As a bit of an open topic – Your thoughts on who won the debate last night?
(Unfortunately, Rick Perry isn’t there anymore, so I’ve got to pick a new favorite. You candidates – American Exceptionalism – it’s still important!)
I only watched it through the corner of my eye, as I was working. But Carly Fiorina seemed to set herself apart in a big way. And Chris Christie continues to impress.
Who did you like?
I thought Fiorina , Rubio & Christie all did a good job .
Yes, and Obama said he didn’t support same-sex marriage until he “evolved”; Christie is a liberal whatever he chooses to call himself, so pretending isn’t going to sway me.
Fiorina was great. I’d love to see a head to heat debate between her and Hillary; Fiorina would walk all over Hillary. I was a little less impressed with Carson; although I admire him and his honesty, integrity, and sincerity, I don’t see him coming across tough enough when dealing with foreign and domestic crises. Trump seemed toned down a bit from his flamboyant nature. As I think it was Hewitt said, anyone of the candidates on that stage would be a better president than Hillary! I liked the back and forth between candidates and the question format a lot better than the Fox one; and I liked it that the candidates wouldn’t stop talking until they got their point across at times – the public needs to hear more than just a 30 second or one minute soundbite on issues.
i always like christie. it’s kind of like having janklow back again.
Let’s hope & pray that Christie has a driver.
Why would you dredge up the horrible memories of Janklow killing Randy Scott?
Your crass, immature comment is a blatant slap in the face to Mr. Scott’s family – and to all of us who remember that reprehensible act.
One would expect crude and juvenile statements from you. And you continue to give us precisely what we expect.
Nice try on the over-the-top arm-waving faux outrage. Hilarious.
Coming from a racist & sexist, there’s no need to engage.
You can’t engage on your comment because you don’t have leg to stand on. Your comment here was crass, and an insult to Randy Scott’s family and the rest of us who remember Janklow’s reprehensible act that day. You think you can get away with that crap because you’re among friends in this forum? I can’t think of anyone here who would be stupid enough to support what you said. In fact, I think most are repulsed by your flippant comment, but just don’t want to waste the time dealing with a low-integrity commenter. I am one who will not stand for it. If you have a relapse of reason and figure out what you did, you can perhaps ask Powers to take your idiotic comment down – or take it down yourself if you are one of Powers’ many alter egos on this forum. Or if you are a Jackley, Rounds, Daugaard, Thune or Noem staffer who has the username and password.
Look, if you want to run with the pack you simply have to stop peeing like a puppy. Or commenting like a total idiot.
You’re very cute when you pretend to be outraged.
what a cute little puppy you are….
Is Heisenberg from New Mexico also?
Heisenberg=Krazy Larry?
OBVIOUSLY i mean the attorney-general-governor janklow, from those days. sorry to be unclear.
WinnerS:
1). Rubio: he made his points, others sounded like echo chambers (endorsing his points effectively). Nobody punched him. All upside.
2). Fiorina: Similar to Rubio but she should have taken Christie’s resume comment as a blessing and pivot to talk about issues and not defended it. It was time to move on.
3). Graham/Santorum: I know they won’t get bumps or move into prime time. Graham made a strong and unrelenting case of the depth of the ISIS problem. The issue is too serious to just get sound bites or philosophy. Set up Rubios beating extreme Islamisists isn’t an intellectual exercise. Santorum seemed prescient with all the bills he introduced that didn’t pass. Made you wonder how much better things would be if they had passed.
LoserS:
1). Trump: I thought he was good in the beginning until he patronized Fiorina on her looks. All down hill after that. Biggest negative is he was barely seen after the opening half hour. Unlike ALL the others who interjected to offer comments on policy and issues, Trump was silent. The biggest subtle effect is he might be seen as having no clothes.
2). Carson: His Iran-Afghanistan answer came across as passivistic vs. Paul’s principle of non-intervention yet being a leader. Not commander-in-chiefish.
3). Pataki/Jindal: didn’t make a case for staying in the race.
Wild card:
Cruz: at first I really liked how he looked into the camera and gave concise answers that would connect with viewers. But, later when the flow was a give and take with others, his looking in the camera came across as avoiding the eyes of others and made him look like he was weak. If the audience in general saw looking in the camera as connecting, he is a winner. If they saw it as weakness, he is a loser.
Everyone else: varying degrees of being good enough to move on in the campaign.
Impact: I don’t think you will see big movement in the horse race measure. Maybe Trump and Carson come down a little and Fiorina and Rubio move up some. But it is still pretty fluid as I doubt very many voters have made firm decisions. What will be interesting is to see is favorable/unfavorable net movement.
Fiorina will benefit the most from her performance, as many of the viewers knew little about her before last night. Her “Face” response, along with Trump’s reaction, was one of the pivotal moments in the debate.
Fiorina will pick up support across the board, but much of it may come at Trump’s expense.
Christie certainly performed better than he did in the first debate and may move up a little.
I’ve been impressed with Rubio’s performances in both debates but that didn’t really translated into any big jump in his support after the first debate, I’m not sure it will after this one. Over time, it might.
Despite the other candidates performing with more intensity than they did before (other than Carson, and I’m not sure intensity matters for him), I don’t know if any of them will move much, one way or the other, in the post debate polls.
Anyone with a favorite, will feel their candidate did well, but I’m not sure most did well enough to get a major bump. I’ve favored Walker for a long time, but the hole he fell into after the first debate will be tough to climb out of.
Kasich may have hurt himself the most with his muddled response on the Iran agreement.
Nobody at the JV debate will make it to the next debate.
Fiorina, Rubio, Kasich, Christie. These actually sounded like leaders last night. The rest were irritating. Neither Bush or Trump gave hot performances – just adequate. Carson was adequate as well. Walker, Paul,& Cruz need to drop out now – not to mention the lower level candidates.
William,
I agree Kasich mucked up Iran but made up for it on the other issues which in my mind kept him out of Loser group. Could have put him in wild card group.
I would like to see a debate with the same question asked of all the candidates on stage. No rebuttals, attacks, etc. Just an answer to: What will you do on taxes? What will you do on Obamacare and what is your plan? What would you do about the over-reach of EPA? What is your opinion on Common Core? What is your plan with regard to ISIS? What will you do to solve the immigration issue? What are your criteria for appointing new Supreme Court justices?
Give each candidate a certain amount of time to answer the question, no attacks on the other candidates; just their own personal plan to address the question. Then we could compare each of the candidates and get a better idea of who we prefer.
let’s be honest. I’m not voting for her but Hillary was the big winner. I could hear her laughing during this. half the panel was racing to the bottom. Sorry, but the social issues are losers in the general election and drive the libs and minorities to turn out (including immigration). Trump is a buffoon. Bush is horrible on stage. Waiting for the ad of GW Bush and the fireman as a reason to vote for Jeb. Fiorina’s record of performance with HP and in her race for Senate is far from impressive. Scratch the surface and you’ve got rust at best. Rubio is canned but about as accomplished as Barack was, worked well for him I guess. Kasich wont get traction with the clowns on stage. Sadly no room for an adult. If there were only about 5-6 up there the candidates would be better able to set them selves apart versus throw out rehearsed zingers hoping for repeated media. Christie has gone from moderate to an Eagle Forum option. Paul should just go away. Carson is not ready to be a mayor of a decent sized town. Have I left anyone out?????
Good stuff, but yes, you did leave out Cruz, who is a stupid man’s idea of what an intelligent man sounds like.
Ah yes, as if anon’s rant wasn’t enough, you had to chime in with Cruz. CRUZ—a name you probably detest since well, it’s HISPANIC!!!
We hear ya Heisenburg: Cruz = Hispanic = not intelligent.
Your dog whistle racism is just plain racist.
Unlike Cruz, you are a smart man’s idea of what a stupid man sounds like. In fact, you are even a stupid man’s idea of what a stupid man sounds like.
Your under the table racism is indeed, stupid.
When may we expect some relevant words on WHY Cruz sounded intelligent, but was in fact, stupid?
I think Ted Cruz could probably run rings around you, mentally, Heisenberg, so it’s probably best you not put in your two cent’s worth. He is an honorable, intelligent, and successful man; is that why you hate him because it reminds of all you didn’t accomplish?
It’s understandable that you would think that way. Cruz can run circles around most because he talks in circles – an old debater trick that he probably picked up in 10th grade. He’s so good at it that he has even run a few circles around himself! There are reasons why he’s the Republican who’s hated the most by other Republicans in DC. If that makes him a smart man or hero in your eyes, so be it.
Is it possible that you’re one of those people whose entire political philosophy can fit on a medium-sized bumper sticker?
” Cruz can run circles around most because he talks in circles”
Since you’re so observant, please name a few instances in either debate where Cruz did that.
waiting…
Cruz might be hated by the faux conservatives,i.e. establishment, in the GOP in DC, but he is NOT by the true conservatives.
Since Cruz was a college debater, surely Ivy League debate judges were able to discern that he was indeed talking in circles and downgrade him???? Yet, he managed to win several Ivy league debate championships and even went deep into the national debate finals.
So here we have Heisenburg telling us that Cruz is full of debate tricks!
Heisenburg has been challenged to provide some examples of Cruz debating in circles, but he cannot.
It’s been asserted that Heisenburg didn’t even watch the Rep. debates.
The only “debate trick” here is Heisenburg’s ability to blow smoke out of his arse while typing sexist and racist comments. Heisenberg seems to be exposing himself as The Masterdebater.
Springer,
I think that format has merit when the field has narrowed. The problem with that format when the filed is eleven is the person answering the question the 11th time is mostly going to sound like an echo chamber to several before.
And we will touch on less issues unless we limit answers to one minute which make the answers less substantive. Assuming each get two minutes to respond, mathematically each question would take over 22 minutes which would allow at most four questions in 1.5 hours. If each candidate got to make an opening or closing statement, we would only have three questions.
The biggest problem with a “debate” format like this is that it really isn’t a debate.
springer mentioned earlier that these little 30-second soudbites don’t do justice. But the larger problem is that each of these candidates have messages tuned into which percentage of the voters they want to attract and hold.
So really the answers and comments from the candidates is tuned in to their particular crowd and may or may not be how the candidate actually thinks about an issue. For instance, I can’t imagine any sane person actually believing in some of the BS that Huckabee spewed out there, although he’s not even a possibility.
I really liked that Fiorina (mostly) knew when to keep her mouth shut when she should have and gave concise answers and responses. She looked pretty good, even though she’s not even a possibility.
Trump is still the Leader of the Republicans at this point and will continue to be the leader – not specifically because he’s Trump, but because of the many, many registered Republicans out there who think exactly as he does.
“keep her mouth shut…..”
“She looked pretty good, even though she’s not even a possibility.”
Keep her mouth shut?
She LOOKED good!?
Dog whistle sexist!
Come on Heisenberg–it’s 2015!!! We don’t treat or say such things about women like that anymore.
Grow up.
And Hillary will probably still take the Democrat primary because Democrats don’t care about honesty and honor.
When may we expect an example of Fiorina keeping her mouth shut last night? Her concise answers?
You didn’t watch the debate, did you Heisenburg?
come on…we all know that you simply drop in here down & then, sound off about nothing’, and then lob personal attacks on commenters as you do on political figures.
wink, wink…
“but because of the many, many registered Republicans out there who think exactly as he does.”
You have nothing to back that up.
Only the polls. You are either unwilling or unable to see this. Either disqualifies you from legitimate discourse. You make this forum worse almost every time you post.
And quit winking at me.
Which poll on Trump measures what the respondent is thinking?
You just made it up.
but you’re still a cuuuuuuute puppy….
“You make this forum worse almost every time you post.”
ALMOST every time?
Ah come one–it’s EVERY time, right?
Geez, give me some credit!
Very little commentary here about Bush….he seems to be becoming a non-factor in a hurry. This group is entirely too large for a debate. Maybe random groupings of 3 or 4, 90 minutes each, limited to top 12 overall. Some of these candidates will be dropping out soon anyway. There’s not enough funding to go around.
I think Mr. Bush would do okay, if some one lit a fire under him. His very smart, he understands the players. He needs to be kick started.
I thought that many of his statements later on were understandable, yet tended not to flow together as if he were constantly trying to squeeze in tidbits before time ran out.
I think Bush is still the favorite of the establishment, and they are going to do any and all to make him the pick. He might have governed Florida well, but he is in favor of bigger govt control via Common Core and is soft on immigration. Would he be strong enough to stand up to the EPA, Obamacare, and other big govt over-reach brought on the present administration? Would he be beholden to the present big money donors that he is so proud of? I want someone who will set DC on its heels, not someone of the same establishment ilk as Boehner and McConnell et al. And that is NOT Bush.
Amen!!!
Graham won at the “kiddie table” by sheer homegrown willpower, focus on his issue, and experience based reasoning vis a vis the practical mechanics of politics. Santorum surprised me with his speech in support of the minimum wage and the working class. Good for him!
Fiorina owned the “big dog” stage, hands down. Carson blew it by not even being able to prevail on the vaccination issue, presumably his only real area of expertise. Trump as usual made a fool of himself, but it seems like perhaps this time people noticed.
Fiorina/Rubio or Rubio/Fiorina…either sounds just fine with me. They both were fantastic and together, they’d be unstoppable. The positives on this potential pairing are too many to mention.
If I had to bet right now, I’d bet the ticket will be one of the following:
1) Bush/Fiorina
2) Fiorina/Rubio
3) Rubio/Kasich
Wild Cards for VP: Walker and Christie (only if it is possible he puts NJ’s 14 electoral votes in play).
Rationale: Once this ceases to be a beauty contest/horse race and the focus turns to the reality of winning the Electoral College, these combinations will begin to motivate voters.
In reality, the Democrats have 217 Electoral votes which are in the bank (Democrats consistently get over 55% of the vote the last 6 Presidential elections) and the GOP has 191.
In short, the GOP has to get 79 (61%) of the Electoral Votes from these states:
FLA: 29 electoral votes
PA: 20
OH: 18
NC: 15
VA: 13
WI: 10
CO: 9
IA: 6
NV: 6
NH: 6
I saw an analysis (maybe done by Nate Silver or the guy who does this at realclearpolitics) who showed that if the Electoral College vote is inside 279-259 there is a 40% chance the electoral college winner is not the popular vote winner.
I’ve never witnessed a train wreck. That opportunity is coming soon thanks to all the GOP candidates.
the only thing resembling a “trainwreck” in the whole election pageant is the regular rebooting of the hillary clinton campaign, every time her coyote chases the road runner off the cliff, or into a solid wall with a tunnel painted on it. i fully expect her next reboot to include ‘green eggs and ham’ in some form, exhorting us to ‘try them try them’ again. *yawn*
the debates are managed events, and as such have an aspect of unreality to them. on the stump, from what I see, kasich and fiorina seem to be doing the things that winners do.