The Repub Debate

TGHusker

TGHusker

New member
My take on the Debate:
Losers: Biggest losers IMHO Rand Paul and Donald Trump. Bush and Walker as runner ups

Paul: came across as thin skinned, snooty and had to prove his manhood by being the 1st to attack Trump and of course Christie. He did himself no favors last night. The camera views of him rolling his eyes reminded me of Al Gore's debate body language errors.

Trump: I still cannot believe that there are many who think he won and were offended by the moderators 'attacking' him. I thought he was arrogant, had a mad scrawl on his face, didn't have specific answers or plans to solve anything - just red meat to stir up people. I think he would be a disaster for the repubs. He was not presidential in any aspect of his
appearance.

Bush: At first I thought Bush did well because there were no gaffs and I was going to place him in the winner just for looking the part wtout foot in mouth. However, that is too low of a bar for a 'top tier' candidate. I think Kasich stole his 'moderate' label (if there is such a thing on the repub side). In retrospect I think Bush needed to live up to his pre-season billing as front runner but failed. I do think he comes across as more likeable then his brother however.

Walker: My leading guy going in. I came away wt a 'just ok' feeling about him. He held his own - no big mistakes but didn't show the vast experience the other governor's had. Of the 5 governors, he came across as the least experienced, knowledgeable, and passionate. He has a somewhat 'underwhelming' personality - not an inspiring leader. he didn't say enough to set himself up as the top guy.

Winners:
Kasich: a very experience guy at multiple levels but basically unknown in this campaign cycle. I think he came across well reasoned, compassionate, and could take the 'moderate' role if Bush and Christie fail to rise to the top. His accomplishments in Ohio measure better than Walker's Wisc, Christie's NJ, and equal to Bush's claim in Florida

Rubio: Of the 3 senators, I think he had the best demeanor. He stayed on point and had good answers wtout a lot of red meat. However, my impression is that he would be a
great VP and not ready for the top spot yet - I still think a governor should have that spot just for the executive experience.

Huckabee: One does not have to agree wt his positions, to see that he comes across as passionate and compassionate on his positions. He may have a too narrow of a base to win, but I don't think he hurt himself at all last night.

Carson: Just for his last 2 answers - one on civil rights and his humorous closing statement. He is out of his league running for this position (experience wise not 'smarts' wise) but he is respected for his accomplishments in his career. He has a calm demeanor under pressure and lights of the debate.


The MEH
Cruz: Cruz did what I expected him to do - be persistent in his answers, have passion. He didn't persuade me however to take up his banner. He had a good closing statement but
too rehearsed. He had a good ISIS statement. But again he threw out some red meat. He stood his ground on calling repub leadership in the Senate as liers, etc. Unfortunately Fox didn't give him as much time/attention and he was quiet for a long time

Christie: Again he did what I thought he'd do. He was bold and opinionated but he did a poor job defending his record in NJ.


One more winner:
Carly Fiorina - I didn't hear the early 'debate' so I base this on what I read and heard: while she will never be the nominee, she may move herself to the top 10 and an outside consideration for VP or a cabinet post. She was the only standout in the 'happy hour' debate.

 
Pretty much agree with the OP's summation of the evening.

Trump and Paul were the big losers

Christie and Walker next to the bottom of the list.

Cruz, Bush, Kasich, and Huckabee- nothing exciting, nothing too damaging.

I was most impressed with Rubio and Carson. Although I do think the hill is a little too steep for Carson.

I knew very little about any of these candidates positions before the debate. I don't feel like I know a whole bunch more afterwards but I do have a much better feel for their demeanor and possible presidentialyness.

Trump is a total and complete douchebag. His only appeal will be to the mad/angry far right. Unfortunately there seems to be plenty of these people around. Probably explains why is leading so far. Trump is the single biggest reason the repubs have absolutely no chance this election cycle. He can't win if he is the nominee and, if he isn't, he will run independent and take enough support away from anybody who might have a legitimate shot.

Paul- What can I say, I agree with some of his libertarian type positions but he just doesn't seem to be able to function in the real world. Besides that he is kinda goofy looking IMO and he sort of comes off like a petulant child.

Rubio & Carson- I want to learn more about these guys positions and see them pushed harder before deciding if either one is viable. But I do seem to like them the best so far. Sort of doubt that I will bother to vote this cycle unless one of these 2 appears to have a shot at beating the witch.

 
The more I think about it, the more Trump appears to be in this for the long haul.

Fox News has the largest viewership of any media outlet for the past decade. They've spent the last seven years building Obama up into this terrible, scary boogie man, alarmist stories every week. Donald Trump is just taking the audience Fox created with that fear-mongering and telling them what they want to hear, what they've been conditioned to hear, for the better part of a decade.

 
MOD EDIT--The YT videos have been removed by users, so--for aesthetics--I've removed this and the next two posts.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's sad that it's not more intellectual than that.

People should be going to these things with an open mind and willing to sit back and listen to what each is saying.

On the other hand, the crowd in the auditorium was probably filled with operatives from each campaign and they are going to cheer on whatever candidate they work for and try to make it sound like the entire crowd is on their side.

 
It's not really on the people, even. Give these guys a theatrical platform, drum up interest, and what do we expect?

These are people who have given hundreds of long speeches or penned documents about their positions, signed bills, have voting records, etc. But sometimes it's as if all that matters is how they perform on gamedays. Because network televised debates are the gamedays, obviously, not sessions of Congress.

It's not that these are totally useless, I suppose. I mean, remember Rick Perry's "oops" moment? But that's a really low bar, separating the hollow walking talking points from those who are maybe just better at faking it.

I suppose, to a large extent, a president is communicator-in-Chief. So what his positions are and how he articulates them to the nation is important.

 
zoogs said:
It's not really on the people, even. Give these guys a theatrical platform, drum up interest, and what do we expect?

These are people who have given hundreds of long speeches or penned documents about their positions, signed bills, have voting records, etc. But sometimes it's as if all that matters is how they perform on gamedays. Because network televised debates are the gamedays, obviously, not sessions of Congress.

It's not that these are totally useless, I suppose. I mean, remember Rick Perry's "oops" moment? But that's a really low bar, separating the hollow walking talking points from those who are maybe just better at faking it.

I suppose, to a large extent, a president is communicator-in-Chief. So what his positions are and how he articulates them to the nation is important.
Click to expand...
When there are this many on stage, it really is worthless. Because everyone is trying to upstage the others in the group and that becomes the theatrical act instead of the issues.

When there is just two it still is basically worthless because both camps have put in so many rules as to what can and can't happen. What questions can and can't be asked....etc.

If you could have both candidates sit down and actually have an open conversation, we might actually be able to learn something from these.

 
I thought Kasich and Rubio were the strongest, while Cruz was dead last by a long margin, even over Trump's usual megalomaniac routine.

 
BigRedBuster said:
You are right that she was a winner. I wouldn't totally rule her out at this point in the race.

CNN
Click to expand...
My top 2 choices since early May have been Fiorina and Rubio, and I was so glad to see them shine yesterday. They are both masterful communicators and bring much needed diversity for the GOP. I think that Carly is Hillary's worst nightmare and will eat Hillary alive if they were to debate each other. That would be some great catfight.

 
bnilhome said:
BigRedBuster said:
You are right that she was a winner. I wouldn't totally rule her out at this point in the race.

CNN
Click to expand...
My top 2 choices since early May have been Fiorina and Rubio, and I was so glad to see them shine yesterday. They are both masterful communicators and bring much needed diversity for the GOP. I think that Carly is Hillary's worst nightmare and will eat Hillary alive if they were to debate each other. That would be some great catfight.
Click to expand...
Also, you should watch Carly's interview with Chris Matthews after the debate. She is not afraid to go on networks that have different political views and take tough questions. Chris looked like a scared little girl by the end.

 
Back
Top