances from the Party -- maybe regarding a brokered convention? To do this, and to skip CPAC....very strange behavior.

Curious George said...

He's a pussy. And that doesn't mean "cat like."

My name goes here. said...

Maybe he was using Harry Reid's exercise equipment earlier in the day.

pm317 said...

Robio and Cruz on one side and Trump on the other -- give me Trump.

walter said...

Still downloading Marcobot firmware update/patch.

mtrobertslaw said...

The software his handlers use to program him suffered a glitch.

traditionalguy said...

Rubio lost all of his bets in Vegas last night . So let him sleep. Sleep is good for severe depression. Tomorrow he can sell his soul again to the richest Hedge funder that calls and charge into battle again as a show must go on young boy politician. That is his role.

tim in vermont said...

I can't see how Trump could be worse than Hillary. Honest I can't.

I admit that deciding how to vote in this election seems more like writing a disaster recovery plan that an exercise in civic betterment.

tim in vermont said...

If I didn't love my country so much, this election would be hysterically funny. Instead I am reminded of the Hemingway quote about not needing to bet on war.

Brando said...

"If I didn't love my country so much, this election would be hysterically funny. Instead I am reminded of the Hemingway quote about not needing to bet on war. "

Take consolation in the fact that this is a strong, dynamic country that has weathered terrible leadership before, and no amount of corruption and incompetence cannot eventually be undone. Besides, no matter who gets elected they're not getting anything through Congress.

Simon said...

Do you want Trump, Lana? Because this is how you get Trump.

Alexander said...

There was an easy way to avoid Trump.

At any time since Reagan's amnesty when it was obvious that the left - and significant elements of the right - were more than happy to play a game of lucy-and-the-football with the American people, Republicans could have stood up and said no more. Instead of trying to weasel amnesty through when they thought nobody was looking.

Certainly since 2007, they could have made a genuine commitment to maintaining the border. They could have pushed for deportations following the Guatemalan children's crusade or the ebola scare.

And by push, I mean *push*, not "keel over and die."

Actually following through on even one other issue the base gives a shit about might have helped as well.

The Tea Party, and Occupy, regardless of what you think of them, were early warnings to their respective parties. But the establishment Republicans co-opted what it could from the Tea Party and ignored (when it wasn't mocking) the rest of it. And now they're getting their asses handed to them by Trump.

Democrats did the same thing, and now the coronation isn't a coronation... again.

Well I've actively supported Trump on this site since long before the cascade, and I'll say it again: I don't know if he'll do what he says he will. But I do know that the other guys won't. I also know that for Trump to wins requires such a large and open expression of contempt for the establishment and its policies that betrayal of that base would put Trump between an openly hostile crowd and an equally hostile Congress. So I think if for nothing more than cynical self-interest, he'll do quite a bit.

And if he actually does follow through - especially if Europe continues to juxtapose with an open invitation to the hordes - then 2018 is going to be the Congressional election of a lifetime.

tim in vermont said...

TRUMP BURNS NYT REPORTER ALIVE DURING RALLY
GOP Frontrunner Now Leads By Fifty Points In All States


Shamelessly stolen from a platform that used to be really into free speech prior to their recent Glorious Revolution.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

Rejoice. The future is bright.

Under Trump our brave new world will not be as a minor Province of North America Global Air Quality Control Directorate. But we will see the return of factory jobs as the newest thing. Scott Walker will even be saying unions are not so bad after all.

AND we will have a demand for millions of new transactional lawyers to keep commerce rolling. Crank up the law Schools again.

Meanwhile, Glen Beck will lead thousands of his mentally ill followers out into the desert to meet his half Mormon cult's by a salt lake.

Big Mike said...

We expect our politicians to be gracious in victory (so much for Trump!) and in defeat, no matter how much they want to say "The people have spoken, damn them."

This is an unforced error.

Jim Nicholson said...

I'm not backing Rubio, but I applaud his decision to refuse to speak to the media, who are obviously in the tank for the prevailing fascist candidate, Trump.

tim in vermont said...

If Rubio had just come out and said "The people have spoken, damn them" then left, he would be up five points this morning already.

Bob Boyd said...

"The Senator has gone to bed."

The Senator has been put to bed.

tim maguire said...

Rubio is very uneven, up here, down there. Maybe he's screwing up on purpose. Respectable second place finish, beat Cruz near his home turf is good(ish). Going to bed shows weakness and maybe a lack of character, sets him up for a rebound next week.

Just a theory I made up right here.

David said...

"We expect our politicians to be gracious in victory (so much for Trump!)"

Trump knows he hasn't won yet. No chicken counting. Expect him to be gracious (except perhaps to Cruz) when he has actually won.

David said...

"especially if Europe continues to juxtapose with an open invitation to the hordes "

Not happening. That issue has totally shifted in Europe. Now we get to see if they figure out that Euro-American timidity in Syria and Iraq is a large part of the cause of the problem.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Rubio probably just didn't have any idea what to say. Note that Donald Trump really got less than the 45% or 46% that's being attribted to him in Nevada.

If you look at the results:

http://patch.com/us/across-america/2016-nevada-gop-caucus-results-donald-trump-still-hot-0

Donald Trump: 46%
Marco Rubio: 24%

Ted Cruz: 21%
Ben Carson: 5%
John Kasich: 4%

They add up to 100%.

But they shouldn't. People were handed ballots that named 6 candidates who dropped out. You have to assume Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and others got up to 15% combined which cuts Donald Trump's 46% to 40%.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Rubio said on CBS's This Morning that 55% of Republicans didn't vote for Donald Trump. He should have said 60%.

He also flatly said which he shouldn't have that he would win Florida. That's only maybe if he can alert people that it's winner take all and he's at least second.

Simon said...

Alexander said...
"There was an easy way to avoid Trump. At any time since Reagan's amnesty ..., Republicans could have stood up and said no more. Instead of trying to weasel amnesty through when they thought nobody was looking."

Or someone could have just pushed through amnesty. The President could arguably do it today, unilaterally, by issuing a blanket pardon for anyone who entered the country. (I'm aware, of course, that the immigration laws are framed as status crimes—whence "arguably.") He could have prioritized it when the Dems controlled the Congress and the White House.

Whatever. Personally, I just want this radioactive issue off the table. Give them amnesty, deport them and build a wall, whatever; I just don't care any more. Just do something that takes this tar-baby issue off the table once and for all so that it's no longer a constant poison to political discourse.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

The senator has gone to bed and Elvis has left the building.

Who's minding the store?

SeanF said...

Sammy Finkelman: People were handed ballots that named 6 candidates who dropped out. You have to assume Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and others got up to 15% combined which cuts Donald Trump's 46% to 40%.

According to Google, sourcing AP - Paul got 0.2%, Bush 0.1%, Christie 0.1%, Fiorina 0.0%, Huckabee 0.0%, and Santorum 0.0%. 0.4% for those six combined.

NY Times confirms those numbers.

TWW said...

You missed the obvious reason: His attempt of dismissing Nevada results as irrelevant.

pellehDin said...

He's pumped full of drugs to keep him going - that's the reason for the robot-like repetitive statements - and his handlers decided he couldn't handle another dose at this time.

Bay Area Guy said...

I don't mind Marco losing the primary -- as long as he does everything humanly possible to fight for Trump in Florida and around the country this November.

David Aitken said...

Well, there is a way, probably difficult, for Rubio to get the nomination. I'm a Cruz guy, but registered Libertarian, so I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but from a philosophical point of view, I prefer Cruz.

So, I'd like to see Cruz, or perhaps Glenn Reynolds, or Randy Barnett, on the Supreme Court.

Let's say that Cruz and Rubio work a deal. Cruz drops out on the condition that Rubio, if nominated and elected, appoints Cruz to Scalia's seat on SCOTUS.

This would have the effect, I think, of marrying the Cruz and Rubio supporters behind Rubio, who would then have enough support to knock off Trump. Is this deal enough to pull them together? I don't know, but it's the only scenario I can think of to fix the situation we're in.

Brando said...

"Whatever. Personally, I just want this radioactive issue off the table. Give them amnesty, deport them and build a wall, whatever; I just don't care any more. Just do something that takes this tar-baby issue off the table once and for all so that it's no longer a constant poison to political discourse."

But if they took immigration off the table, we'd actually have to address why businesses just aren't hiring, Americans are in greater debt than ever, we cannot balance our budget, the tax code is a statist mess, and entitlements are about to swamp our budget. Those issues are difficult!

Just Mike said...

His candidacy sleeps wid da fishes

damikesc said...

Sounds to me as if Marco has received certain assurances from the Party -- maybe regarding a brokered convention? To do this, and to skip CPAC....very strange behavior.

Trump was pilloried for skipping a debate, but Rubio is skipping multiple engagements now. Something is up.

Rubio said on CBS's This Morning that 55% of Republicans didn't vote for Donald Trump. He should have said 60%.

But nearly 80% didn't vote for Rubio. It's hard to make the argument that most didn't vote for the guy who won the caucus by quite a lot.

Whatever. Personally, I just want this radioactive issue off the table. Give them amnesty, deport them and build a wall, whatever; I just don't care any more. Just do something that takes this tar-baby issue off the table once and for all so that it's no longer a constant poison to political discourse.

Anxious for permanent Democrat hegemony, eh?

And what will be your desire when MORE illegals come? Amnesty then too?

Reagan's amnesty didn't take it off the table. Don't see why you'd expect it to change now.

Beldar said...

Again, there's no "none of the above" option, and I don't agree with any of the choices.

Brando said...

"But nearly 80% didn't vote for Rubio. It's hard to make the argument that most didn't vote for the guy who won the caucus by quite a lot."

Yeah, the "look at all the people who didn't support your guy" is a weak argument--this is a multi-candidate race, and what matters is who gets the most. It's like when people point out all the non-voters ("see, of eligible voters your guy only got 30%") as if that matters.

Beldar said...

@ Brando: I agree with you that other issues are bigger than immigration. But you can't do entitlement reform, for example, until you cut off the explosion in beneficiaries streaming across the border. You can't reform the tax code until you bring within the laws the huge portion of the current economy that's conducted in cash and off the books. You can't establish new and non-corrupt systems, freed from influence peddling and crony capitalism, while the Dems are swelling their base into a permanent majority through wildly unchecked immigration.

Fixing the immigration problem is comparatively easy; all that's needed is the political will to enforce existing law, which our current POTUS is subverting with both hands as fast as he can.

The hard problems can't be solved until there's a Republican president elected in a mandate election -- like Reagan in 1980 -- who's working hand-in-glove with a Republican Congress. Listen to the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, talk about doing "big things." We do need to pitch the old turtle McConnell out of the Senate leadership, but there are other senators there who could work closely with a Republican POTUS and House to do big things.

Trump can't win the White House, though, and no big things will be accomplished if Hillary is there. If you want big things, pick the one among the remaining two candidates who has a track record of taking on big fights and not selling out to the Dems. (Hint: Marco Rubio is famous on the Hill for one thing only, and that's his participation in the Gang of Eight.)

Beldar said...

And @ Brando: I also agree with you that the "look at all the people who didn't support your guy" argument is silly after the election cycle is completed.

Right now, it's not silly, because the election cycle is still barely started.

Trump is 81/1237ths of the way to the GOP nomination. And Texas alone awards more delegates -- nearly twice as many -- as he's already won, and it does that in six days. The race is going to look very different after Trump's no longer the delegate leader. His only hope, in fact, is that he can keep either Rubio or Cruz from knocking the other out all the way into April.

Could that happen? Yeah. Will it? I still don't think so.

Alexander said...

@David,

Even assuming such a deal would unify their bases, that deal is a poison pill. Cruz drops out in favor of the president nominating - not appointing - him to the Supreme court, which then still has to confirmed by a not-yet-known Senate composition... for which one must hope Republicans don't keel over on such things as they tend to do, OR that they won't go ahead and confirm someone in the next couple of months.

Cruz would be an idiot to take that deal.

Brando said...

"But you can't do entitlement reform, for example, until you cut off the explosion in beneficiaries streaming across the border. You can't reform the tax code until you bring within the laws the huge portion of the current economy that's conducted in cash and off the books."

See, I don't think that is so--not that immigration reform should be ignored, but those issues can easily be tackled first because nothing about having millions of illegals in the country (who don't pay income taxes and aren't eligible for entitlements) prevents those systems from being fixed. Now, if the alternative is the Clintonian plan to actually grant citizenship to the illegals (thus making them subject to and beneficiary of those systems) then yes, that actually makes the reform harder (and especially once these citizens vote).

But even if the 10 million illegals vanished tomorrow, we'd still have those problems, and we missed a big opportunity to deal with them in the '90s when the fixes would have been less painful and more gradual. If we wait another couple decades it'll be far harder to do so.

Simon said...

David Aitken has left a new comment on the post ""The senator has gone to bed..."":
"So, I'd like to see Cruz, or perhaps Glenn Reynolds, or Randy Barnett, on the Supreme Court."

Randy Barnett would be every ounce the judicial activist that Justice Breyer is—maybe worse. Set aside his embrace of Lochner and substantive due process: His books evince an erroneous certainly that the founders were libertarians (they weren't) and that the constitution is a libertarian charter (it isn't). Randy has done some very useful academic work, I'm personally indebted to him for a lot of that work, he was very helpful in helping shape my understanding of law, but, like Richard Posner, the more you learn beyond his bespoke view of things, the more the bloom comes off the rose.

damikesc said...

See, I don't think that is so--not that immigration reform should be ignored, but those issues can easily be tackled first because nothing about having millions of illegals in the country (who don't pay income taxes and aren't eligible for entitlements) prevents those systems from being fixed.

The expenses are a bit of a problem. And you have an entire political party anxious to give them everything in hopes of votes.

You can have generous social welfare OR you can have open borders. You CANNOT have both.

Now, if the alternative is the Clintonian plan to actually grant citizenship to the illegals (thus making them subject to and beneficiary of those systems) then yes, that actually makes the reform harder (and especially once these citizens vote).

Why call it Clintonian? Do you think there are more than a tiny number of Democrats not completely on board with it? It's the policy of the entire DNC, not just a candidate here and there. They have reps more concerned with representing illegals than citizens (see Gutierrez)

But even if the 10 million illegals vanished tomorrow, we'd still have those problems, and we missed a big opportunity to deal with them in the '90s when the fixes would have been less painful and more gradual. If we wait another couple decades it'll be far harder to do so.

We would. But keeping them here, with a party anxious to give them the vote, insures they can never be tackled.

glenn said...

Marco Rubio the not ready for prime time candidate.

Drago said...

It's not 10 million. It's alot more.

And the dems will give them the vote, either legally or illegally. Period.

Because, unlike many on this blog, the dems are quite qware and focused on this single flanking maneuver that would deliver every single policy victory the dems ever dreamed of winning.

The failure to appreciate this most salient of facts is, on a strategic level, quite astonishing.

Scott said...

"Marco Rubio was saying this morning that 55% of Republicans didn't vote for Donald Trump.". I wonder when Marco will notice 75% of Republicans didn't vote for Marco. Does this kid bother to proof read the crap that's given to him?

rcommal said...

In answer to the question posed in this post--that is: "Why did Marco Rubio decline to appear on camera after the Nevada caucus?"--I respond: Who knows?

tim in vermont said...

The failure to appreciate this most salient of facts is, on a strategic level, quite astonishing.

So many of the Republican elite can't see past the carrot of cheap labor.

Danno said...

I didn't vote or comment on this yesterday, as I didn't think any of the choices wer correct. After sleeping on it, I believe Marco was emulating Ann Althouse with an early to bed routine.