Politics

[GATTACA!]

Trump 24.3%
Bush 12.5%
Walker 9.5%
Huckabee 6.8% GTFO
Carson 5.8% GTFO
Cruz 5.5% GTFO
Rubio 5.3%
Paul 4.5%
Christie 3.5%
Kasich 2.8%
Perry 1.8% GTFO
Santorum 1.5% GTFO
Fiorina 1.3%
Jindal 1.3%
Graham 0.5% GTFO
Jim Gilmore and George Pataki = GTFO

FTFY

 

[GoIrish41]

Holy crap, were we watching the same debate? Trump was the only one who obviously hurt themselves, and had the most to lose - IMO. He is the only one who I absolutely would knock off the stage if we are have a serious debate. However, I think he adds value by making everyone else look better and increasing viewers by probably 3 or 4X. Remember GI, this is a Republican debate and they are fighting over the fringe and issues that can get them a niche following, or at least pass staunch "conservative" litmus tests for pro-life and looking tough enough for Hawks.

First of all, good post! I enjoyed reading your take on the candidates' performance and their prospects.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Trump was terrible in the debate. But if the last month of polling is any indication, he did on the debate stage what has made him the leader of the pack, and I suspect that his support will be solidified with the people who were already in his camp, and it might grow, even though he said nothing of substance whatsoever. Here is a little more expanded version of what I thought about last night's debate.

Carson does not look ready for prime time. I would like to see him and Fiorina stay on the stage for a while though. He gets a mulligan for being new to the lights and action since he had some of the wittier responses.

I agree that Carson is not ready for prime time. He has zero experience and seems to be trying to run on the "build up the military and impose ourselves on the world" theme that, in my estimation, was the essential ingredient that allowed ISIS to come about. Although that seems to have escaped his notice, he also seems to be leaning on the "brain power to figure out difficult problems" idea, but he often says some pretty over the top things when talking about such issues.

Paul was too petulant and catty, didn't get any positive sound bites. Picked on effectively by others, Christie's point of talking in committees versus actually doing something would have been great if addressed at Cruz but landed squarely on Paul. We will see if his base is strong enough to keep him in the top 10, my guess is yes.

Paul fared pretty much as I expected. He is an outlier in his party, and he is banking on the idea that voters will realize that what is happening now in GOP politics isn't working, and he is the solution. He didn't do that effectively on the big stage and I suspect he will continue to have trouble getting traction in the primaries. And yes, he was far to petulant and catty.

I would vote Cruz off the island first but he has too firm a grasp on some fringe elements. I don't like his look. His fighter BS is lame IMO, what has he really accomplished? All I can think is the old phrase growing up "You wanna fight? - Stick your head up your ass and fight for air" Stop being a belligerent blow hard and get some actual results.

Cruz is a joke. He comes off as an arrogant, insincere lecturer who is desperate to say something profound, but never does. The more he reaches, the more douchey he sounds. He should be voted off the island, and I'm frankly a little astonished that he was even there in the first place.

Huckabee is likeable and has proven he can put together an effective ground game - he needs to stick around to neutralize Cruz support. Maybe too old and recycled (already had your shot) but hard to see falling off the top 10. Fair tax, good luck selling that on in one minute.

He's another guy who wants to say something that people will remember, but never really pulls it off. He does have a solid base of support, but there isn't enough to carry him through the primaries when votes start being cast. I think this is a marketing campaign for his next book tour.

Walker will eventually lose votes to Kasich in the governors race, his claims to the last Federal surplus are powerful and he is more likeable/presidential. That is said even though Walker had some excellent zingers and good command of the issues. Walker may pick up some pro-life support but I don't like that dynamic in the long run for as far right as he positioned himself on that polarizing issue.

Kasich, Walker, Bush are probably vying for a lot of the same votes. Kasich can effectively position as more experienced in DC than Walker and Ohio swing state.

Kasich seems to be leaning on his record, which I admittedly do not know much about. He comes across as reasonable, making nuanced arguments and not walking in lockstep with the more outspoken members of his party. I'm going to do some more research on him. He is a very likeable candidate and as I said in my original post, he won the debate hands down in my opinion. I also thought Bush did well, although he was a bit scripted and stumbled on his lines a couple times. Walker seems to be a pretender to me. He, like Kasich, is trying to run on his record, and his record (at least from my limited knowledge of it) does not appear to be as strong as is Kasich's. And even if I'm off on that, he certainly was not as effective as articulating his accomplishments as was Kasich.

Christie was very effective at passionately attacking and will pick up Hawk votes, probably biggest winner from Trump and Paul losses. Paul, Christie, Cruz and Trump are probably tops for "fight the power" gravitas so attacking Paul was a smart move on his part. If nothing else, showed he belonged in the top 10.

Christie comes across as a bully. And like any bully, you are only effective as long as people are afraid of you. His "bridgegate" troubles and a suspect record knocked the bully down a few pegs and nobody is afraid of him anymore. I think he missed his window in the last election. He is certainly not afraid of a fight, and he will probably hang around for a while, but if you are running on your record, the people in your state better be behind you better think you did a good job as governor. I do not get the impression that is the case with Christie.

Rubio might be the most polished and best speaker, if Obama taught us anything - delivering a good speech can carry an empty suit. Blue collar roots are strong and he articulates American Dream in excellent fashion. I love him as a VP, low on my list of preferences for President though. Hard to see him losing any ground.

I agree with your assessment of Rubio, but not of Obama. But, that is another converstaion. Not sure that his articulation of the American Dream means as much as his record. He's a bit of a flip flopper (see Immigration) who seem to go the way the political wind is blowing. But, he is quite articulate and many voters will surely view that as intelligence. He'll be around until the end of the primaries, IMO.

Jeb - I came away reluctantly liking him. Won me with his state work on education (vouchers) and a rational, well thought out immigration policy. Separated himself from GW with stance on feds out of education and admitting openly Iraq would not be done with what we know today. Trump complimenting him wreaked of dynastic preference for a corporate slime ball and was my biggest knock on Jeb. For the primary voters, he probably lost them on immigration since they prefer to buy the gimmigrant rhetoric.

He was one of the better debaters on the stage last night. A bit scripted, as I said, but he has a record to run on, and he comes off as smarter that his brother, and most of the other candidates. He could win the primary, despite the general reluctance of the party to have another Bush at the top. He opposes much of the party on several issues -- Common Core, immigration, but he also has a crap-ton of money to get his name out here. If he can successfully distance himself from his brother, I think he is a contender.

First three in for me: Jeb, Kasich, Walker
First three out for me: Trump, Cruz, Carson (reality Carson is most at risk of losing the seat to Fiorina, I think Paul has a good enough base of support to get some more swings at the piñata).

If I were a Republican, I would be looking hard at Kasich, Jeb, and Rubio as people who would give the party the best chance to compete in the general election.

As a liberal, though, I'm pulling for Trump, Cruz, Huckabee, and Carson (and Christie to some extent) to stick around and make the field defend against their out-of-whack rhetoric.

 

[IrishLax]

I think I would vote for Rubio over Clinton. Not sure about any of the other candidates, but right now I think I'd vote for Hilldog over the rest of the field. I think I'd like Jeb Bush a lot more if he didn't have his last name.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

If only Kasich were pro-marijuana legalization...

 

[IrishLax]

Also, flip flopping is a good thing. Having entrenched "beliefs" you're not willing to change is not. It befuddles me to this day that the American public believes otherwise but then complains about political gridlock, etc.

 

[RDU Irish]

Jindal doesn't get a GTFO?

Cruz probably sticks around because he is a petulant PIA with a rabid base big enough to keep him in the top 10. He will play well in the further right elements that can really run the primary. Might be fair to lump Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, Graham and Carson in a similar boat. That is 20% if you add them together. I don't think any of them have broader potential but that is enough share to screw up some other folks if it gets consolidated.

 

[Cackalacky]

I can't take a candidate seriously if they cannot grasp a concept we are teaching to middle schoolers. His position isn't some scientifically based stance. He's a bible thumper.

If he is selected as the Republican nominee he will be torn to shreds by the majority of the media for not believing in evolution, and honestly I couldn't blame them.

I concur. Biology and everything resulting from that working knowledge only makes sense in light of evolution. I could not ever in good conscious vote for a person who doesn't accept evolution as anything less than objective fact.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Also, flip flopping is a good thing. Having entrenched "beliefs" you're not willing to change is not. It befuddles me to this day that the American public believes otherwise but then complains about political gridlock, etc.

I was just going to say the exact same thing. I'm almost positive I could find plenty of quotes of Obama and Hillary talking about gay marriage being a bad thing and then, when the percentages creep into the 55, 57, 60% range, they give impassioned speeches about equality.

I would say it's better to see a candidate who has recognized errors in thinking than one who set's up camp and doesn't consider anything else.

Huckabee and climate change come to mind. I understand the "don't bite the hand that feeds you" sentiment but it's getting to be a bit ridiculous.

 

[tussin]

I think I would vote for Rubio over Clinton. Not sure about any of the other candidates, but right now I think I'd vote for Hilldog over the rest of the field. I think I'd like Jeb Bush a lot more if he didn't have his last name.

Well that's not a good enough reason...

Jeb's performance yesterday wasn't the best from a "ra ra" standpoint, but in some ways it can help his public perception. I think the viewers that don't know him well expected to see a bit more of the Bush-like bravado. Instead, he came off as a bit of an introvert and much more of an intellectual than his brother. I think that will play well with voters to distance him from the family name.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I concur. Biology and everything resulting from that working knowledge only makes sense in light of evolution. I could not ever in good conscious vote for a person who doesn't accept evolution as anything less than objective fact.

Agreed. I can even understand someone who says that evolution is a good framework and only can tell us how we've moved forward from the point of inception but that religion/metaphysics provide a framework for postulating what came before.

Denial of evolution shows a clear lack of critical thinking unless they can provide evidence to the contrary (which I have yet to see).

 

[RDU Irish]

I think I would vote for Rubio over Clinton. Not sure about any of the other candidates, but right now I think I'd vote for Hilldog over the rest of the field. I think I'd like Jeb Bush a lot more if he didn't have his last name.

Rubio is all VP in my book and the concept of him being the only one to trump Clinton for your personal vote is fascinating to me.

Agree with your points on flip flopping. I think a lot of the rhetoric gets lost in minutia. Most issues are too complex to say you are completely for or against something, immigration being the perfect example.

 

[Cackalacky]

Also, flip flopping is a good thing. Having entrenched "beliefs" you're not willing to change is not. It befuddles me to this day that the American public believes otherwise but then complains about political gridlock, etc.

To an extent I agree. If the flip flopping arises out of a sincere deliberation and acknowledgment then yes that is ideal and definitely needed in DC. However flip flopping for me is defined by the changing of one's position to suit one's political desires and preferred outcomes.

Its hard to differentiate between the two and I tend to lend more weight to the former as most politicians tend to say whatever suits them at the time.

For example, I don't think HRC or Obama have evolved any on gays and such, it was just politically inconvenient at the time. Now not so much.

 

[GATTACA!]

Jindal doesn't get a GTFO?

I thought Jindal had the second best performance in the early debate, behind Fiorina. He's a good speaker that comes across intelligently. He might be the strongest candidate in terms of his healthcare knowledge. He's also not old and white.

I doubt he gets close enough to sniff the nomination, but I think he could be a solid VP choice. And ik before any of you tell me what he is doing in Louisiana, Christies approval rating in NJ proves your home states perception isn't vital. Plus he won his last election by an insane margin.

 

[woolybug25]

I thought Jindal had the second best performance in the early debate, behind Fiorina. He's a good speaker that comes across intelligently. He might be the strongest candidate in terms of his healthcare knowledge. He's also not old and white.

I doubt he gets close enough to sniff the nomination, but I think he could be a solid VP choice. And ik before any of you tell me what he is doing in Louisiana, Christies approval rating in NJ proves your home states perception isn't vital. Plus he won his last election by an insane margin.

email sent

 

[pumpdog20]

To be fair, all politicians flip flop. Isn't that why everyone hates congress, they don't do what they say?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Idiocracy is upon us. Embrace it by voting for President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho Trump:

 

[GATTACA!]

email sent

LOL I have no idea how that happened. I'm on mobile. Great now the NSA is gonna a spy the shit out of me

 

[phgreek]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz reacts to the GOP debate | On Air Videos | Fox News

Missed this....what happened?

 

[tussin]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz reacts to the GOP debate | On Air Videos | Fox News

She came off as pretty silly in that interview.

 

[Cackalacky]

Idiocracy is upon us. Embrace it by voting for President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho Trump:

This advertisement brought to you by Carl Jr's Big Ass All American Deep Fried SuperPAC

 

[Cackalacky]

She came off as pretty silly in that interview.

How so? Just curious. IMO She said nothing that wasnt at least easily defendable.

 

[GoIrish41]

How so? Just curious. IMO She said nothing that wasnt at least easily defendable.

I agree. What was silly about it?

 

[RDU Irish]

You are brought on there to commentate on the differences amongst candidates. She only lambasted the entire party. It's like someone pouting at a football game and hating on the game because they like soccer and hate football. F-ing stupid interview. Bring on some real analysis and leave the yapping dog at home.

 

[RDU Irish]

I get it, you guys hate all Republicans. I watched Dem debates last cycle and engaged in real dialogue about the viability of candidates, not lazy "they all suck" partisan garbage. GoIrish was able to engage in a meaningful conversation on the candidates relative to their performances and he is at least as wack nut liberal as Wasserman.

 

[GoIrish41]

You are brought on there to commentate on the differences amongst candidates. She only lambasted the entire party. It's like someone pouting at a football game and hating on the game because they like soccer and hate football. F-ing stupid interview. Bring on some real analysis and leave the yapping dog at home.

What was she supposed to analyze in that circus debate that had zero substance? Only a few candidates even sounded like reasonable human beings. Cruz is a nutjob, but he's not as much as a cook as Trump.

 

[RDU Irish]

What was she supposed to analyze in that circus debate that had zero substance? Only a few candidates even sounded like reasonable human beings. Cruz is a nutjob, but he's not as much as a cook as Trump.

I don't understand why you used the italics?

You already responded in detail to my previous post on each candidate a few posts earlier. Less than two hours later your say there was nothing to analyze. The only explanation I can find is you must have forgot to take your meds.

It was an entertaining and engaging debate, far exceeded my expectations with 10 guys on the stage.

 

[tussin]

How so? Just curious. IMO She said nothing that wasnt at least easily defendable.

I agree. What was silly about it?

It's a structured debate where in two hours some candidates were given literally 5 minutes to speak to their vision of America. She suggests the nominees are all misogynistic because they didn't call out a buffoon for his statements on a reality show? Did she expect Kasich, who has one minute to defend his position on Medicaid, to begin with an attack on Trump for calling Rosie O'Donnell a pig? Give me a break.

She also said none of the candidates spoke to a path for job creation. Was she watching the same debate as I was? Finally, her third biggest complaint is that none of them brought up the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. Seriously.. that's what she decides to nitpick? I actually laughed out loud at that one.

The entire interview was political posturing at its best.

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't understand why you used the italics?

You already responded in detail to my previous post on each candidate a few posts earlier. Less than two hours later your say there was nothing to analyze. The only explanation I can find is you must have forgot to take your meds.

It was an entertaining and engaging debate, far exceeded my expectations with 10 guys on the stage.

There was very little in the way of substance in that debate. My response to your earlier post reflected that. I did not analyze what any of them argued, but my overall impression of how they came across on the stage and in general so for in the election season. She is the leader of the DNC -- there to respond to ideas that were debated. There was little in the way of ideas and more attacks on one another or on Hillary and Obama overall. Did you expect her to lower herself to that level of discourse? The anniversary of the voting rights act was a completely fair point. It was a missed opportunity by all candidates, IMO.

 

[Cackalacky]

It's a structured debate where in two hours some candidates were given literally 5 minutes to speak to their vision of America. She suggests the nominees are all misogynistic because they didn't call out a buffoon for his statements on a reality show? Did she expect Kasich, who has one minute to defend his position on Medicaid, to begin with an attack on Trump for calling Rosie O'Donnell a pig? Give me a break.

She also said none of the candidates spoke to a path for job creation. Was she watching the same debate as I was? Finally, her third biggest complaint is that none of them brought up the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. Seriously.. that's what she decides to nitpick? I actually laughed out loud at that one.

The entire interview was political posturing at its best.

Well.... the Republicans have a large problem with the electorate. Lets be honest here, Republicans arent known for their love of minorites, women and immigrants. They literally cant figure out a way to sell their brand of big government to large voting blocs such as those. She was one hundred percent correct that nothing was said or done last night to dispell that narrative WHICH HAS BEEN A MAJOR ISSUE WITH THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP. If the R's cant grab the majority of this voters they will NEVER take another general presidential election. Each of those comments by her emphasize that point. Whats the point discussing minutae if you cant even acknowledge you have an alternative plan instead of "Just Say No". Or what policy you do have only benefits a small portion of the elite in this country?

 

[RDU Irish]

You guys understand in a PRIMARY debate the candidates are going to pander to those that will actually be voting in the primaries - red blooded Republicans. It is not to say you don't have valid points relating to the general election, those points become real when the field is narrowed to a handful (why Huckabee and Cruz won't be getting the nomination but can stay in for quite a while).

She was a petty nit picker and having her anywhere near the event was stupid. She really couldn't differentiate from ANY of the 10 folks on the stage? No, she wanted to engage in partisan hate speech.