by Patrick Appel
Enten examines Marco Rubio’s declining favorability:
It’s not clear why Rubio has fallen. The decline in his popularity among adults corresponds almost perfectly with his push for immigration reform; his largest drop occurred in June as the Senate was debating comprehensive changes to U.S. policy. I wouldn’t argue that pushing for immigration reform made Rubio unpopular, but it did give him a lot of press. FiveThirtyEight has previously said that Rubio’s ideology ranks as quite conservative. It’s possible that Americans learned more about Rubio than just his views on immigration during that period.
Harsanyi struggles to see Rubio’s appeal as a presidential candidate:
For me, at least, the promise of Rubio seldom corresponds with the reality. Whenever I listen to him these days, all I hear is Mitt Romney. If he’s really imbued with all these formidable political skills, why do so many of his appearances feel stilted? If he’s one of the fresh faces of a new GOP, why are his speeches crammed with platitudes that might have packed a serious punch in 1984? It’s not that he’s substantively wrong (though he offers so little in that regard). It’s not that he’s off-putting. It’s that he never really generates the sort of excitement or displays the sort of political acumen his reputation might have you believe he can, should, or will.
Forget the White House, Myra Adams thinks Rubio will have a hard time simply holding on to his Senate seat:
Rubio knows his race will be tough, since 2016 is the first time he would face a traditional two-person Senate battle. (His 2010 election was a quirky three-way race.) It has already been reported that Rubio’s most likely and strongest opponent would be Florida Congresswoman and chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Furthermore, in a presidential election year, with Clinton likely at the top of the ticket, the electorate is going to be very different from the one that gave Rubio 49 percent of the vote in 2010.
The Dish 