I thought I would start a new thread, because Zeb’s first thread 1) was more geared toward predictions about the second GOP debate and 2) was starting to become long.
So…your thoughts?
I personally thought that it was a good debate, and brought out each candidates strengths. (e.g. Rubio’s grasp of Foreign Policy).
Where the polls fall over the next few days should be interesting. Certainly some candidates will go up (like Fiorina); some down (like Carson); and to me, Trump will certainly lose some ground because others seemed to have a better grasp of most subjects that were thrown at them. If that will be enough to overcome his lead, only time will tell (This makes the Iowa and NH caucuses even that more interesting).
For me (and this is not a “bandwagon” choice)…the clear “winner” was Carly Fiorina. I wish I could have heard more about her view on taxes (what I heard from many of the other candidates I really liked. While I think that abolishing the IRS is most likely a Pipe Dream; many of the views expressed on tax reduction and simplification I liked). So I would like to know where she stands on taxation.
I think that she would demolish Clinton in a one-on-one debate on just about every issue, both in her delivery; her command of the subject matter; and the fact the Clinton looks weaker and weaker as she tries to explain all the issues she is attacked on.
Jeb helped his cause (he certainly did not hurt it)…but he has to overcome single digit poll numbers…and I just don’t see this debate doing it.
The net result for me personally?
Fiorina definitely has my attention.
What the numbers show and what the voters in Iowa and NH think of her should be telling.
I think that the tactic of asking questions based on another candidates own words was brilliant. It not only stimulated brisk debate…it allowed candidates to clarify their own positions.
Immigration now “belongs” to the GOP. Like it or not, it’s “their” issue and they will have to “own” it in the General election.
I think Fiorina would carry less of the vitriol with her on the subject (as well as Bush, Rubio, Christie, and Carson)…and how it is going to play with Hispanics in the General Election is yet to be seen.
But it is now a major part of the GOP platform…and the DEMS are surely salivating at the idea of hanging them with their own words.
I think that the tactic of asking questions based on another candidates own words was brilliant. It not only stimulated brisk debate…it allowed candidates to clarify their own positions.
As a voter, that was helpful to me.
Mufasa[/quote]
Some of the questions were a bit caddy for my taste, but overall I thought it was fine. I’m not sure why CNN had three moderators though, two of them barely said a word.
I pretty much agree with CNNs analysis with the exception of Paul. I thought his back and forth with Christie over the 10th amendment was actually a pretty big moment for him and a loser for Christie (who had a decent night). I would have ranked him in the “unclear” section.
This one in particular stands out to since Gov Walker was so adamant that just because Trump says it doesn’t mean it’s true:
"Fact check: Donald Trump says Wisconsin is losing $2.2 billion.
In November 2014, the Wisconsin Department of Administration said state agencies’ budget requests would exceed expected revenues by $2.2 billion dollars for the 2015-2017 budget cycle.
However, Wisconsin is required by state law to balance its budget. Therefore, state lawmakers cut spending, including slashing funding for the University of Wisconsin by $250 million. The budget that Gov. Scott Walker signed in July did not have a deficit.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Agree Mufasa; Fiorina was the clear “winner” to me with Bush, Rubio, and to an extent Paul gaining some ground. [/quote]
I think this seems to be everyone’s takeaway. Fiorina had some huge highlights, Bush did well and Rubio’s answers were very thorough.
I’m a Rand Paul fan, and thought his answers had good substance but he doesn’t seem comfortable on the stage or with the debate format.
I agree with most of CNN’s analysis but thought Trump did awful, especially with the fact check you mention usmc. I also heard that 44% of the questions involved Trump. With that much attention he should’ve done better, but the foreign policy seemed to overwhelm him especially compared to Rubio.
I’m a bit biased but I liked Kasich’s performance. Unfortunately I don’t know if it was stand out enough and it might be better to hope the top candidate picks him as VP.
Also, as mentioned in the CNN assessment, why did Carson not jump all over Trump when he attempted to link Autism to vaccines?? That should be right in the doctor’s wheelhouse, could be a defining moment for his campaign.
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
I also heard that 44% of the questions involved Trump. With that much attention he should’ve done better, but the foreign policy seemed to overwhelm him especially compared to Rubio.[/quote]
Ya, they said he had the most time of all the candidates, something like 15 minutes. Conversely Walker had around 7 or 8 I believe.
Immigration now “belongs” to the GOP. Like it or not, it’s “their” issue and they will have to “own” it in the General election.
I think Fiorina would carry less of the vitriol with her on the subject (as well as Bush, Rubio, Christie, and Carson)…and how it is going to play with Hispanics in the General Election is yet to be seen.
But it is now a major part of the GOP platform…and the DEMS are surely salivating at the idea of hanging them with their own words.
We’ll see.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Hanging them with their own words?
Do you realize that the topic of immigration is what launched Trump to the top spot?
Almost 70% of the population feels that we have an immigration problem. That topic is not going to hurt the GOP, but it will hurt the democrats who were in power and did nothing.
I think that the tactic of asking questions based on another candidates own words was brilliant. It not only stimulated brisk debate…it allowed candidates to clarify their own positions.
As a voter, that was helpful to me.
Mufasa[/quote]
Some of the questions were a bit caddy for my taste, but overall I thought it was fine. I’m not sure why CNN had three moderators though, two of them barely said a word. [/quote]
CNN is tilted left. They threw in one conservative hoping to look balanced and then didn’t allow him to speak much.
CNN also actively tried to get the candidates to fight. It worked on occasion but over all CNN didn’t look very “fair and balanced” But that is what I expected anyway…
Debate? You mean the 3 hour Donald Trump campaign commercial that was on CNN last night?
He was on screen while others were talking. His name was mentioned repeatedly. The debate centered around Trump for the most part.
Didn’t Trump once say “I don’t care what they are saying, long as they’re talking about me.”? Sadly, he may be right. Elections aren’t decided by the best and brightest among us. Exposure and name recognition mean a lot to the average voter. Content sometimes takes a back seat. I know first hand. I have lived on the other side of it.
I think the best way to attack Trump in a debate may be to not attack him at all. Ignore him. Stop addressing him every 37 seconds. Stop saying his name. Stop asking other candidates questions about things Trump has said. Stop high 5-ing him on stage. Leave him alone. Average people went to bed last night thinking about Donald Trump if they watched the debate.
[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
Also, as mentioned in the CNN assessment, why did Carson not jump all over Trump when he attempted to link Autism to vaccines?? That should be right in the doctor’s wheelhouse, could be a defining moment for his campaign.[/quote]
It’s called political inexperience. Carson could have slam dunked Trump on that issue and let him walk away with a compromise.
