Marco Rubio would do politically better than Paul Ryan against any democratic candidate in 2016, and would place the republican party in better shape over the long run.
Paul Ryan would put the Republican Party in better shape, because he has a better appeal to liberals as well as conservatives that put him in a place to attract voters away from Hillary ( if she runs). Although Marco Rubio is a fine candidate Paul Ryan would simply do better.
I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Despite similar voting records, Rubio's self-reflective rhetoric allows in his future a fact-responsive, technocratic shift that gives him an edge over the factual ignorance of Paul Ryan's blame game. Rubio has walked the line of Congressional compromise on immigration, which will become increasingly important to the republican party overtime. Rubio has never given a speech of deception like Paul Ryan's 2012 speech to the RNC [1], nor written a budget resolution that fails to do justice to the basics of conservative economics [2].
With the deepest respect to Senator Rubio he is only slightly more well known than Ryan himself. I do greatly admire Rubio truly I do but Paul Ryan is less polarizing than Rubio especially in my state which is a swing state (Wisconsin).
This article highlights how even moderates don't do so well and shows how conservatives wouldn't do well ( I hate admitting this but I must face reality and any conservatives out their I'm open for argument on this topic). http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
This as well http://articles.chicagotribune.com....
I would be hard-pressed to rank either as more 'moderate' than the other, but while Ryan adopts firm opinions (ie. $1 debt is a higher priority than $1 growth [2]) alongside their permanent popularity risks, and Romney adopts elastic opinions to cater to poll numbers (ie. abortion), Rubio has mastered the 'elastic popularity risk' to absorb the best of both worlds. The immigration controversy defined his ability to firmly resist pressure from the left, the right, and the poll numbers, and to bounce back later [3]. He knows how to raise money on the right without arming the left with sound bytes to rally its base. He coldly calculates his criticisms of opponents while relishing his every chance to praise them in between - a reverse strategy from that of less talented politicians. He is explicitly open to admitting he is wrong. Ultimately the entire republican party will have to adopt a similar strategy before it returns to its grand old glory.
It's not quite so hard pressing to to rank one more moderate over the other, but that is irrelevant. Rubio has mastered the elastic popularity risk, but he has not put that to the test on a race for the most powerful seat in the nation. Ryan, however has. Rubio does calculate his critics well, that's the makings of a good politician, but Ryan takes his head-on, which was demonstrated in the first weeks of the campaign. Of course Rubio has admitted he's been wrong, on a bit of a side note anyone who says they have never done anything wrong is a blatant liar. I agree that they Republican Party needs to adopt a strong platform, but they need Ryan's platform, to talk about things considered democrat grab issues as well as conservative grab issues.
I legitimately believe the internet will eventually dilute the influence of corporate hacks, but in its current marketing-dependent form it is a net asset for them. The Citizen's United ruling and the rise of the super PAC also adds longevity to their grasp of Washington. And I feel that Congress is a lot more entrenched in corporate interests than the White House. Congressmen have to earn their publicity, so raising grassroots money doesn't come so naturally for their campaigns, and a few thousand dollars in billboards and newspaper ads can really tip a balance weight for a Congressman. Corporate lobbyists don't even need to find dishonest Congressmen to bribe when they can simply redefine reality for a trusting or dogmatic twenty or thirty percent of them. And the DNC's super delegate concept makes me a bit uneasy. I really liked its impact in 2008, but a well played hack still has an awful lot of cards to play.
You're right that they run Washington. But the notion that they will for at least 20 years? I'd like to say that makes you cynical...but the problem is, you're being pragmatic lol.
Hillary certainly isn't the sure nomination for the Democratic Party. Anyone who's done their research knows she's a corporate hack with no foreign policy experience. She certainly did not deserve the job of Secretary of State and has performed miserably, most notably Benghazi. If Elizabeth Warren runs, I'm sure she'll give Hillary big competition.
How is it a good thing to solidify Hillary's win? lol. She's already polling extremely well. And I say that as someone who thinks she's a corporate hack.
And, YYW, what makes you say that Ryan would be a worse choice than Rubio? I don't think Ryan lost Romney the 2012 election; he probably helped, sure, but Romney had essentially zero chance from the start and there were a lot of reasons for that -- having to position himself to the right during the primary, the social conservative stances he had to take on, his penchant for lying, etc. I don't think, even if he chose Rubio or whomever, he would've had a chance.
Now, Ryan is a horrible candidate who literally takes his policy ideas from Atlas Shrugged. But at least Ryan has voted for debt limit increases. He's not so much a fanatical Teabagger as a "business Republican," -- which is still obviously bad for the country, but isn't exactly a departure from what we've already seen. The paradox that Paul Krugman pointed out around the time of the shutdown was that Wall Street may apply pressure; Rubio, while a corporate hack, is more into the institutionalized obstructionism.
And as a liberal, I am disturbed by your implication that we would ever benefit from a less competitive conservative candidate at the expense of the nation's aggregate leadership.
Well played, but I'd demonstrate that Hillary would defeat either of them, and move on to establish that the GOP's 2016 nominee matters only because he will influence the Republican Platform in 2020 and 2024; I would then argue that the future sophistication of the democratic party will depend on the future sophistication of its competition, thus freeing myself of your attempt to reverse a hierarchical comparison of Ryan and Rubio.
Reasons for voting decision: we really aren't sure who came out in the end. Arguments went back and forth.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.
And, YYW, what makes you say that Ryan would be a worse choice than Rubio? I don't think Ryan lost Romney the 2012 election; he probably helped, sure, but Romney had essentially zero chance from the start and there were a lot of reasons for that -- having to position himself to the right during the primary, the social conservative stances he had to take on, his penchant for lying, etc. I don't think, even if he chose Rubio or whomever, he would've had a chance.
Now, Ryan is a horrible candidate who literally takes his policy ideas from Atlas Shrugged. But at least Ryan has voted for debt limit increases. He's not so much a fanatical Teabagger as a "business Republican," -- which is still obviously bad for the country, but isn't exactly a departure from what we've already seen. The paradox that Paul Krugman pointed out around the time of the shutdown was that Wall Street may apply pressure; Rubio, while a corporate hack, is more into the institutionalized obstructionism.