Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post wrote an interesting column, titled “72 seconds that prove why Republicans would have been way better off nominating Marco Rubio.”
In the Senate debate on Monday night between Rubio and his Democratic challenger Rep. Patrick Murphy, Rubio’s opening statement told the story of why he’s forever indebted to the United States.
Rubio is currently leading Murphy by two points in the latest Quinnipiac poll.
Cillizza’s column sticks out because while the premise of Rubio getting the nomination over Donald Trump might give Republicans a better shot of winning the White House, the problem of congressional gridlock and special interest groups dictating policy in Washington still exist.
If we take a look at the electoral map right now, Rubio wouldn’t have to worry about Utah, Arizona, or Georgia being in play. Assuming Rubio, who represents Florida, can take his home state and make Virginia and Pennsylvania competitive again, he can close the gap from Trump’s 99 electoral vote deficit to 4 electoral votes.
That’s yuuuuge!!
With that in mind, it wouldn’t necessarily make Rubio a better candidate than Trump. If you recall from the primaries, Rubio had a very difficult time finding a niche with primary voters because he split the GOP establishment and conservative vote with Ted Cruz.
Rubio would also find it hard to inspire and energize the base that currently supports Trump, because they are pushing for different policy agendas. Rubio wouldn’t build a wall, he wouldn’t tear up trade deals like NAFTA and TPP, and he certainly wouldn’t allege that the election is rigged against him.
No, what you would be seeing is a Romney 2.0, who can get the evangelical vote, and beat an unpopular Hillary Clinton. Rubio still has a bright future in politics, but he’s going to have to get tuned up before he decides on a second presidential bid.
Watch an excerpt from Rubio’s opening statement from Monday night here:
