It’s not exactly like Babe Ruth pointing with his bat to the stands where he was about to hit a home run. But the presidential primary equivalent is that candidates can stay in the race so long as they can point to a state where they are going to win — and, preferably, it’s an early state.
“Winning” in primary politics is very often not about winning but about doing “better than expected,” particularly if you’re not the frontrunner. But at some point, sooner or later, you do need to win. You need to show that you’re not just second or third choice but the first choice somewhere.
And therein lies the problem for Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. It’s just not clear where he is going to win, at least among the four early states: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. It’s unlikely that anyone will sweep all four, but if you don’t win one of them, how do you claim to be in the top tier?
For his part, Rubio’s folks are trying to make lemonade out of their failure to put a stake in the ground anywhere, claiming that it saves them from disappointing expectations. That’s true enough, but if the expectations are that you won’t win, and then you don’t win, it’s hard to turn that into a victory. Unless, perhaps, your name is Bill Clinton, you’ve just been hammered by the tabloids over an alleged mistress and you manage to turn a second-place finish in New Hampshire into a victory for “the comeback kid.” Miracles like that rarely happen twice and, for all of his skill, Rubio has yet to prove himself a political Bill Clinton.
Which doesn’t mean Rubio should be taken lightly: quite the contrary. Rubio is not only a skilled debater but — compared to say, Ted Cruz — he’s also an all-around Mr.
Congeniality. Rubio is far better liked and respected in the Senate than Cruz, which may not be saying much except for the fact that Cruz is leading in Iowa and is turning his lack of popularity into an asset of sorts, owning it, even. He’s painting himself as Mr. Outsider: the first senator anyone can remember to be denied basic senatorial courtesies by the members of his own party; a guy who has managed to unite the entire Senate against him.
But Rubio’s supporters have now taken to complaining to the press about his failure to commit to winning anywhere. This is not a good sign. His top supporters in Iowa are using The New York Times to send a message to the candidate that he needs to push harder in Iowa and not just aim to show. That’s a very bad sign. Remember when Ben Carson’s foreign policy team decided to brief reporters on their candidate’s lack of attention to matters of national security? That was the beginning of the end of his candidacy.
I’m old-fashioned enough to believe in that ancient instrument of communication — the telephone. It’s the usual way — shall we say the best way — for supporters to give advice to their candidates. When they use a national newspaper instead, it generally means one of two things: that they’re not really supporters, or that they are, but they’ve tried everything else, and they might not be supporters much longer.
Marco Rubio has the potential to be a strong candidate for president. He’s smart and affable, and he has a story to tell. Once the voting begins, he won’t have to win everywhere. But first, he does have to win somewhere, and he has yet to decide, or even to hint, where that might be.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 36 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.