“Is he live…Or is he Memorex?”
Which reminds me of this xkcd. 
Oh, sure. But if she’s averaging 42-53 fav/unfav, then an important chunk of that 53% isn’t wingnuts (if that weren’t true, I’d have already emigrated to Canada, thanks), and they are persuadable.
Well, he was where he said he wanted to be. It strikes me as more wishful thinking than anything else. I’d expect SC to be more Trump v. Cruz territory, with the Establishment candidates hoping for second place at best.
And again, while there’s always a first time for everything, in all the years that Iowa and NH have led off, nobody’s won the GOP nomination without winning at least one of those two. (Or the Dem nomination either, except for the year everyone skipped Iowa.) 3-2-1 is a nice idea to snow the donors with, but it flies in the face of 40 years of history.
Not to mention, there’s really no reason to think that if Rubio were a viable candidate, he could have used his bounce from Iowa to finish first in NH, which has known last-minute swings much larger than what it would take for Rubio to finish first. (If it hadn’t been for Rubio doing his Mister Rubotto number the other night, I’d still be worried that he’d pull out NH. I’m a lot less worried about it now.)
Hey, we have wing nuts too, you know! 
At least yours are polite by comparison to ours.
And that’s exactly what people see in him. You know how, whenever a poll puts a real person up head-to-head against “Generic Republican” (or “Generic Democrat”, for that matter), “Generic Republican” always wins? Well, Rubio is Generic Republican.
Just don’t ask to see his bar code . . .
Vox had two good articles on Rubio, one about just how formidable he can be when he’s on script, and another about how Christie’s attack was really, really damaging. I think it’s great. I wish Hillary had been willing to go after Obama more on how protected he was as a candidate, but I guess she’s not the one to deliver that message since she’s also such a creature of her staff.
One of the differences though is that Clinton and Obama can handle themselves without a script. They adhere to their scripts because they are cautious, not exactly freewheelers like Christie or Bernie Sanders. But they CAN go off script if they are put on the spot(well, Clinton gets herself into trouble sometimes, actually), and Rubio simply can’t.
I’m not too worried about Rubio vs. Clinton, because she has a similar weakness and she was reluctant to go there with Obama, so presumably will be reluctant to go there with Rubio. It’s Rubio vs. Sanders that worries me. Sanders has been reluctant to go hard after Clinton, but I think he’ll take the gloves off in a general election and rip Rubio to shreds.
Obama’s abundantly demonstrated (far more than you suggest elsewhere in your post) his ability to both think on his feet, and - I would add - think deeply about the issues confronting our nation. And your assertion that Obama was ‘protected’ as a candidate - this is the first time I’ve ever heard such a claim.
I can only assume it’s just now come into circulation somewhere in order to make Domo Arigato Marco Robotto, who really does need protecting, look not quite so bad by comparison.
Hillary didn’t have a script for many hours at the Benghazi! hearing, and as you may have heard, she came out looking a hell of a lot better than her inquisitors. And as candidate and President, Obama participated in numerous debates and press conferences.
Finally, Obama and Hillary are both very smart people. Rubio plainly isn’t. I’m not the least bit worried about a Hillary v. Rubio debate: unlike Clint Eastwood, Hillary can win a debate against an empty chair - or empty head.
He might be putting himself out of the running for the vice presidential nomination.
I wonder if he can see Cuba from his house.
Yes, he has a mediocre intellect but so what? My problem is that he is doesn’t have a core set of beliefs outside of his religious beliefs. Almost everything else he believes is based on some shit he heard at an RNC fundraiser.
Obviously they’re burnishing their resumes in preparation for the jump to Trump.
[Flight of the Conchords]
Robot: “come on sucker, lick my battery!”
[/FOTC]
I’m as willing to pile onto Rubio as anyone, but Rubio shouldn’t be singled out. Most of these people have nuthin’ when their script doesn’t cover what they have to deal with. Rubio isn’t special in that regard and I don’t think he’s an intellectual lightweight either. He’s just not ready.
But let’s also notice what happens to Hillary when she doesn’t have a scripted answer. “That’s what they were offering!” “What, you mean like with a cloth?” “I support DLs for illegals. Wait, Dodd doesn’t? Oh, I don’t either then.”
The sad thing is that the whole Marco Roboto performance arose out of an attempt to dodge that very issue.
One of the common criticisms of Obama is that he just didn’t have enough experience under his belt as a first-term senator. This is not a narrative that suits first-term Senator Rubio; thus, he has attempted to substitute a narrative in which Obama is a mad fiend bent on destroying the world for his own gain. Alas, in his overeagerness he has put the “too green” issue front and center.
Yep. He only repeated it so much because it’s important that Obama not seem incompetent, or else why the hell are we considering Rubio?
I’ll vote for Rubio if he gets the nomination, I find him promising and hope he’ll grow in the job, but I’m not going to defend the inevitable amateur screwups.
Marco Rubio staff assumed the only three black people at his rally were spies:
Amateur? Rubio’s been a politician (and presumably, been giving political speeches) for twenty years, almost his entire adult life. How many decades does he need to not be an amateur anymore?
Honestly I don’t think his poor delivery will or should really matter to his Prez campaign. But it is kind of weird he hasn’t ironed out his public speaking skills a little better given that he’s been doing it for so long.