Republican Debates

[Ben]

I missed it, but it sounds like Carly Fiorina blew everyone out of the water in the first debate. I need to find some highlight videos.

[makattak]

I'll have to check it out- she's been very impressive

[RocketMan]

I missed it, but it sounds like Carly Fiorina blew everyone out of the water in the first debate. I need to find some highlight videos.

That was the early debate for those whose poll numbers were not high enough to get them into the main event later tonight.
But yes, she blew them away in the early debate.  Zapped Trump pretty well from the sound bite I heard on the radio on the way home from work.  Maybe it will give her a little boost in the polls.

[charby]

I don't predict this

[SADShooter]

I don't predict this

Hippo cuckold. Rule 34 proven again.

[Balog]

I'm annoyed that Fox is clamping down on streaming so hard. Afaict there is no legal streaming option unless you have a cable account. 

[Ben]

Well, my opinion:  Trump showed that he's a showman and nothing else. Christie and Paul got into it. I think Christie was channeling some Peter King on national security. Walker and Kasich came off a bit weak, especially on international affairs. Bush seemed milquetoast. Rubio, Cruz, and Huckabee were the only ones that I thought could directly answer the questions asked without sidestepping (for the most part). I didn't necessarily agree with their answers, but as a voter appreciated the straightforward responses. Carson started off weak but ended strong. He seemed to be the most composed and relaxed of any of the debaters.

[TommyGunn]

Well, my opinion:  Trump showed that he's a showman and nothing else. Christie and Paul got into it. I think Christie was channeling some Peter King on national security. Walker and Kasich came off a bit weak, especially on international affairs. Bush seemed milquetoast. Rubio, Cruz, and Huckabee were the only ones that I thought could directly answer the questions asked without sidestepping (for the most part). I didn't necessarily agree with their answers, but as a voter appreciated the straightforward responses. Carson started off weak but ended strong. He seemed to be the most composed and relaxed of any of the debaters.

Didn't we already know that, though?
~~~And he doesn't like political correctness .... who'da thunk thaaaaat??

[Ben]

Didn't we already know that, though?

Well sure, WE did. :)  I'm thinking he lost some of his Trumpladytes tonight though.

I'm not a supporter, but I was really surprised at Huckabee's strong performance. Also, Carly Fiorina and Rick Perry should have definitely been in the main event, given the snippets I saw from both of them in the "B team" debates.

[charby]

I was not impressed by any of them. I thought Trump was a clown. I was waiting for Cruz to start speaking in some old dark language on his last question.

My overall opinion is that I wasted two hours watching a bunch of parrots.

[lupinus]

I missed part due to work and my DVR being a dick.

But from what I saw, I learned nothing. Though some of Paul vs Christie that I've seen was damned amusing.

[Perd Hapley]

Rand Paul's tone was much too shrill. And I mean his tone of voice, not the content. He just sounded like he was yelling.

[T.O.M.]

Anymore, I could really care less about these kind of debates.  I know I should, but it has become such a production that I cannot generate any interest.  Presidential candidates spout off what they believe will get them elected, and spend the rest of the time shooting for that 5 second sound bite that will play over and over again to make them look good.  Candidates that I actually have an interest in learning about (Carly Fiorina) end up getting pushed to the side so that the headline acts (Trump, Christie, Rubio) can stand in the spotlight and give the TV people good footage for their broadcasts.  And, when you get to the real debates between fewer candidates, or even the debates for the general elections, it's all about putting on a show with no real discussion about how to address the real issues of the day.  Who gets the best zinger...who puts out the best catch phrase...for looks the best in a suit that costs more than a lot of people make in a month...  It's the ultimate reality TV show.  Sad, because it in so many ways determines the future of the country.  Who is best for the job doesn't matter near as much as who has the best style in front of the cameras...

[makattak]

Anymore, I could really care less about these kind of debates.  I know I should, but it has become such a production that I cannot generate any interest.  Presidential candidates spout off what they believe will get them elected, and spend the rest of the time shooting for that 5 second sound bite that will play over and over again to make them look good.  Candidates that I actually have an interest in learning about (Carly Fiorina) end up getting pushed to the side so that the headline acts (Trump, Christie, Rubio) can stand in the spotlight and give the TV people good footage for their broadcasts.  And, when you get to the real debates between fewer candidates, or even the debates for the general elections, it's all about putting on a show with no real discussion about how to address the real issues of the day.  Who gets the best zinger...who puts out the best catch phrase...for looks the best in a suit that costs more than a lot of people make in a month...  It's the ultimate reality TV show.  Sad, because it in so many ways determines the future of the country.  Who is best for the job doesn't matter near as much as who has the best style in front of the cameras...

It's the inevitable result of both (nearly) unlimited franchise and the size of our country.

Because any person's vote has such a small effect on the outcome of any election, no one has a real electoral incentive to think too hard about any issue. As a result, most don't.

Thus, the outcome of the election is based off impressing people who don't really know or even care too much about the actual issues. You just have to come off as "likeable" and/or "smart". It doesn't really matter what you actually plan to do.

Obama proved that with his campaign of smoke and mirrors... I mean hope and change. Few specifics (and what specifics he offered were lies) but lots of hokum and feel-goodism.

I don't see any hope that the people will suddenly start caring about actual plans. 

[Ben]

Presidential candidates spout off what they believe will get them elected, and spend the rest of the time shooting for that 5 second sound bite that will play over and over again to make them look good. 

It's the ultimate reality TV show.  Sad, because it in so many ways determines the future of the country.  Who is best for the job doesn't matter near as much as who has the best style in front of the cameras...

I agree. As poorly as I thought Walker did in the debate, I saw a post-debate interview with him where he was poised, articulate, and on point - pretty much the opposite of his debate persona. I would be interested in learning more about non-debate Walker, and he could possibly get my vote. Not so debate Walker.

On the other hand, the pressure of the debates is nothing compared to what a President has to face pretty much weekly while in office on the public speaking front. Sometimes I think a "dual presidency" would be good - the socially inept operational president who can get things done and stays locked in a room and runs things, and the "public' president who gives the speeches. 

[KD5NRH]

Also, Carly Fiorina and Rick Perry should have definitely been in the main event, given the snippets I saw from both of them in the "B team" debates.

Haven't seen any sort of early push from Perry.  Makes me wonder if he's holding something back for a surprise close to the primaries.  He's won enough state level elections to know what he's doing with a campaign, so I can't see it being just a lack of a good strategy.  Maybe just storing up campaign funds and hoping the performance in relatively cheap stuff like this will get him a boost so he can go into the critical home stretch with most of his resources still intact.

[KD5NRH]

Sometimes I think a "dual presidency" would be good - the socially inept operational president who can get things done and stays locked in a room and runs things, and the "public' president who gives the speeches.

Sounds like Texas; Governor does the high-profile stuff and keeps the press happy while the Lieutenant Governor makes the important day to day things happen.

[dogmush]

I couldn't bring myself to care for these.  It's like the first rounds of the playoffs.  Most of these folks will disapear before I have to care about their positions.  Coupled with the fact that I give it about a 3% chance the Republican Party will manage to field a candidate I can stomach, I skipped the whole thing, re-watched "They Live" and lifted a glass to Rowdy Roddy Piper.

[Ben]

It's the inevitable result of both (nearly) unlimited franchise and the size of our country.

Because any person's vote has such a small effect on the outcome of any election, no one has a real electoral incentive to think too hard about any issue. As a result, most don't.

Thus, the outcome of the election is based off impressing people who don't really know or even care too much about the actual issues. You just have to come off as "likeable" and/or "smart". It doesn't really matter what you actually plan to do.

Obama proved that with his campaign of smoke and mirrors... I mean hope and change. Few specifics (and what specifics he offered were lies) but lots of hokum and feel-goodism.

I don't see any hope that the people will suddenly start caring about actual plans. 

I agree with this too. People want to vote for the popular winner. I'm betting half the country votes based on a 30 second sound bite. I bet 75% of voters never bother to do any in-depth research and only vote entirely based on the TV. This is why I want IQ requirements for voting. Also, anyone who watches Jerry Springer or The View is banned from voting for life.

[MechAg94]

Haven't seen any sort of early push from Perry.  Makes me wonder if he's holding something back for a surprise close to the primaries.  He's won enough state level elections to know what he's doing with a campaign, so I can't see it being just a lack of a good strategy.  Maybe just storing up campaign funds and hoping the performance in relatively cheap stuff like this will get him a boost so he can go into the critical home stretch with most of his resources still intact.

I don't think it is hard to win as a Republican in Texas especially if no one more conservative challenges.  I was trying to remember if he ever had any interesting challengers and none come to mind.  The state was in transition when W. Bush was Gov, but by the time Perry ran, the state was pretty solid Republican. 

[MechAg94]

I agree. As poorly as I thought Walker did in the debate, I saw a post-debate interview with him where he was poised, articulate, and on point - pretty much the opposite of his debate persona. I would be interested in learning more about non-debate Walker, and he could possibly get my vote. Not so debate Walker.

On the other hand, the pressure of the debates is nothing compared to what a President has to face pretty much weekly while in office on the public speaking front. Sometimes I think a "dual presidency" would be good - the socially inept operational president who can get things done and stays locked in a room and runs things, and the "public' president who gives the speeches. 

My only thought is that the pressure of decision making is not the same as a debate.  A debate is more akin to dealing with the press.  I am more interested in what sort of people they surround themselves with who they might appoint or have serving in the cabinet.  I am also interested in how their decision making has been tested.  When push comes to shove, what did they do?  Did they stick with their principles or compromise?  I am not sure how a debate really tests for that.

The only idea I have that might be better for the debates is putting out say an interview or press conference with each candidate.  Have about 10 pre-prepared questions along with 10 or 12 open questions given by a panel.  Post the video for people to watch.  I don't care who has the best zinger or who puts down the other guy better.  They could include some viewer questions, but the ones they pick are usually crap.  Not sure this would be better, but I might be more interested in watching.

[HankB]

Didn't see the early debate, watched the main event.

It's pretty clear that the Fox news moderators were really out to prove they weren't "Republican supporters" the way they attacked and drilled several of the candidates in the debate; we wouldn't see ABCNBCCBSCNNPBS anchors going after Democrats this way during their debate, unless they deliberately set out to anoint Hillary.

In any case, here's my take:

Jeb: Anyone else catch that he was on Bloomberg's education foundation, because he thought "Mike" was doing some good there? Associating with "Mike" Boomberg in any way, shape, or form makes him toxic.
Christie: Pugnacious when pushing for expanded government. His comment about "means testing" for Social Security benefits was the big-government kleptocrat talking.
Rand: The couple of good points he made were lost in what sounded like his whining. Still, like his dad, while I like him as a legislator, I don't want him anywhere near the Oval Office.
Cruz: Thoughtful answers that may have gone over the heads of some people.
Trump: Seemed to duck some questions and talk around them - had a hard time when confronted with his past comments and behaviors. (It was obvious that Megyn Kelley absolutely loathed him.)
Rubio: Seemed poised and well-mannered, and treated kindly by the moderators. But I still see him as too soft in dealing with illegal aliens.
Huckabee: Pretty good for the most part. The FAIR tax is something which, however imperfect, would be an enormous improvement on our current system.
Carson: Not very polished or rehearsed - he'd probably make a better V.P. or Cabinet official than POTUS right now.
Walker: Nice guy on stage, but kind of hard to see him as President. Got attacked for his WI record.
Kasich: Lied - again! - about balancing the Federal budget. (National debt increased every year the budget was "balanced" . . . you just can't have a "balanced budget" let alone a surplus when you finish the year deeper in the hole than you started. And . . . didn't he vote for the Clinton AWB?)

[Ben]

Christie: Pugnacious when pushing for expanded government. His comment about "means testing" for Social Security benefits was the big-government kleptocrat talking.

How could I have forgotten to go off on that?!? The people who, in general, pay the most into social security will be banned from collecting any. Because besides paying the forced tax, they also sacrificed and worked hard to fund their 401Ks and other personal retirement vehicles so they could take personal responsibility for their retirement income. How dare they!?! They must be punished!

Anyone who promotes that should just go ahead and come out of the commie closet.

[vaskidmark]

Need input from the history buffs -

When was the last debate between presidential candidates that came to blows?  And who won?

Then I'll open the question up to all candidates for any office.  (please cite)

Which is how I think being picked as the way for political parties to select their candidates from among all the folks lining up, and then between the political parties for the office up for election.

The bureaucrats are going to keep the country running pretty much as it has always run regardless of who sits in the big chair.

Jaded?  Who, me?

stay safe.

[KD5NRH]

I don't think it is hard to win as a Republican in Texas especially if no one more conservative challenges.  I was trying to remember if he ever had any interesting challengers and none come to mind.

Jim Hightower in the 1990 Ag Commissioner race.  It's sort of low profile in general, but pretty important to the rural population.  Most city dwellers couldn't tell you who the current one is, but I guarantee you every farmer, rancher or dairyman can tell you in great detail and has a strong opinion on the matter.  Even with a (relatively minor) scandal, it's hard to unseat an incumbent who hasn't been screwing over one or more of those groups...and even one who has, because there's a strong "dance with the devil you know" mindset.

I am surprised he hasn't played up his personal record more, though; his life is as nearly the perfect Conservative as anyone could ask for.  Eagle Scout and father of another Eagle, high school quarterback, USAF Captain, took over the family cotton farm, married to his elementary school sweetheart for 33 years without even a hint of nailing interns, reputed to be as good a shot with pistol and rifle as most of his protective detail, (and remember these are the guys too good to be Rangers) inspired a special Ruger LCP submodel, and really looks like his visits to LaRue were more for the fun of being there than just photo ops.  Anita does use her visibility to push for her pet causes, but she sticks to the ones she actually knows.  (17 years as a nurse, plus being the daughter and granddaughter of small town GPs; I'd trust her on nutrition and health issues over a crappy lawyer.)

Need input from the history buffs -

When was the last debate between presidential candidates that came to blows?  And who won?

Not sure, but I'd like to see at least the Republican Primaries replaced with a boxing match; it's just as likely to pick the best man for the job, and a hell of a lot more entertaining.