Rubio is a total lightweight. I'm not sure he would play so well in the general.
If he had to debate Hillary right now it would be a trainwreck. As has been pointed out, Rubio has a problem of sticking to memorized speeches and hugging the same talking points. But I see the same problem with Trump and Bernie too. Trump is all about building a wall, banning Muslims, and winning because he's the most awesome winner to ever win. Bernie *always* has to get back to his points of "fuck the 1%, fuck wall street, free college for everyone, tone down the military."
It gets them all by (for the most part) in inter-party debates because there's a much smaller discrepancy of viewpoints on a lot of issues, and many of which don't even need to be brought up because of the unanimous inter-party agreement on them. But when 1v1 presidential debates come around and big time issues and attacks are brought up, I'm not convinced any of them can hold their own *at this point in time* against serious and experienced debaters. Their lack of experience will definitely show
Whether you like them or not, the experience of Hillary/Kasich/Bush/Christie makes them much more suited for general election debates than the Rubio/Trump/Bernie crowd. The exception is Ted Cruz, who has similar experience to Rubio but has shown he has a more concrete personal political philosophy (as well as debate skills) that will translate well to a general election.
Rubio is a total lightweight. I'm not sure he would play so well in the general.
If he had to debate Hillary right now it would be a trainwreck. As has been pointed out, Rubio has a problem of sticking to memorized speeches and hugging the same talking points. But I see the same problem with Trump and Bernie too. Trump is all about building a wall, banning Muslims, and winning because he's the most awesome winner to ever win. Bernie *always* has to get back to his points of "fuck the 1%, fuck wall street, free college for everyone, tone down the military."
It gets them all by (for the most part) in inter-party debates because there's a much smaller discrepancy of viewpoints on a lot of issues, and many of which don't even need to be brought up because of the unanimous inter-party agreement on them. But when 1v1 presidential debates come around and big time issues and attacks are brought up, I'm not convinced any of them can hold their own *at this point in time* against serious and experienced debaters. Their lack of experience will definitely show
Whether you like them or not, the experience of Hillary/Kasich/Bush/Christie makes them much more suited for general election debates than the Rubio/Trump/Bernie crowd. The exception is Ted Cruz, who has similar experience to Rubio but has shown he has a more concrete personal political philosophy (as well as debate skills) that will translate well to a general election.
If you think Cruz translates well in the general election, you're a fucking idiot.
Rubio is a total lightweight. I'm not sure he would play so well in the general.
If he had to debate Hillary right now it would be a trainwreck. As has been pointed out, Rubio has a problem of sticking to memorized speeches and hugging the same talking points. But I see the same problem with Trump and Bernie too. Trump is all about building a wall, banning Muslims, and winning because he's the most awesome winner to ever win. Bernie *always* has to get back to his points of "fuck the 1%, fuck wall street, free college for everyone, tone down the military."
It gets them all by (for the most part) in inter-party debates because there's a much smaller discrepancy of viewpoints on a lot of issues, and many of which don't even need to be brought up because of the unanimous inter-party agreement on them. But when 1v1 presidential debates come around and big time issues and attacks are brought up, I'm not convinced any of them can hold their own *at this point in time* against serious and experienced debaters. Their lack of experience will definitely show
Whether you like them or not, the experience of Hillary/Kasich/Bush/Christie makes them much more suited for general election debates than the Rubio/Trump/Bernie crowd. The exception is Ted Cruz, who has similar experience to Rubio but has shown he has a more concrete personal political philosophy (as well as debate skills) that will translate well to a general election.
If you think Cruz translates well in the general election, you're a fucking idiot.
This. The only hope the GOP has, unless Hillary gets indicted, is that somehow Rubio can get his shit together or Kasich can get traction. Cruz and Trump aren't going to win. Of course I said Trump wouldn't win a single state in the primary. I'm an idiot.
Rubio is a total lightweight. I'm not sure he would play so well in the general.
If he had to debate Hillary right now it would be a trainwreck. As has been pointed out, Rubio has a problem of sticking to memorized speeches and hugging the same talking points. But I see the same problem with Trump and Bernie too. Trump is all about building a wall, banning Muslims, and winning because he's the most awesome winner to ever win. Bernie *always* has to get back to his points of "fuck the 1%, fuck wall street, free college for everyone, tone down the military."
It gets them all by (for the most part) in inter-party debates because there's a much smaller discrepancy of viewpoints on a lot of issues, and many of which don't even need to be brought up because of the unanimous inter-party agreement on them. But when 1v1 presidential debates come around and big time issues and attacks are brought up, I'm not convinced any of them can hold their own *at this point in time* against serious and experienced debaters. Their lack of experience will definitely show
Whether you like them or not, the experience of Hillary/Kasich/Bush/Christie makes them much more suited for general election debates than the Rubio/Trump/Bernie crowd. The exception is Ted Cruz, who has similar experience to Rubio but has shown he has a more concrete personal political philosophy (as well as debate skills) that will translate well to a general election.
If this were the 40's and the debates were on the radio, I'd agree. Cruz says much smarter things and generally has his shit together relative to the others. His problem is these things are televised and recorded, and he looks way too creepy saying his smart things to have a prayer in the general election.
Just realized I just said Ted Cruz could have won an election in the 40's. I meant based on his debate abilities. Obviously no hispanic would have had a prayer back then. Obvious correction is obvious.
Rubio is a total lightweight. I'm not sure he would play so well in the general.
If he had to debate Hillary right now it would be a trainwreck. As has been pointed out, Rubio has a problem of sticking to memorized speeches and hugging the same talking points. But I see the same problem with Trump and Bernie too. Trump is all about building a wall, banning Muslims, and winning because he's the most awesome winner to ever win. Bernie *always* has to get back to his points of "fuck the 1%, fuck wall street, free college for everyone, tone down the military."
It gets them all by (for the most part) in inter-party debates because there's a much smaller discrepancy of viewpoints on a lot of issues, and many of which don't even need to be brought up because of the unanimous inter-party agreement on them. But when 1v1 presidential debates come around and big time issues and attacks are brought up, I'm not convinced any of them can hold their own *at this point in time* against serious and experienced debaters. Their lack of experience will definitely show
Whether you like them or not, the experience of Hillary/Kasich/Bush/Christie makes them much more suited for general election debates than the Rubio/Trump/Bernie crowd. The exception is Ted Cruz, who has similar experience to Rubio but has shown he has a more concrete personal political philosophy (as well as debate skills) that will translate well to a general election.
If you think Cruz translates well in the general election, you're a fucking idiot.
This. The only hope the GOP has, unless Hillary gets indicted, is that somehow Rubio can get his shit together or Kasich can get traction. Cruz and Trump aren't going to win. Of course I said Trump wouldn't win a single state in the primary. I'm an idiot.
Why? What has Hillary ever done to make people think she'll beat anyone?
Rubio is a total lightweight. I'm not sure he would play so well in the general.
If he had to debate Hillary right now it would be a trainwreck. As has been pointed out, Rubio has a problem of sticking to memorized speeches and hugging the same talking points. But I see the same problem with Trump and Bernie too. Trump is all about building a wall, banning Muslims, and winning because he's the most awesome winner to ever win. Bernie *always* has to get back to his points of "fuck the 1%, fuck wall street, free college for everyone, tone down the military."
It gets them all by (for the most part) in inter-party debates because there's a much smaller discrepancy of viewpoints on a lot of issues, and many of which don't even need to be brought up because of the unanimous inter-party agreement on them. But when 1v1 presidential debates come around and big time issues and attacks are brought up, I'm not convinced any of them can hold their own *at this point in time* against serious and experienced debaters. Their lack of experience will definitely show
Whether you like them or not, the experience of Hillary/Kasich/Bush/Christie makes them much more suited for general election debates than the Rubio/Trump/Bernie crowd. The exception is Ted Cruz, who has similar experience to Rubio but has shown he has a more concrete personal political philosophy (as well as debate skills) that will translate well to a general election.
If you think Cruz translates well in the general election, you're a fucking idiot.
This. The only hope the GOP has, unless Hillary gets indicted, is that somehow Rubio can get his shit together or Kasich can get traction. Cruz and Trump aren't going to win. Of course I said Trump wouldn't win a single state in the primary. I'm an idiot.
Why? What has Hillary any of the candidates ever done to make people think she'll they'll beat anyone?
Rubio is a total lightweight. I'm not sure he would play so well in the general.
If he had to debate Hillary right now it would be a trainwreck. As has been pointed out, Rubio has a problem of sticking to memorized speeches and hugging the same talking points. But I see the same problem with Trump and Bernie too. Trump is all about building a wall, banning Muslims, and winning because he's the most awesome winner to ever win. Bernie *always* has to get back to his points of "fuck the 1%, fuck wall street, free college for everyone, tone down the military."
It gets them all by (for the most part) in inter-party debates because there's a much smaller discrepancy of viewpoints on a lot of issues, and many of which don't even need to be brought up because of the unanimous inter-party agreement on them. But when 1v1 presidential debates come around and big time issues and attacks are brought up, I'm not convinced any of them can hold their own *at this point in time* against serious and experienced debaters. Their lack of experience will definitely show
Whether you like them or not, the experience of Hillary/Kasich/Bush/Christie makes them much more suited for general election debates than the Rubio/Trump/Bernie crowd. The exception is Ted Cruz, who has similar experience to Rubio but has shown he has a more concrete personal political philosophy (as well as debate skills) that will translate well to a general election.
If you think Cruz translates well in the general election, you're a fucking idiot.
This. The only hope the GOP has, unless Hillary gets indicted, is that somehow Rubio can get his shit together or Kasich can get traction. Cruz and Trump aren't going to win. Of course I said Trump wouldn't win a single state in the primary. I'm an idiot.
Why? What has Hillary ever done to make people think she'll beat anyone?
Super delegates. Rigged debate schedule. Everything is against Sanders. This isn't an even up fight. The DNC machine won't let him win.
Rubio is a total lightweight. I'm not sure he would play so well in the general.
If he had to debate Hillary right now it would be a trainwreck. As has been pointed out, Rubio has a problem of sticking to memorized speeches and hugging the same talking points. But I see the same problem with Trump and Bernie too. Trump is all about building a wall, banning Muslims, and winning because he's the most awesome winner to ever win. Bernie *always* has to get back to his points of "fuck the 1%, fuck wall street, free college for everyone, tone down the military."
It gets them all by (for the most part) in inter-party debates because there's a much smaller discrepancy of viewpoints on a lot of issues, and many of which don't even need to be brought up because of the unanimous inter-party agreement on them. But when 1v1 presidential debates come around and big time issues and attacks are brought up, I'm not convinced any of them can hold their own *at this point in time* against serious and experienced debaters. Their lack of experience will definitely show
Whether you like them or not, the experience of Hillary/Kasich/Bush/Christie makes them much more suited for general election debates than the Rubio/Trump/Bernie crowd. The exception is Ted Cruz, who has similar experience to Rubio but has shown he has a more concrete personal political philosophy (as well as debate skills) that will translate well to a general election.
If you think Cruz translates well in the general election, you're a fucking idiot.
This. The only hope the GOP has, unless Hillary gets indicted, is that somehow Rubio can get his shit together or Kasich can get traction. Cruz and Trump aren't going to win. Of course I said Trump wouldn't win a single state in the primary. I'm an idiot.
Why? What has Hillary ever done to make people think she'll beat anyone?
Super delegates. Rigged debate schedule. Everything is against Sanders. This isn't an even up fight. The DNC machine won't let him win.
Kasich is by far the most impressive candidate running. But will he get the electorate to realize that? If he can get past the primaries, his centrist platform will give him a great shot to win the general election.
Kasich is by far the most impressive candidate running. But will he get the electorate to realize that? If he can get past the primaries, his centrist platform will give him a great shot to win the general election.
I get the reasoning behind this, but it's been awhile since it worked. When was the last time a centrist won the general election? William Jefferson?
Kasich is by far the most impressive candidate running. But will he get the electorate to realize that? If he can get past the primaries, his centrist platform will give him a great shot to win the general election.
Comments
It gets them all by (for the most part) in inter-party debates because there's a much smaller discrepancy of viewpoints on a lot of issues, and many of which don't even need to be brought up because of the unanimous inter-party agreement on them. But when 1v1 presidential debates come around and big time issues and attacks are brought up, I'm not convinced any of them can hold their own *at this point in time* against serious and experienced debaters. Their lack of experience will definitely show
Whether you like them or not, the experience of Hillary/Kasich/Bush/Christie makes them much more suited for general election debates than the Rubio/Trump/Bernie crowd. The exception is Ted Cruz, who has similar experience to Rubio but has shown he has a more concrete personal political philosophy (as well as debate skills) that will translate well to a general election.
If you think Cruz translates well in the general election, you're a fucking idiot.