2016 Presidential Horse Race

[BleedBlueGold]

No. I didn't watch the debate. The story I saw pieced together a bunch of clips of different campaign stops, highlighting the similarity of the phrasing used. If that's his message, then they should be highlighting that he hasn't been changing it to suit the audience.

It is in Rubio's best interest, obviously, to make his message something other than boring and rote. However, you as a voter also have an obligation to look past the delivery and focus on the message. I'm not saying that people should agree with his message; but whining about his delivery being "off-putting" is simply people being lazy voters who expect every candidate to tailor their language to something that resonates with them, thereby abdicating their responsibility and projecting it on to the candidate.

That's not what we're talking about though. I embedded the videos above.

Maybe he gets nervous with public speaking. Being a bad speaker doesn't make you a bad person or even a potentially bad president. All I'm saying is that the whole debacle has been funny because of what other media outlets (and anti-Rubio people) are doing with it.

 

[GoIrish41]

It's not about smooth delivery of the message. It's about depth and the ability to answer a question that you that was not provided to you in advance. Does he really have an understanding of this topic, or is he just repeating lines like an actor? That is why this is a big deal. It makes Rubio look like an insincere amateur with no real depth of understanding. Even when Christie telegraphed his attack, Rubio was not nimble enough to avoid the obvious trap that he was setting because he lacks any real experience or understanding of the issues.

 

[RDU Irish]

That's not what we're talking about though. I embedded the videos above.

Maybe he gets nervous with public speaking. Being a bad speaker doesn't make you a bad person or even a potentially bad president. All I'm saying is that the whole debacle has been funny because of what other media outlets (and anti-Rubio people) are doing with it.

The substance of Christie's argument was much more damning than the robot stuff. Rubio is near the bottom of my Republican list EXACTLY for the reasons Christie lays out. He is a legislator with little experience. Obama in no way, shape or form was qualified to be president. Rubio is just as bad. Christie makes a great case for governors being having more relevant experience than legislators - of course everyone jumps over that substance and focuses on the style.

 

[kmoose]

It's not about smooth delivery of the message. It's about depth and the ability to answer a question that you that was not provided to you in advance. Does he really have an understanding of this topic, or is he just repeating lines like an actor? That is why this is a big deal. It makes Rubio look like an insincere amateur with no real depth of understanding. Even when Christie telegraphed his attack, Rubio was not nimble enough to avoid the obvious trap that he was setting because he lacks any real experience or understanding of the issues.

If you're interested in voting for the best debater, then I guess it would impress you. Do you honestly think that ANY of these candidates are well versed in every topic, without having been coached by their advisors?

 

[RDU Irish]

It's not about smooth delivery of the message. It's about depth and the ability to answer a question that you that was not provided to you in advance. Does he really have an understanding of this topic, or is he just repeating lines like an actor? That is why this is a big deal. It makes Rubio look like an insincere amateur with no real depth of understanding. Even when Christie telegraphed his attack, Rubio was not nimble enough to avoid the obvious trap that he was setting because he lacks any real experience or understanding of the issues.

While you are correct - Obama was not much better, for many of the same reasons (lack of experience). I think Rubio is following Obama's mold more than anything when it comes to style and delivery. He would do well to lean on teleprompters instead of keeping the script in his head - that way he can make sure not to repeat himself.

 

[wizards8507]

It's not about smooth delivery of the message. It's about depth and the ability to answer a question that you that was not provided to you in advance. Does he really have an understanding of this topic, or is he just repeating lines like an actor? That is why this is a big deal. It makes Rubio look like an insincere amateur with no real depth of understanding. Even when Christie telegraphed his attack, Rubio was not nimble enough to avoid the obvious trap that he was setting because he lacks any real experience or understanding of the issues.

What are you talking about? "The issue" that Christie tried to trap him on is that he's a young senator like Obama was. That's not an issue on which Rubio (or anyone else) can possibly have a substantive policy position.

Watch 1:14:52 to 1:18:24. It's just over three minutes, but Marco Rubio has a more robust understanding of foreign policy than anyone on that stage except maybe Jeb.

<iframe src='http://abcnews.go.com/video/embed?id=36768760' width='640' height='360' scrolling='no' style='border:none;'></iframe><br/><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/">ABC Breaking News</a> | <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Video">Latest News Videos</a>

 

[EddytoNow]

I'm not a fan of Rubio or Christie, but my take on their debate exchange is that Christie was looking for a good media soundbite similar to Reagan's "There you go again." He wanted the media talking about him instead of Rubio, Trump, and Cruz. Unfortunately for Christie, the only media talk about him is in the context of a former candidate who never got any traction with the public.

And yes, Obama knew exactly what he wanted. The only problem was an obstructionist Republican Congress that refused to approve anything that had Obama's name attached to it. Obama eventually took it upon himself to get some things done. In essence, he forced the Republicans' hand. They could either go along with his executive orders or vote to overturn them. Either way, they would have to take a public stand and be accountable to the voters for their positions. Obama is staking his legacy on the fact that the public likes the Congress even less than it likes him.

 

[GoIrish41]

If you're interested in voting for the best debater, then I guess it would impress you. Do you honestly think that ANY of these candidates are well versed in every topic, without having been coached by their advisors?

Again, it is not about debate performance, it is about command of the subject matter. Christie made him look like he knows nothing but his clever, rehearsed lines and has no real depth. Fair or not, that is how politics works.

 

[wizards8507]

I'm not a fan of Rubio or Christie, but my take on their debate exchange is that Christie was looking for a good media soundbite similar to Reagan's "There you go again." He wanted the media talking about him instead of Rubio, Trump, and Cruz. Unfortunately for Christie, the only media talk about him is in the context of a former candidate who never got any traction with the public.

And yes, Obama knew exactly what he wanted. The only problem was an obstructionist Republican Congress that refused to approve anything that had Obama's name attached to it. Obama eventually took it upon himself to get some things done. In essence, he forced the Republicans' hand. They could either go along with his executive orders or vote to overturn them. Either way, they would have to take a public stand and be accountable to the voters for their positions. Obama is staking his legacy on the fact that the public likes the Congress even less than it likes him.

Wut? Obama had two years of a supermajority in the Senate and control of the House. He could have done literally anything he wanted. What did he choose to do in that time? Ram Obamacare down our throats against public opinion and the will of the American people. That disaster is 100% on him, with not a single Republican fingerprint on it.

 

[wizards8507]

Again, it is not about debate performance, it is about command of the subject matter. Christie made him look like he knows nothing but his clever, rehearsed lines and has no real depth. Fair or not, that is how politics works.

Pretty please watch the three minutes I highlighted in the video a few posts back.

 

[GoIrish41]

What are you talking about? "The issue" that Christie tried to trap him on is that he's a young senator like Obama was. That's not an issue on which Rubio (or anyone else) can possibly have a substantive policy position.

Watch 1:14:52 to 1:18:24. It's just over three minutes, but Marco Rubio has a more robust understanding of foreign policy than anyone on that stage except maybe Jeb.

<iframe src='http://abcnews.go.com/video/embed?id=36768760' width='640' height='360' scrolling='no' style='border:none;'></iframe><br/><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/">ABC Breaking News</a> | <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Video">Latest News Videos</a>

Christie's trap was to demonstrate how Rubio processes information (or doesn't). The insinuation is that he prepares short sound bite answers to every subject and repeats them. Whether that is true or not is really, from a pure politics perspective, irrelevant. Christie schooled Rubio in hardball politics and damaged his public perception. Now, Rubio has work to do to climb out of that hole. If he really has a strong grasp of the issues, he needs to put that on display in the upcoming statewide election contests ... and because of Christie's attack, he's probably not going to be successful parroting quick mini speeches to make that case.

 

[kmoose]

Again, it is not about debate performance, it is about command of the subject matter. Christie made him look like he knows nothing but his clever, rehearsed lines and has no real depth. Fair or not, that is how politics works.

Two things here:

1. Did you listen to the previously pointed out 3 minutes of Rubio on the subject of ISIS? I'm not saying that I agree with 100% of what he said, but he sure as fuck didn't sound uninformed or lacking in command of the subject matter. Tell me this......... what subject matter is he not in command of, in charging (repeatedly) that Obama is not accidentally doing what he is doing?

If I were Rubio, I would have responded to Christie's assertion that rebuilding after Superstorm Sandy doesn't happen on the floor of the US Congress with, "Tell me, Governor, where did the funds for the rebuilding come from? They came from allocations approved on the FLOOR OF THE US CONGRESS!" Without that, there IS NO rebuilding, because you ran the State's credit rating into the ground so no banks were going to loan the State the money. So my response to you, Governor Christie, is......... you're welcome. I'm well aware of the issue of decisions with consequences, as I had to bail you out when you botched yours!"

2. It's only how politics works because so many Americans are dumb enough to accept it. Stop accepting it, and it will no longer be "how politics works".

 

[GoIrish41]

Pretty please watch the three minutes I highlighted in the video a few posts back.

Dude, I watched the debate. I saw what happened in real time. I heard his arguments. You want to argue about the actual substance, when the reality is that that isn't enough in the rough and tumble business of getting elected. It's often about painting someone in a corner and altering their approach. Making them seem incompetent and unprepared or talking about something that they don't really want to talk about.

Bernie schooled Hillary during their last debate, too, in a similar way. He started attacking her on her speeches to Goldman Sachs and when she tried to fight back about his "insinuations" about how accepting the money meant she altered her positions, he went in for the killshot. "Well, you won't mind releasing the transcripts of your speeches to Goldman Sachs then?" He put her in a no-win situation. Either don't release them and look like she's hiding something, or release them and let me pick them apart to show how much you were kissing their assess for your $675K fees."

Both Bernie's and Christie's tactics were big boy political moves, and it put Rubio and Hillary on the ropes. It didn't help Christie, as he didn't get any extra support out of it and dropped out. We'll see how successful Bernie is at keeping this topic relevant to voters and continuing to make her squirm. That's how politics works.

 

[phgreek]

The substance of Christie's argument was much more damning than the robot stuff. Rubio is near the bottom of my Republican list EXACTLY for the reasons Christie lays out. He is a legislator with little experience. Obama in no way, shape or form was qualified to be president. Rubio is just as bad. Christie makes a great case for governors being having more relevant experience than legislators - of course everyone jumps over that substance and focuses on the style.

I agree with the premise, and while I scored closest to Rubio on the surveys, I'd choose him AFTER every single governor.

 

[GoIrish41]

Two things here:

1. Did you listen to the previously pointed out 3 minutes of Rubio on the subject of ISIS? I'm not saying that I agree with 100% of what he said, but he sure as fuck didn't sound uninformed or lacking in command of the subject matter. Tell me this......... what subject matter is he not in command of, in charging (repeatedly) that Obama is not accidentally doing what he is doing?

If I were Rubio, I would have responded to Christie's assertion that rebuilding after Superstorm Sandy doesn't happen on the floor of the US Congress with, "Tell me, Governor, where did the funds for the rebuilding come from? They came from allocations approved on the FLOOR OF THE US CONGRESS!" Without that, there IS NO rebuilding, because you ran the State's credit rating into the ground so no banks were going to loan the State the money. So my response to you, Governor Christie, is......... you're welcome. I'm well aware of the issue of decisions with consequences, as I had to bail you out when you botched yours!"

2. It's only how politics works because so many Americans are dumb enough to accept it. Stop accepting it, and it will no longer be "how politics works".

I am not arguing this point at all. In fact, it is repulsive that this is the way our politics works. But, that does not change the fact that it IS how our politics works. If Rubio would have responded with a strong decisive response to Christie's assertions, we probably would not be talking about this today. He got knocked down a few pegs. That's just the way it is. I didn't write the rules, I'm just watching them unfold like the rest of America.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Wut? Obama had two years of a supermajority in the Senate and control of the House. He could have done literally anything he wanted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.

Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

 

[wizards8507]

Dude, I watched the debate. I saw what happened in real time. I heard his arguments. You want to argue about the actual substance, when the reality is that that isn't enough in the rough and tumble business of getting elected. It's often about painting someone in a corner and altering their approach. Making them seem incompetent and unprepared or talking about something that they don't really want to talk about.

Bernie schooled Hillary during their last debate, too, in a similar way. He started attacking her on her speeches to Goldman Sachs and when she tried to fight back about his "insinuations" about how accepting the money meant she altered her positions, he went in for the killshot. "Well, you won't mind releasing the transcripts of your speeches to Goldman Sachs then?" He put her in a no-win situation. Either don't release them and look like she's hiding something, or release them and let me pick them apart to show how much you were kissing their assess for your $675K fees."

Both Bernie's and Christie's tactics were big boy political moves, and it put Rubio and Hillary on the ropes. It didn't help Christie, as he didn't get any extra support out of it and dropped out. We'll see how successful Bernie is at keeping this topic relevant to voters and continuing to make her squirm. That's how politics works.

Okay I think I get what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong. You're NOT saying "Rubio doesn't know what he's talking about." You ARE saying "Christie made it LOOK like Rubio doesn't know what he's talking about."

With that I'd pretty much agree, but I think it has more to do with media spin than anything Christie was able to do. Rubio had the weakest moment of that debate but he also had some of the strongest. It's a shame they focus on the former, not just primarily but exclusively.

 

[wizards8507]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

Blah blah blah. All that means is that Republicans technically could have filibustered the Affordable Care Act. Republicans didn't filibuster the Affordable Care Act, so the effect is the same.

 

[GoIrish41]

Okay I think I get what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong. You're NOT saying "Rubio doesn't know what he's talking about." You ARE saying "Christie made it LOOK like Rubio doesn't know what he's talking about."

With that I'd pretty much agree, but I think it has more to do with media spin than anything Christie was able to do. Rubio had the weakest moment of that debate but he also had some of the strongest. It's a shame they focus on the former, not just primarily but exclusively.

Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying.

How long before the well runs dry on blaming everything on the media, though. Rubio looked like a dope on stage, not Wolf Blitzer. The media is reporting what happened.

 

[wizards8507]

Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying.

How long before the well runs dry on blaming everything on the media, though. Rubio looked like a dope on stage, not Wolf Blitzer. The media is reporting what happened.

I have no problem with the media reporting what happened. I do have a problem with the media reporting as if that's the only thing that happened. It's not a partisan issue, as I think Fox was the worst of the bunch on this one. It's tabloid journalism.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Blah blah blah. All that means is that Republicans technically could have filibustered the Affordable Care Act. Republicans didn't filibuster the Affordable Care Act, so the effect is the same.

blah blah blah threatening a filibuster is a filibuster blah blah blah

Are you seriously unaware that Congressional processes are almost always ceremonial in nature and all of the negotiations/calculations/etc happen behind closed doors or in front of TV cameras? Are you really trying to pretend that Obama could "do whatever he wanted" when history is very clearly saying something different?

 

[woolybug25]

Wut? Obama had two years of a supermajority in the Senate and control of the House. He could have done literally anything he wanted. What did he choose to do in that time? Ram Obamacare down our throats against public opinion and the will of the American people. That disaster is 100% on him, with not a single Republican fingerprint on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority

Blah blah blah. All that means is that Republicans technically could have filibustered the Affordable Care Act. Republicans didn't filibuster the Affordable Care Act, so the effect is the same.

blah blah blah threatening a filibuster is a filibuster blah blah blah

So this again, Wiz? Your debating is right out of the Trump playbook.

1) Say something loud regardless of it's truth
2) Start talking real fast
3) Deflect anything proving your point wrong
4) Insult

I'm guessing your next post will be #4, with a random insult to Buster?

You still haven't apologized to Cack or myself for your embarrassing tirade from yesterday...

 

[yankeehater]

What Rubio did was repeat his stump speech during the debate.....they all have them.

His point is Pres. Obama did everything he wanted/planned and the policies/liberalism did not and will not work.

It is very similar to the argument that you cannot defeat Radical Islam if you are unwilling to call it what it is. If people do note realize it is the policies causing the problem, then you will vote/repeat the problem.

Did his attempt work? No.

 

[yankeehater]

I have always wondered what people really mean when they say they "hate Wall St."

 

[NDVirginia19]

I have always wondered what people really mean when they say they "hate Wall St."

They don't like that rich people exist, I presume

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Whole bunch of bla bla bla going on. I just wanna know which candidate will actually push the button. Nuke em all 16

 

[RDU Irish]

From some article on Ohio.com that comes up in a quick search -
"Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011."

Instead we see name callers and people seeking apologies on message boards because you know, technically, the Senate was one or two votes off of super majority. God forbid the overriding point has to be defended that CONTROL was firmly in the hands of Dems for both sides of Congress.

It really goes to show the complete incompetence at deal making (maybe mixed with a strong dose of extreme ideology) for someone to be completely hamstrung by the threat of filibuster and one or two votes from super majority.

 

[Black Irish]

You are aware that ~90% of the federal budget doesn't go to the typical "safety net" programs like SNAP right? Raising taxes isn't only about poverty, nor is it punishing the rich who "earned his wealth."

The 1% in this country are wealthier than they've ever been and are getting even wealthier at the fastest rate in history. I mean you want to talk about fuzzy language, this idea that we'd be punishing the rich is right up there.

I guess I'm just saying that someone can oppose things like the carried-interest loophole and favor higher taxes on people earning millions annually without giving a damn about poverty or thinking that the livelihoods of the 1% are being harmed significantly.

To point #1, the rhetoric about raising taxes that I hear is largely tied to "leveling the playing field" and "helping those in need." So the talk about raising taxes on the rich focuses disproportionally on this (in your assertion) less than 10% of federal spending. If the government spends relatively little, percentage wise, on safety net programs, they could do just as well to move some money from other, less-deserving programs rather than claim that it is the fault of the rich for "not paying their fair share."

To point #2, who cares if the wealth of the top #1 is growing? No one has been able to chalk out a direct line to how the rich getting richer is directly responsible for poor people being poor or middle class wages stagnating. The fuzzy language comes in because people say things like "the rich are getting richer while there are still people sleeping on the street" and I'm supposed to believe that there is a both a direct correlation and causation at play there. I don't believe that, because I don't believe in zero sum economics.

To point #3, why else would someone care about closing loopholes for the rich and raising their taxes if not to benefit the less fortunate? Fun? General principle? Now I suppose if someone were to say, "we spend plenty on the poor but we need more money to repair roads and infrastructure" then, okay, I'll buy that. But why not raise taxes on everybody? If it's a pressing issue that affects us all, then we should all be willing to pony up for the common good. And it doesn't mater if raising taxes on the rich harms their livelihood significantly. It should be done for a very good reason, not just because of class envy; the old "they can afford it so no big deal" philosophy.

 

[kmoose]

blah blah blah threatening a filibuster is a filibuster blah blah blah

Are you seriously unaware that Congressional processes are almost always ceremonial in nature and all of the negotiations/calculations/etc happen behind closed doors or in front of TV cameras? Are you really trying to pretend that Obama could "do whatever he wanted" when history is very clearly saying something different?

I think that Obama supporters who throw out the "Republicans are obstructionists" card are forgetting that Obama's first campaign touted him as "the man who can break through Washington gridlock and bring both sides of the aisle together." He constantly pointed to his work with diverse groups in Chicago, when he was a community organizer, as proof of his consensus building ability. That doesn't negate the fact that Obama has not, in fact, had some kind of super majority to do what he wanted. But the lack of support from across the aisle is just an example of how he failed to live up to yet another campaign promise. Build consensus? FAIL. Close Gitmo? FAIL. Transparent government? FAIL.

I don't think Obama has been a terrible President. I disagree with many of his policies and decisions, but I don't buy the accusation that he was trying to transform the country into some kind of Socialist society. However, he failed massively to deliver on his campaign promises......... like most other politicians.

 

[Buster Bluth]

From some article on Ohio.com that comes up in a quick search -
"Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011."

Instead we see name callers and people seeking apologies on message boards because you know, technically, the Senate was one or two votes off of super majority. God forbid the overriding point has to be defended that CONTROL was firmly in the hands of Dems for both sides of Congress.

Uh huh. If you don't have 60 votes you might as well have 41 if the other Party opposes your plan. Being just "one or two votes off" is the same as being a dozen votes off.

It really goes to show the complete incompetence at deal making (maybe mixed with a strong dose of extreme ideology) for someone to be completely hamstrung by the threat of filibuster and one or two votes from super majority.

I completely agree. Obama should have modeled his plan on a recent one done by a Republican, so it wouldn't have been so extreme. Things like the individual mandate, which no Republicans ever supported during the previous Democratic President, were just too much.

The thing about deal making is it's tough to point out which side won't make a deal. I can point to hundreds of filibusters, shutting down the government, refusing something like a 10-to-1 compromise of cuts and increases, etc when it comes to Republicans. I think Obama is pretty arrogant, but I don't think the Democrats are the ones being so stubborn these days.

It's the Republicans who foolishly go around signing things like Grover Norquist's Tax Pledge, which makes it basically impossible to ever have tax increases be on the table, ever.

It's the Republicans who are at the mercy of Roger Ailes' Fox News and the others like Rush Limbaugh, who make the party more extreme each election cycle. There is simply no liberal equivalent to the control those two have over their party, and they can destroy the political career of dissidents in a way that Democrats simply can't.