|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| Fox News, which is hosting the first debate next Thursday in Cleveland, says that they will include the top 10 candidates from an average of the five most recent national polls. But Fox News isn’t saying which polls they will use to calculate their average, leaving the rest of us to play a guessing game. [...] Who's In According to an ABC News analysis of five recent major national polls on July 27 ... Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson. Who's Out Another three candidates are almost certainly going to miss the mark. Carly Fiorina, George Pataki and Lindsey Graham [...] Chris Christie and Rick Perry currently hold the last two spots on the debate stage. John Kasich, who just announced his candidacy last week, misses the debate stage by just two-tenths of a percentage point. Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal are close behind, but still watching from home on Aug. 6. FULL STANDINGS (as of July 27): 1. Trump – 18 percent 2. Bush – 14 percent 3. Walker – 11 percent 4. Rubio – 6 percent T5. Paul – 6 percent T5. Cruz – 6 percent 7. Huckabee – 6 percent 8. Carson – 5 percent 9. Christie – 3.0 percent 10. Perry – 2.2 percent 11. Kasich – 2.0 percent 12. Santorum – 1.6 percent 13. Jindal – 1.4 percent 14. Fiorina – 0.8 percent 15. Pataki – 0.6 percent 16. Graham – 0.2 percent [...] |
Also, I believe the losers get a pre-debate debate at 5 pm before the real one starts.
Interesting dynamics
Trump dislikes Jeb
Perry dislikes Trump
Christie dislikes Rand
Cruz and Trump like each other
No. There's no reason to publicly back anyone this early. And they have to know that Trump is about as certain to lose the general election as any candidate in the field.
it is going to just be a mess
everyone will just be attacking trump, and trying to be quoted with rehearsed soundbites
I still think Walker wins the nomination.
I think Trump is in it for Trump. It's kind of his thing. He doesnt give a half shit about the base or the party.
That's messed up. And people get mad when someone questions Hillary...
They've been awful this election season.
It actually wasn't a dig at her, but seeing as merely bringing up her name made you all frothy, can you imagine how you'd respond if I gave her a squirting flower and floppy shoes?
Notice how when you do the '....', it's implied you are saying more.
Quote:
That's messed up. And people get mad when someone questions Hillary...
Sucks when someone insults your candidates eh?
I don't think Trump lasts. I despises all the Bushes, & think Jeb can't hide his last name forever. Rubio scares me as a Democrat. Walker could be formidable.
August 6th will be interesting. I'm expecting people to go after Trump.
Regardless of people's civil liberties concerns, I don't think the average person is comfortable with Paul re: National Security.
Carson and Cruz are wasting everyone's time participating in the debate. Same-same Huckabee - but he's been there before.
Is it the oops thing? Did it prove what some people already thought?
He has this mirror like quality - he's more effective when reflecting off another candidate.
The smart ones will let him self-destruct. Clearly does not have any real vision or policy expertise. It's all about fireworks - and that is only entertaining for so long.
They've been awful this election season.
You mean they aren't toeing the line as usual? And Hillary deserves all the bad press she gets. She choose to put her emails on that server. I guess the fallout from it isn't as bad as if all her emails were exposed.
I don't have to make up any charges. There is plenty there already.
But the 'liberal media', which for decades has included the NYT, just loves HRC.
But the 'liberal media', which for decades has included the NYT, just loves HRC.
The NYT was erroneous and (apparently under pressure from the campaign) corrected.
But it wasn't garbage to the extent that the IG did call for an investigation. A security investigation, not a criminal one. And Clinton was not named as a target. The did explicitly state that, in direct contradiction to her public statements, she had classified material on her email and that it was not classified after the fact but from the moment of inception. It does not mean anything criminal.
It's almost a split the baby for all sides, terrible writing giving a misleading impression, but not garbage either.
Do you really want me to go into that...it's a fairly long list, but they all have one thing in common. She is a selfish, entitled morally bankrupt person who will do anything to get and keep power.
I still think Walker wins the nomination.
No, shitforbrains, you should leave for your constant "What a country" bitching.
Quote:
What are the charges? What are the nefarious things that HRC has done?
Do you really want me to go into that...it's a fairly long list, but they all have one thing in common. She is a selfish, entitled morally bankrupt person who will do anything to get and keep power.
Quote:
In comment 12388479 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
What are the charges? What are the nefarious things that HRC has done?
Do you really want me to go into that...it's a fairly long list, but they all have one thing in common. She is a selfish, entitled morally bankrupt person who will do anything to get and keep power.
I'd like to see the list. :)
Just a warning, I think Travelgate and Vince Foster make an appearance.
Not sure it's really that big of a deal though - these early primary debates aren't actually "debates". Theyre just an opportunity for the candidates to each have 4 minutes of time to give their sales pitch on television.
Everyone looking forward to that big Trump/Christie "showdown" are going to be really disappointed.
Not sure it's really that big of a deal though - these early primary debates aren't actually "debates". Theyre just an opportunity for the candidates to each have 4 minutes of time to give their sales pitch on television.
Everyone looking forward to that big Trump/Christie "showdown" are going to be really disappointed.
That's kind of too bad. They need to begin winnowing.
Once we get to the late fall and people start paying attention, the field will naturally constrict itself - but i think a lot of these guys will still be in play all the way through the convention. Its gonna be craziness for the next 14 months.
1. Will the candidates who Trumpified their campaigns to get air time get any benefir from it? The two main "culprits" there are Cruz and Huckabee.
2. Will anyone at the "Kiddie table" debate get some benefit? There will only be 6 on stage, so if the media pays any attention to it there probably a better chance to shine than in the main debate.
3. How will the moderators deal with Trump? With 10 candidates on stage this is the perfect venue for him to throw out unsupported negative one-liners with no time for refutation. Will he interrupt the other candidates and can they control that? Can they keep this as serious as possible given a 10 person field or will they let it become a reality TV clown show and revel in the ratings?
I can't see how there's going to be anything more substantial than a few sound bites.
Its an advantage for Trump. Hard to attack when you've only got a few seconds.
Its going to be a clusterF@#K. I will not bother watching.
. . . but that's not going to happen. I'm assuming more than one of those candidates will go into that debate with the strategy of getting into an exchange with Trump for the purpose of drawing more attention to themselves.
I think another challenge will be for the moderator not to antagonize him. Trump is very intuitive. If he gets asked a question that is the least bit slighting to him he'll sniff it out and go off.
Quote:
was garbage, or as a NYT writer put it, a 'mess'.
But the 'liberal media', which for decades has included the NYT, just loves HRC.
The NYT was erroneous and (apparently under pressure from the campaign) corrected.
But it wasn't garbage to the extent that the IG did call for an investigation. A security investigation, not a criminal one. And Clinton was not named as a target. The did explicitly state that, in direct contradiction to her public statements, she had classified material on her email and that it was not classified after the fact but from the moment of inception. It does not mean anything criminal.
It's almost a split the baby for all sides, terrible writing giving a misleading impression, but not garbage either.
No Bill, the article was hot wet garbage that had to go thru multiple "corrections" where even the corrections are evasive. Moreover, the entirety of the article is written in what can only be described as a highly suggestive but substance free manner. Newsweek demolished the piece.
I cant prove it, but my gut tells me this report's source was Gowdy's committee, and he's being fed nonsense. It isnt the first Clinton-email story the Times has had trouble on this year.
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246 - ( New Window )
Rubio – intelligent and charismatic, interesting background
Paul – much more rational and less isolationist than people think
Kasich – touted as a moderate, but perhaps Fiorina or Pataki fit the bill better for this spot
Santorum – (or Fiorina?, she is a decent and smart person)
Jindal – (or Pataki? not a fan of Pataki, but he was surprisingly well spoken on local TV recently)