Was Marco Rubio a Big Loser Last night Again

Many thought leaders believe Rubio lost

According to the Washington Post PowerPost:

1. Immigration was re-framed as a national security issue, which means Rubio’s 2013 bill has once again become a serious anchor. The Florida senator deftly avoided answering for conservative apostasy on comprehensive immigration reform during the previous debates. Last night, facing a pile on, he struggled to defend his position. His argument sounded procedural and Washington-esque. Meanwhile, his opponents smartly – and without being rebutted – linked the Gang of Eight immigration effort with broader concerns about ISIS and terrorists infiltrating the homeland.

“Border security is national security, and you know one of the most troubling aspects of the Rubio-Schumer Gang of Eight bill was that it gave President Obama blanket authority to admit refugees, including Syrian refugees, without mandating any background checks whatsoever,” Cruz said. “Now, we’ve seen what happened in San Bernardino. When you’re letting people in, when the FBI can’t vet them, it puts American citizens at risk.”

Cruz is way better at one-liners than Rubio. When Marco said that Ted’s position was not all that different from his own, Cruz shot back that this was “like suggesting the fireman and the arsonist have the same record, because they were both at the scene of the fire.”

2. Rubio lost some of his outsider cred. He came across like a member in good standing of the Republican establishment.

The Floridian has tried hard to be all things to all people this year. He wants to be the bridge candidate. He’s won over billionaires who vocally support gay marriage at the same time that he aggressively courts an Iowa constituency focused on promoting traditional marriage. He’s tried to poach Jeb Bush donors one day and to make inroads with Trump backers the next.

As a result of this, Rubio has lost his tea party mojo. Though he slayed Charlie Crist in 2010, and has hardly voted for anything besides immigration during his single Senate term, he’s increasingly perceived by voters as part of Washington.

His attacks on Cruz sounded like exactly the sorts of things that a career politician would say. By invoking a Mark Levin column and Saul Alinsky, Cruz basically called Rubio a liar but in ways that will play with the base.

3. Rand Paul being on the main stage wound up working to Cruz’s advantage because he kept Rubio on the defensive. The Kentucky senator burnished the Texan’s point that the USA Freedom Act was a middle-ground compromise. But he was most useful as a foil to attack Rubio as “the weakest of all the candidates on immigration.”

“If we want to defend the country, we have to defend against who’s coming in, and Marco is — has more of an allegiance to Chuck Schumer and to the liberals than he does to conservative policy,” Paul said.

Many thought leaders believe Rubio lost:

• National Review’s Jim Geraghty thinks last night “may turn out to be a consequentially bad night for Rubio”: “He turned in his usual smooth, concise, well-versed, well-rehearsed performance. But … if you’re completely opposed to a path to legal status – green card, not citizenship – Rubio didn’t reassure you. Rubio really needed to give a full-throated renunciation of the Gang of Eight bill, and he didn’t. He was walking a tightrope, and you could almost tell from his body language that he could feel the line wobble beneath him.”
• NBC’s Chuck Todd tweeted: “Rubio is getting a taste of what being a frontrunner feels like. But his place in this race is VERY precarious. This pile on could hurt. … This was Rubio’s toughest debate mostly because he didn’t get to glide by without taking incoming. Will his immigration stance stop his rise?”
• CNN described Rubio as “RATTLED” on the issue of immigration. 
• Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin gave Rubio a “B” because he “never found a way to bring (Cruz) down, even with armfuls of opposition research”: “The negative tact might have undermined the essence of his strong past debate performances. Finally got pressed on his support for a path to citizenship, creating more troubles for him down the road on all sides. Perhaps too intense and somber at times. A mostly solid performance by normal standards but not up to the level he’s achieved in previous debates.”
• Vox named Rubio a loser because he looked out of touch with the rest of his party: “…Rubio came out looking less like a consensus conservative pick and more like John Kasich: an establishmentarian who base voters can’t trust.”
• The Washington Examiner’s David Drucker thinks “the two first-term senators fought to a draw, although it could be argued that Cruz had the better evening overall”: He projected strength and confidence on foreign policy matters … Rubio was solid … But unlike Cruz … Rubio had to fend off attacks from multiple candidates … It hamstrung Rubio’s ability to go on offense and control the debate, as he has in his previous four outings.”
• The Daily Beast’s Will Rahn asks if Rubio has been “overrated all along”: “To unite the factions of the party that recoil at the thought of nominating either Trump or Cruz, Rubio may well have needed a much bigger, better night than the one he had … Yes, Rubio has soaked up the Beltway buzz, but no one seems to know what primaries he could actually, you know, win. Right now Rubio is stuck in a distant third in Iowa, some 16 points or so behind Trump in New Hampshire, and fourth in South Carolina.”
• The Dallas Morning News’ Gromer Jeffers also considers the map: “It’s like an old-school middleweight boxing tournament. The winner of the Cruz/Rubio clash gets the chance to take down Trump, the clear — but beatable — frontrunner. … Cruz knows that if he wins Iowa, it will pull Trump down closer to earth and set Cruz up to score huge victories in South Carolina, and later, the March 1 Texas contest.”
• National Review editor Rich Lowry: “I’d score it for Rubio on points, but it was close and both senators are obviously exceptionally skilled. … Overall, Rubio once again demonstrated his command of the facts and fluidity as a communicator, but he took the most incoming of anyone and had to spend a lot of time explaining.”