NFT: 1st GOP Presidential Debate: Who’ll be In, Who’ll be Out?

.

Trump didn't make a complete fool out of himself

he was unfairly attacked by fox news team but managed to respond quite pithy to most of the attacks

as far as two front runners
Jeb was just awkward ...Walker was forgetable

Going to be interesting to see who moved the dial after the debates

I actually would put Christie in Up section .. he had a bit of energy that the others lacked

That literally looked like parody of a debate....loved it

And that was a #1 rated reality show on TLC

No responses to direct questions, hated how he went after Megyn Kelly, and he did not handle the issue of his past comments well. It's rodman it's Dennis being Dennis. There was no likability to the dumb response he should've given. No Donald being Donald. Substance killed him. But, if the other candidates now distance themself from Trump on that gaffe, it's sort of put the issue into sharp relief and repubs could pivot from there using trump as a convenient package of unelectable issues to rail against.

Kasich was winner of the 9pm bout and Fiorina on the undercard. Loved Ben Carson last couple swings. Christie v. Paul on nsa was very mr. Smith goes to Washington. You like Christies presence, but Rand's principles. One of them was presidential - I thought Christie looked good and while the Obama hug comment was good, if he mentioned the jones hug we'd be talking about President-Elect Paul.

Brain dump. Evenin folks

(1) GOP does poor job of selling narrative about why capitalism and business (small, medium, and large) has made the United States and the world exponentially wealthier than even 100 years ago. Somehow business and capitalism have become pejorative words. Without these, you don't have jobs, tax base, government revenue, etc. to pay for all of those nifty social welfare programs.

(2) Candidates who start rattling off their accomplishments sound like the parents in "Peanuts". That's why Ben Carson's close worked. I get it...some of these candidates are not well known (especially Kasich and Fiorina...and Bush is trying to see his "conservativeness"), but audience tunes that out.

Quote:

There were mixed reviews of the candidates on Thursday night, but almost unanimously positive reviews of the Fox News moderators. "Tough." "Brilliant." "Pitbulls." The raves for Fox's questioning started right away and continued well into the evening, even from rivals and critics who rarely praise the cable news channel. Austan Goolsbee, a former member of President Obama's cabinet, gave Fox credit this way: "If they were treating the Dems like this, I would have said they were gratuitously busting their chops," he tweeted.

CNN: Fox moderators get applause for tough debate questions - ( New Window )

did a very good job as well. Didn't feel biased at all.

I feel like Walker was the big loser tonight. He was just so damn forgettable and irrelevant up there. This was his chance to really separate himself from the field but he might have missed his window at the Presidency with the lackluster performance he put out tonight. Rubio and Kasich were both so much better than him tonight, wouldn't be surprised if both of them overtook him in the pools soon especially Rubio.

not sure how good they are at swimming

This is ongoing, so it will be different when you check it. I think Bush and Walker need to be concerned about their status as leading contenders.
Donald Trump 48.27%

Jeb Bush 3.99%

Scott Walker 1.04%

Ben Carson 11.55%

Mike Huckabee 3.41%

Ted Cruz 5.11%

Marco Rubio 9.84%

Rand Paul 5.34%

Chris Christie 2.46%

John Kasich 8.99%
Link - ( New Window )

some really good and tough questions but thought instead of trying to draw out policy knowledge and differences - some seemed designed to instigate silly brawls between candidates

some really good and tough questions but thought instead of trying to draw out policy knowledge and differences - some seemed designed to instigate silly brawls between candidates

The people who vote in late night internet polls aren't necessarily the same people who vote in actual elections. Maybe even just the opposite (particularly when it comes to Republican voters).

In comment 12406156 Ira said:

Quote:

This is ongoing, so it will be different when you check it. I think Bush and Walker need to be concerned about their status as leading contenders. Donald Trump 48.27% Jeb Bush 3.99% Scott Walker 1.04% Ben Carson 11.55% Mike Huckabee 3.41% Ted Cruz 5.11% Marco Rubio 9.84% Rand Paul 5.34% Chris Christie 2.46% John Kasich 8.99% Link - ( New Window )

I'd expect Trump to win any internet poll like this, but the margin of victory is still pretty impressive.

In comment 12406156 Ira said:

Quote:

This is ongoing, so it will be different when you check it. I think Bush and Walker need to be concerned about their status as leading contenders. Donald Trump 48.27% Jeb Bush 3.99% Scott Walker 1.04% Ben Carson 11.55% Mike Huckabee 3.41% Ted Cruz 5.11% Marco Rubio 9.84% Rand Paul 5.34% Chris Christie 2.46% John Kasich 8.99% Link - ( New Window )

I'd expect Trump to win any internet poll like this, but the margin of victory is still pretty impressive.

but doubt some of his supporters care.

Carson - out of place.

tough questions, some good but several seemed juvenile attempts to instigate silly battles between candidates

Paul was honest but lost except to the Libertarians - also looked childish re: hugging Obama comment.

except for abortion question - Walker did not do that bad.

Bush struggles unnecessarily with questions

Huckabee will have good quotes but has no shot. (oven comment the other day was n ot one of them).

Kasich did fairly well, may not be rabid enough to win the nomination.

Christie did ok. Won't win though.

but what was with those questions? Many of them directly pitted two of the candidates against each other and it seemed they wanted manufactured fights. That was absurd. I would rather have had policy questions. The first debate was far superior.

I thought the moderators asked personally tough questions (you say X but when you were governor you we shitty on that issue -- why should anyone trust you). I dont know that they asked any questions that challenged conservative heterodoxy (are Dems right about X). Not sure you need that in a party primary debate, but it was interesting. All the questions seemed to be an invitation to tack right.

The moderators were plainly trying to sink Trump.

Every candidate up there pledged to support Trump if he is the GOP nominee. Everyone but Trump pledge to support Paul, Cruz, Huckabee, Graham, Carson, and Pataki. Think about that. That was some real thoughtless answering by them, IMO.

There's no telling how accurate these polls are - probably not very. But Scott Walker should be concerned.

Rand Paul (2946 Votes)5%
Jeb Bush (2960 Votes)5%
Ben Carson (6344 Votes)11%
Chris Christie (1599 Votes)3%
Ted Cruz (2760 Votes)5%
Mike Huckabee (1594 Votes)3%
John Kasich (5068 Votes)9%
Marco Rubio (5669 Votes)10%
Donald Trump (25938 Votes)47%
Scott Walker(739 Votes)1%

Time.com - ( New Window )

1. With the 1st question the moderators made it obvious they were gunning for Trump. That actually created some sympathy and a "circle the wagons" mentality among his supporters. And it masked the fact that when the more important questions were asked his answers were HIGHLY mediocre. In fact, if the 1st question had never been asked Trump would be seen as the loser of this debate.

2. After a rather mediocre performance on Monday in New Hampshire Kasich did quite well. Unfortunately it may be overlooked due to the Trump kerfluffle.

3. Also underplayed was the debate between Christie and Huckabee about entitlements. A KEY issue for this country for the next 20 years, but because they were gentlemen and stuck to those tricky things called facts it didn't get much play. If only a greater part of these debates were spent on discussions and issues like this.

4. Marco Rubio did well. Not well enough to separate himself from the pack, but enough to keep himself in any debate that includes the Top 6 candidates.

5. Walker didn't help himself but didn't destroy himself either.

6. Cruz locked up the current Cruz supporters, but I don't thing he expanded his base of support.

7. Carson had the line of the night at the end with his "brain" joke, but didn't expand his base of support.

8. Paul kept his libertarian base but added nothing to his group of supporters. Probably the loser of the debate.

9. Only Trump was more of a target of the mods than Bush. He did OK, but he did it quietly. Not a win but not a loss.

FACT OF THE NIGHT - I was shocked when the mods brought up the fact that the head of the Iranian QUDS force, Soliemanei, supposedly on the UN and Iran treaty sanctions list, had flown to Moscow this week to meet with the Russians. So what this means is that Russia has already violated the treaty and sanctions regime even before it is ratified.

From what I read about the Happy Hour debate it sounds like Carly Fiorina kicked ass. Query, which one of the Top 10 does she replace for the next debate?

previously...

trump is basically sealing the deal for HRC as oresident. he sounds like a f'n gorilla. had no answers. just blame everything on washington. made fun of his competitors.

I always thought many of the Republican candidates were laughing stocks now I realize it their voters. if you want to win presidency you don't vote for a guy who is pro HRC.

In comment 12406186 Deej said:

Quote:

I thought the moderators asked personally tough questions (you say X but when you were governor you we shitty on that issue -- why should anyone trust you). I dont know that they asked any questions that challenged conservative heterodoxy (are Dems right about X). Not sure you need that in a party primary debate, but it was interesting. All the questions seemed to be an invitation to tack right. The moderators were plainly trying to sink Trump. Every candidate up there pledged to support Trump if he is the GOP nominee. Everyone but Trump pledge to support Paul, Cruz, Huckabee, Graham, Carson, and Pataki. Think about that. That was some real thoughtless answering by them, IMO.

Who would you have them support otherwise?

In comment 12406333 njm said:

Quote:

From what I read about the Happy Hour debate it sounds like Carly Fiorina kicked ass. Query, which one of the Top 10 does she replace for the next debate?

I've enjoyed listening to her every time I've heard her speak, but her incompetence as HP CEO is too much to overcome for me.

I read an AP story this morning in our local propaganda rag and what they tell you happened was pretty much a loose approximation of what actually happened.

One part that really turned me off was not really about what went on in the debate last night, but it was in one of their descriptions of Trump where they said:

Quote:

Trump in particular has pushed the issue of immigration throughout the summer, drawing criticism for saying Mexican immigrants are rapists. He said Thursday that he had been told that by border patrol agents, and he took credit for immigration being an issue in the campaign.

(emphasis is mine)

We've all read or heard the quote by Trump and I think that this an absolutely unfair and dishonest depiction of what he actually said. I am not a Trump fan but this is a very disreputable statement bu the AP, IMO.

In comment 12406399 BrettNYG10 said:

Quote:

In comment 12406333 njm said: Quote: From what I read about the Happy Hour debate it sounds like Carly Fiorina kicked ass. Query, which one of the Top 10 does she replace for the next debate? I've enjoyed listening to her every time I've heard her speak, but her incompetence as HP CEO is too much to overcome for me.

It's not for me. I think that she explained her HP time well, I don't think people cannot progress from past problems, and she is very cogent. After the debate, she got into it with Chris Matthews and IMO made him look foolish. But I think Matthews has gone generally senile (he was drooling in conversation with Scarborough for a prolonged period after the Fiorina interview ended), so stunning him may not be that much of an accomplishment.

In comment 12406333 njm said:

Quote:

From what I read about the Happy Hour debate it sounds like Carly Fiorina kicked ass. Query, which one of the Top 10 does she replace for the next debate?

I say Rand Paul or Huckabee. Neither of them have a chance.

Trump is a broken record at this point, he keeps throwing the same punches and is obnoxiously repetitive to anyone paying close enough attention. We all know there is no real substance there and he showed that last night, while looking totally uncomfortable and put of his element. I also think he played it a little too safe. It's obvious word was sent down from Roger Ailes to dust him off last night, they were harder on him than anyone else by far. He's going to be a pain in the ass though throughout this process because of the 3rd party thing though. Republicans who aren't worried about that are kidding themselves. There's nothing holding him back. The reasons that would normally prohibit such a bid from a candidate don't apply to him

When Rubio first came on the scene a few years ago I immediately circled him as a bigtime threat going forward, gun to my head I'd have told you he is going to be president one day. His star had fallen off a little in my view since that time starting from that water bottle incident moving forward, but last night he reminded me why I respected him so much from a potential standpoint.

I thought Cruz helped himself too, gotta be honest though he's the one is love to most punch in the face. Something about Ted Cruz perpetually annoys the shit out of me and I find his face highly punch able. He is central casting if you're looking for a guy who just screams douchebag

Ben Carson handled himself better than I anticipated and his closing statement was very good

Jen Bush did nothing to help himself, is wholly uninspiring and a complete paper tiger. Last night really convinced me he doesn't have what it takes in this field to rise to the top

Scott Walker gives a lot of hardcore right wingers instant boners, but I don't think others get quite as excited by his bland presence.

Rand Paul was just swinging aimlessly and I don't think he connected. I give Christie the edge in their little head to head.

Kasich is my favorite republican, but I don't think he can win

Very fun watching last night. Tough to live up to the hype but I think it did

In comment 12406411 Bill L said:

Quote:

I read an AP story this morning in our local propaganda rag and what they tell you happened was pretty much a loose approximation of what actually happened. One part that really turned me off was not really about what went on in the debate last night, but it was in one of their descriptions of Trump where they said: Quote: Trump in particular has pushed the issue of immigration throughout the summer, drawing criticism for saying Mexican immigrants are rapists. He said Thursday that he had been told that by border patrol agents, and he took credit for immigration being an issue in the campaign. (emphasis is mine) We've all read or heard the quote by Trump and I think that this an absolutely unfair and dishonest depiction of what he actually said. I am not a Trump fan but this is a very disreputable statement bu the AP, IMO.

Except he actually said it. But yeah it's so unfair.

.

In comment 12406423 Bill L said:

Quote:

In comment 12406399 BrettNYG10 said: Quote: In comment 12406333 njm said: Quote: From what I read about the Happy Hour debate it sounds like Carly Fiorina kicked ass. Query, which one of the Top 10 does she replace for the next debate? I've enjoyed listening to her every time I've heard her speak, but her incompetence as HP CEO is too much to overcome for me. It's not for me. I think that she explained her HP time well, I don't think people cannot progress from past problems, and she is very cogent. After the debate, she got into it with Chris Matthews and IMO made him look foolish. But I think Matthews has gone generally senile (he was drooling in conversation with Scarborough for a prolonged period after the Fiorina interview ended), so stunning him may not be that much of an accomplishment.

I have a really hard time looking past it. She was arguably the worst CEO of all time. Her inability to navigate board politics is a huge strike against her given the nature of most boards - particularly since she made the wrong decision.

I think people can look past it, though, so I'm really just speaking for myself.

I've said multiple times that for all his flaws as an actual politician, Romney had an excellent 'paper resume' - high-quality business experience in addition to governing experience (which I value more highly).

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” Trump said. “They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”

In comment 12406550 BrettNYG10 said:

Quote:

In comment 12406423 Bill L said: Quote: In comment 12406399 BrettNYG10 said: Quote: In comment 12406333 njm said: Quote: From what I read about the Happy Hour debate it sounds like Carly Fiorina kicked ass. Query, which one of the Top 10 does she replace for the next debate? I've enjoyed listening to her every time I've heard her speak, but her incompetence as HP CEO is too much to overcome for me. It's not for me. I think that she explained her HP time well, I don't think people cannot progress from past problems, and she is very cogent. After the debate, she got into it with Chris Matthews and IMO made him look foolish. But I think Matthews has gone generally senile (he was drooling in conversation with Scarborough for a prolonged period after the Fiorina interview ended), so stunning him may not be that much of an accomplishment. I have a really hard time looking past it. She was arguably the worst CEO of all time. Her inability to navigate board politics is a huge strike against her given the nature of most boards - particularly since she made the wrong decision. I think people can look past it, though, so I'm really just speaking for myself. I've said multiple times that for all his flaws as an actual politician, Romney had an excellent 'paper resume' - high-quality business experience in addition to governing experience (which I value more highly).

I can understand that. But sometimes people learn from their mistakes. I would like to see her debate with the top group and be able to flesh out her ideas. She has impressed almost everyone I know that has seen/heard her. And I'd love to see her debate Hillary!

In comment 12406550 BrettNYG10 said:

Quote:

She was arguably the worst CEO of all time.

Ken Lay?

For that matter, Harry Truman may have been the worst haberdasher of all time.

.

In comment 12406423 Bill L said:

Quote:

It's not for me. I think that she explained her HP time well, I don't think people cannot progress from past problems, and she is very cogent. After the debate, she got into it with Chris Matthews and IMO made him look foolish. But I think Matthews has gone generally senile (he was drooling in conversation with Scarborough for a prolonged period after the Fiorina interview ended), so stunning him may not be that much of an accomplishment.

Her explanation that I've seen her give is that she got caught up in "board room brawl" that lasted a few weeks, and other people were bad guys who leaked info and she issued an ultimatum over that. Good story -- Carly comes off real good, upstanding, not even like a real firing. But its also complete, utter bullshit. Just false words. She did a bad job, sunk the stock and got fired; and when she was fired, the shareholders celebrated. The board was meeting for months about her shitty performance. Dont take my word for it -- read Bloomberg's 2005 post-mortem (good business source, and before all the politics could bias it).

I can make myself sound good if I lie about shit too. Did you know that I cured cancer? This isnt a little lie either -- her time at HP is her big accomplishment. She's done nothing for 15 years except get fired from HP, get fired from the McCain campaign, and lose an off-year Senate campaign by 10 points.
Bloomberg's 2005 blow-by-blow of her ouster from HP - ( New Window )

$70K and now his business is in trouble. I'd nominate him.

of Fiorina's

but maybe HP was her Cleveland Browns (equating her to Belichick).

She was kind of pioneering as a woman leader in fortune 50 company. And while I thought it was a bad idea, the Compaq merger was ballsy if nothing else.

If you want a female business leader I could support it's more Meg Whitman former eBay CEO (took them from startup to powerhouse) and now ironically head of HP.

In comment 12406572 BrettNYG10 said:

Quote:

.

And I just remembered, post-Goldman Jon Corzine.

In all these republican get togethers, and the references were flying last night. Now it's obvious why they have basically granted Reagan sainthood, because he's the only guy they have in the last 50+ years that wasn't an inarguable failure (Nixon disgraced the office, Bush 41 may be a great man but was only a 1 termer, and we all agree Bush 43 was a massive failure), so unless they hype the ever loving shit out of Reagan they have nothing to show for the last half century. But it's funny that the guy who raised taxes 11 times and granted amnesty among other things has become their poster boy, because he couldn't win in today's Republican Party

In comment 12406552 rut17 said:

Quote:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” Trump said. “They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”

"And some, I assume, are good people." (Just thought I would finish it for you).

And you should realize that the context is a discussion on illegal aliens.

I think it's a propaganda trick, but just in case it is not, you should know that people, Mexican or otherwise, enter the country through both legal and illegal means. While "immigrants" is used to obfuscate that, they are two separate things. No Republican, to my knowledge, has come out against legal immigration. More to the point, Trump specifically has said very positive things about Mexicans who have entered into the country legally.

SO, no, he did not say that Mexican immigrants are rapists. And, it is unfair of a news organization to claim that he did.

The mean old AP is just so unfair to poor Mr. Trump.

?

In comment 12406602 Bill L said:

Quote:

?

Seriously?? He called them rapists. Keep defending him all you want. It's not worth my time debating a clown like you.

.

In comment 12406592 MarshallOnMontana said:

Quote:

because he's the only guy they have in the last 50+ years that wasn't an inarguable failure - Bush 41 may be a great man but was only a 1 termer

I'd give my left nut for a President who from 1/20/2017 - 1/20/2021 would have a record on foreign policy as good as Bush 41s. I disagree about some of you other characterizations, but this one stood out. And when you dig down and look closely, Reagan's tax record is very different than that tired talking point. Point in fact, how many times did Reagan raise rates?

I think Bush 41 was a good man (is a good man), I think he was a better president than his son, but the fact that he only served 1 term is undeniably a big legacy impacter and a reason why he isn't celebrated as anything other than a placeholder, even by your own party. The American people rejected him after 1 term, and the whole talking point about Perot being the reason is just wholly false. Exit polls from 92 show that Perot took equal votes from both the left and the right, and if anything may have hurt Clinton more. When Perot dropped out of the race in spring of 92 (before re entering) Clitons lead over Bush only grew

Yet still managed to triple to deficit. Now I believe he was a net tax cutter, because the early cuts to the old style rates was massive (want to vomit -- check out top marginal rates under Eisenhower). He also oversaw a massive expansion of the federal government.

As governor, he instituted the largest tax increase by any state in history and doubled state spending.

If Ronald Reagan was running in the 2016 primary on his actual record (including amnesty, INF treaty with Russia, veto of the anti-apartheid bill, lack of response to the barracks bombing), he would not have made it to the big boy debate last night.

In comment 12406640 MarshallOnMontana said:

Quote:

I think Bush 41 was a good man (is a good man), I think he was a better president than his son, but the fact that he only served 1 term is undeniably a big legacy impacter and a reason why he isn't celebrated as anything other than a placeholder, even by your own party. The American people rejected him after 1 term, and the whole talking point about Perot being the reason is just wholly false. Exit polls from 92 show that Perot took equal votes from both the left and the right, and if anything may have hurt Clinton more. When Perot dropped out of the race in spring of 92 (before re entering) Clitons lead over Bush only grew

First of all I'm a registered Independent because:

a) I don't want to get 3 phone calls a night asking for money, and

b) I've heard Rick Santorum speak

And with respect to foreign policy I don't think anything near a majority consider Bush 41 a placeholder. And respect for that has slowly grown over the last 23 years. And another 25 years from now, I'll bet he's remembered very kindly by serious historians.

is an interesting creature of no one being incentivized to like him. Democrats had to run against a guy who was president when the USSR collapsed and when we fought an extraordinarily successful war. Republicans for some reason feel the need to give almost sole credit to Reagan's Star Wars and his Berlin speech as the cause of the fall of the Soviets. So no one is in GHWB's corner. Bush needs to be a bit of a villain on the right -- he's the cautionary tale of what will happen if you break a tax promise.

Im on the records as a fan of his. But that's my take.