He has been a candidate for the GOP nomination for president less than four hours and the mainstream media is already saying that he has no chance. Marco Rubio is the latest to get have the naysayers at the NY Times calling him out before his campaign has even begun.
Normally, we try to report the news rather than discuss it, but this requires at least a little commentary. Rubio represents the type of candidate that can beat Hillary (or whoever) because he has something some of the candidates lack: charisma. People like him. They like hearing him speak. He is a great communicator (something the NY Times article mocked) and he has the energy that is reminiscent of another young Senator who ran for president in 2008. That year, the young, well-spoken Senator happened to win the election.
The primary flaw of this article is to start denouncing momentum before it has had an opportunity to build up. The entire article sounds like it was written from the perspective of a liberal who doesn’t want the Republicans to have a chance so they’re going to cut it off at the point of entry rather than wait for it to build up. That’s politics in modern journalism.
Here’s a portion of the story:
He enters the fray with surprisingly low support. Despite four years of national prominence, he has averaged 6 percent of the vote in primary polls over the last few months. That’s the same or worse than five candidates who are thought to have a much smaller chance of winning the nomination: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie. Mr Rubio is acceptable to many but, so far, the first choice of few.