Rubio is up by 6 on Murphy:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/senate/fl/florida_senate_rubio_vs_murphy-5222.html
Plus Murphy has been damaged by news reports he faked his resume. His business experience was his primary selling point. Now we find out he just got money from daddy, set up a fake business that never made money, and lied about it. He’s toast.
Your “he’s toast” suddenly makes me feel optimistic about Murphy. Your other criticism might be reasonable, but whenever you make categorical and final statements like that, I suddenly feel much better about the opposite outcome.
And then there’s the fact that Murphy might not even beat Alan Grayson in the primary…
CNN on Rubio’s campaign: seeking reelection to the Senate, not pledging to serve a full six-year term, and not embracing Trump too closely: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/30/politics/marco-rubio-donald-trump-florida-primary/index.html
That’s good that he’s pulled ahead, it was tight for awhile. He’s still going to get crushed by Rubio.
Not being from Florida (thank goodness!) I don’t have a feel for how popular Little Marco is down there. If he got his ass kicked by Trump in the primary, I suspect not as much as he thinks he is. He is the incumbent and all, but he’s got some issues:
1- He really doesn’t seem to like his job and rarely shows up for it.
2- He’s sharing a ticket with a sociopath.
3- He has already said he may not serve the full term if elected.
4- He has a case of White House fever, the only cure for which is embalming fluid.
That would have destroyed a Hillary-candidacy, but will receive a yawn because the player is a Republican.
Rubio has been a lackadaisical senator: he said he hated the place before he decided to run for reelection. Hillary worked hard for upstate and downstate New York, mastering the local issues like no other senator. Doesn’t matter. Hillary refused to run against W in 2004 despite appeals by her party: she had promised her constituents she would serve and her term and that’s the way it is. Doesn’t matter. Rubio will receive no undue resentment, while Hillary gets brickbats by those not even residents of New York State.
New York State voted in Robert Kennedy in 1964, even though he was from Massachusetts. They did this because they like top quality representation. Hillary haters don’t grok to this and never will - though they greet Rubio’s essential laziness with a big ho-hum.
Marco is far from an icon here in Florida. He’s not all that popular. He’s also not all that unpopular. Murphy had a very real chance of beating him, but Murphy’s popularity with independents had a lot to do with his sterling resume, which turned out to be kinda exaggerated, if not totally made up.
Murphy and Rubio both won easily. Grayson almost slipped to third on the Dem side.
That’s a shocker, Good to see though, he’s the closest thing to Donald Trump the left has.
BTW, if I seem to be boosting Rubio a lot more than his record would justify, that’s intentional. In a Presidential race in which I can’t support the Republican nominee, it’s only natural that I’m falling back in love with a guy who at least won’t ruin everything and has the potential to be someone with a little more seasoning. I really do like Marco Rubio and I will vote for him with as much enthusiasm as I can muster, although he needs to get his shit together, starting with doing the job he’s elected to do. If he never becomes a good Senator, he’ll never become a good Presidential candidate.
At one point, he actually was a pretty good Senator. He did what we pay politicians to do and got together a coalition to pass comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate. It was even a bill that probably would have passed the House, if it had come up for a vote.
Then he decided he wanted to be President, and of course of a Republican candidate can’t possibly support immigration reform, so he panicked and repudiated his bill.
Cite?
I can cite his not promising even to be in the office for the next six years, much less actually serve.
That ship already sailed.
There *are *alternatives to voting your party line, yanno. Might consider 'em.
Actually, he got rolled by his colleagues. Marco didn’t know that what’s written into law doesn’t mean that the law will actually be administered as written. He knows better now. The enforcement parts of the immigration reform bill were a sham and always meant to be a sham. He gets that now.
I’ve renounced our Presidential candidate. Would be nice if Democrats did the same. She’s better than Trump but geez, he’s not wrong to call her “crooked Hillary”. The Nixon comparisons are quite apt.
Vote Johnson with me. You don’t have to support Democrats just because they are Democrats.
Look who’s become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Why am I not surprised?
The Democrats are part of the problem. Except they got even worse. Now they embrace corruption in politics as a mean of “getting things done”. Welcome back, machine politics.
No thanks. I’ll keep the GOP in Congress so we can continue to reduce the deficit and keep Democrats from subverting our democracy by promising things they never intend to deliver, such as immigration reform.
Got any cites or comparative studies? Or even factually supported anecdotes? 
I’ll take that as a No.
Do you get this way *every *election season?
Please explain to us what really happened to the DREAM Act. This oughta be good.
No, you don’t. But you do have to support people who have a realistic and constructive and engaged set of views and attitudes, and party affiliation is a strong indicator of that.
Let’s start with earmarks, the primary means by which politicians reward their campaign contributors. Let’s continue with the constant lying about real goals, saying they support one thing to win votes from moderates when they need them, and then turning around and going full liberal when they see an opportunity. And we’re not just talking about rhetoric here, but the bait and switch of immigration reform, where enforcement is promised, but has no teeth in the actual bill. The only thing the bill actually does is amnesty. The Democrats have for quite some time now seen the people as their adversaries, constantly thwarting the party and not knowing what’s good for them. Until they shake that attitude, I can’t get on board.
Rubio is better on the merits if you eliminate ideology. Neither have distinguished themselves yet in public life, but Rubio is a middle class guy like most of us who struggles to make ends meet at times and has not used his office to get rich. Patrick Murphy on the other hand has had everything given to him by his rich daddy and has yet to even attempt to succeed on his own in the real world. He’s a Democratic version of W.
We’ve disagreed on earmarks before and will continue to do so until you change your mind. The purpose of earmarks is not to reward donors, it is to get things done. I’ll vote for your dam if you vote to increase funding for X, whatever it is. Congressmen like bringing home the bacon to their districts, regardless if it helps their donors. A new bomber order is great news for the people in one district, and you sometimes have to throw them a bone in order to gain their votes on something that matters to you. So how is this earmark-free Congress working for you?