OK, first off, let me say that these debates were way too early in the 2016 presidential election cycle. I think the Democrats, whose first scheduled debate is in October, have a more realistic schedule in terms of catching the public when it is at least somewhat more engaged.
I doubt anyone but political junkies paid much attention to these debates. But then, the GOP has such a massive field that they have to start narrowing it.
I watched almost all of the night debate among the top 10 polling GOP candidates, and about the second half of the afternoon debate among the "other 7."
Couple of notes before my impressions: 1. I watched this debate from the point of view of a moderate/liberal mostly Democrat. My impressions could be very different from those of a conservative Republican. 2. Fox News, which broadcast the debates, is nothing more than a broadcast political arm of the national Republican Party. For any who may doubt this, it was never more clear than in the night debate (more in a moment).
My view:
BIG LOSER:
DONALD TRUMP. I actually thought Trump gave a good performance. He was decisive, witty and well spoken. He's a media star and knows his way in front of a camera. But he was Trump being Trump. And in this instance, I think he was sabotaged by Fox and the Republican Party. They clearly set Trump up from the outset by asking candidates to take a pledge to support whoever the GOP nominated. Trump, of course, was the only one to raise his hand in refusal, which made a disastrous video clip for Republican voters. In addition, the Fox News team aggressively attacked Trump throughout. All in all, though I thought Trump performed well, the Fox attack worked, exposing him to great damage with the GOP faithful. If the GOP continues to use Fox to do its dirty work on Trump, he may not make it to Iowa and New Hampshire.
OTHER LOSERS:
MARCO RUBIO seems like a nice, smart guy, but he just didn't come off as presidential. At all.
RAND PAUL, though good on the issues, was eviscerated by Chris Christie. And it didn't help that whoever did his makeup made it look like he was wearing goggles!!! All in all, I should perhaps be thankful for this, because I think Paul would be the most dangerous GOP candidate in a general election.
TED CRUZ didn't get much of a chance, and the less screen time the better for him. What little time he got made him look like a pandering extremist. Cruz should leave the race ASAP if he wants to preserve any political future outside Texas.
NO HARM NO FOUL: These guys didn't do much to help or hurt their standing.
JEB BUSH will probably move to the front of the GOP pack before long, but it's more because of name recognition and establishment support than anything he's actually done. Bush stumbled around some early in the debate but gained his footing as he went on. He wasn't particularly strong, but he didn't hurt himself, although his positions on immigration and education run counter to that of the party majority and that was exposed somewhat.
SCOTT WALKER sounded presidential, but his performance was void of content. He basically just gave laundry list after laundry list of his bulleted positions. Might as well have been reading from his website.
MINOR WINNERS: I don't think there were any big winners in the night debate, though there was one in the daytime. These guys did better than most.
MIKE HUCKABEE is a professional broadcaster and former preacher, and it showed. He was well spoken, forceful and a strong presence onscreen. But he's still a radical evangelical and whatever little bounce he may get from this debate won't last. His audience, even within the GOP, is just too narrow.
BEN CARSON was maybe the biggest winner of the night debate. He seemed thoughtful, intelligent and funny, and came off as a non-professional politician while still belonging. On the downside, he's a black candidate running for the GOP nomination. ZERO chance. He also, I thought, flubbed the answer on race, at least for a general audience. First, he failed to criticize the Fox questioners for him being the only one asked the race question as the only black candidate. Second, he answered the question like a white man, giving the answer Republicans would want to hear rather than reflecting on his experience as a black man. Clarence Thomas, anyone?
CHRIS CHRISTIE was the clear winner in his exchange with Rand Paul, which is sure to get a lot of highlights play, and generally came off like a strong-willed guy who could be viewed as a strong leader. Considering his candidacy was basically on life support, this performance at least shows he's still got some life in him as a candidate.
BIG WINNER: One candidate REALLY stood out from the daytime field.
CARLY FIORINA just killed it in the "junior" debate in the afternoon. She may have actually benefited from being on this stage instead of the big one, as she got more airtime. She came off as a strong leader, intelligent, and well informed. She's a VERY formidable conservative woman (they actually exist!) and there's a good chance she could move into the top tier of candidates on this powerful performance.
HONORABLE MENTIONS: For honesty. I think either of these guys could be a formidable general election candidate, but they're likely dead in the water for being too "moderate" for the GOP.
JOHN KASICH: The Ohio governor was honest and funny in the night debate. And he really hit the ball out of the park on the gay marriage question. He said that though he opposes same-sex marriage, everyone deserves respect, and he recently attended a same-sex marriage and was happy for the couple. Further, if one of his daughters were gay, he would support her all the way. He also accepted Medicaid expansion through Obamacare. All in all, he'd probably have a better chance running as a Democrat.
LINDSEY GRAHAM: Yes, Graham is a superhawk, but he's honest and outspoken and isn't afraid to compromise in order to get things done. He had a great line in the daytime debate, saying he would be a Ronald Reagan if he could find a Tip O'Neil, a reference to how the two worked to get things accomplished in the House. Today's GOP is in no mood to compromise, even for the good of the country.
If you didn't watch the debates, don't worry. You'll get too many more chances, but don't wait too long if you want to see some of these guys. A bunch of them won't be in the race for long.
The gov. Could work in similar ways certain departments would help swallow the cost of other departments minimizing the debt we create which could then be taken care of by taxes. Which would work right if we didn't give so many tax credits and breaks
It should also be noted that in order to run the government, you can't hate government. That is a problem that some elements of the GOP have.
But as to your can't run a country like a business I ask why not?
Take the same fundental values of running a retail store. Then apply that to the respective departments of the gov. That seems like something worth trying and he'll its better than what we have now which is failing so miserebly the American people live in fear of another depression.
Also can you tell me the last president to try running the country as a business? Because I have done a fair amount of research into the subject and can't find even one that tried to
As far as what makes a good president .... that's actually pretty easy. Peace and prosperity. Notice that Bill Clinton, despite his foibles while in office, is getting much better grades from the public as time passes. He presided over no real wars and during a period of economic growth. To a slightly lesser extent, that was true of Reagan also, and his presidency is now regarded as a success. George W. Bush, by those standards, was the single most disastrous president of recent times. That has to have a negative impact on Jeb's candidacy.
It's going to be awfully hard to crack the two-party system in this country. The entire political system, including the Constitution, has it set up for a winner-take-all, two party system. And the American public is conditioned to think that way when voting. I think a special candidate under certain conditions might be able to be successful as a third candidate, but that's not something that's going to last. If a third party gained strength, it would likely wind up just eliminating one of the top two. This country just isn't set up as a parliamentary system.
All that said, in response to your question, I would have to ask: What do you consider the benchmark(s) that makes a good president?
Donald Trump is not the President, so I don't have to be restrained. Whenever I've seen him in past years, on TV, interviews, clips from here or there, he's made me cringe. Now, seeing the debate, and this last Sunday's MTP interview, he's positvely one outsized, unbridled, bloviating ego. It's always interesting reading autobiographies of past presidents, and all of them say that they are surprised at the limitations of thier power. You just can't pick up the phone and bark commands--it's called checks and balances for a reason. Listeing to Trump MTP interveiw on how he would handle the Iran negotiation, and you realize that he's completely out of touch and living in a utopia of his own making. Truly, for all his supposed smarts, he's clueless.
Just for clarification, the US is not a business. It's a country, and making some absurb agurment that you'd run it like a business is amazingly simplistic and thoughtless. Wheneve I hear a polician say, "...if I ran my business like that" I just shut down. Really, and your busness has a $650 billion defense budget too? Get a fucking clue.
I don't think the two party system is destoying the country. For the most part, in one way or another, it's always been a two party system. Politics in this country has always been scrappy and mean, and it's no differnt now, only with the exception it's 24/7 news cycle, and instead of calling our opponets out for a duel, we just find a rich billoniare to pummel the oppisition with negative ads. At the end of next season though you might get your wish, Trump said on his MTP interview that if he does not feel like he's getting any loving from the Republican elites then he has no qualm on jumping the ticket and running as an independent.
For a long time people have been voting by a certain standard of who would make the "better" president and EVERY single term at least since Reagan has gone down hill some worse than others but ALL were bad. Why continue voting by failing standards?
I would love to see what trump would do for us as president. He would be the first of his kind. So far he's proven to be far more truthful than any other candidate. He sucks at political intrigue. And he's the only one qualified at running a business as large as the united States.
Everyone else are all long standing politicians. There job is to garner votes for their party. That means lie, cheat, steal, bribe, and anything else you have to do to get the job done. I dare anyone to find any past presidents that haven't done those things during their term.
Also what do you think about more people running as independent? I think we need to break this trend of Republican vs. Democrat bs. It's destroying our country
It's fine if conservatives enjoy Fox, but don't be under any illusions about it. It is NOT a news network. Always keep that in mind.
I know conservatives like to say the major news networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) are in the back pocket of the Democrats. That simply isn't true. While those networks may be philosophically closer to the Dems, they are not in bed with the Dems the way Fox is with the GOP. For example, recall the Monicagate scandal. The major networks love a scandal, and it doesn't matter which party is involved.
BTW, I think the main reason Fox and the GOP yielded this time around was because of the enormous ratings the first debate drew. That gave Trump the hammer in this argument.
I find it much more alarming that a number of polls out this week show Ted Cruz picking up significant support. Now that's a scary thought. Cruz is a MUCH more dangerous politician than Trump. Kind of a crazier version of Joseph McCarthy!!!
If Cruz becomes a contender, it will be proof that Republicans really have lost touch with reality!
Believe it or not, Trump might actually be a much better president than a number of the Bozos the GOP has trotted out this time around.
You had this scoop last week. :)
I imagine the GOP nominee will be Jeb, with an outside shot for Scott Walker. Both, however, are going to have to get much better than they showed Thursday.
Rubio can't be Jeb's VP choice, for a couple of reasons (same state, both too moderate), but he'd be a perfect fit for Walker.
I wish that I could take back my BC comments from the other night. Listening to different portions of his comments again, and reading different commentary, I did not pick up on the implications of his message. Maintaining silence about torturing people, as BC suggested, is not level headed (as I stated) or reasonable policy at all. :(
@fenway--for some reason, me being suspended in a sling is not something that crosses my mind while watching a debate. That said, Marco Rubio naked, with some facial hair, getting nasty, could be a groovy thing while swaying in a sling.
Spare me the false outrage!!!!! The Fox women are paid to look pretty and act mean, and Kelly fills that role to a T. She was a bitch during the debate, and Trump called her out on it. She's not a newswoman. She's a bad actress playing one. Hell, maybe blood was coming out of her whatever. :)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/08/politics/donald-tru … index.html
I find it ironic that the GOP is trying so hard to shove Trump out of the race when Thursday's debate had the highest ratings in the history of Fox News and was the highest rated show of the summer. They should be trying to keep Trump in. He brings their candidates far more exposure than they would get without him.
Fenway, couldn't see him real good, but it kind of looked to me like Christie may have gained some of the weight back since his weight-loss surgery. That's not all that unusual.
With a year+ left in this process, I'm not writing off anybody. Biden brings some unique dynamics, so it would be fun to see him out and stirring up the pot. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds on the Dem's side.
For sure some of the questions were more leading tonight than others, but with 10 candidates, one minute response, it did not allow for any depth (that's being generous).
And Fur, I don't know about Biden. Hillary's campaign is taking a low-key approach right now and is taking a lot of heavy hits without doing much to negate them. I don't see Biden entering the race unless it looks like she has suffered too much damage. Biden is well known enough that he can afford to enter the race late, if need be.
I also say don't write Hillary off yet. Most voters are not even engaged in next year's race, so they're not paying attention to all the day in, day out stuff that us political junkies pay attention to. But she has dangerously high negative numbers for a presidential candidate at this stage of the race. One survey early this week put her negative perception number at 48 percent. She's going to have to get that down some before the Democratic primaries.
Nonetheless ... I was an ardent Hillary supporter in 2008. She has yet to engage me this time around. Not to say she won't, but things don't seem to be clicking for her so far. She needs to reinvigorate Democratic voters about herself as a candidate.
As far as Cruz goes .... The Republican Party in Texas is one VERY sick puppy, Fur. GOP candidates are in a headlong race to see who can be the most extremist. Problem is, mainstream voters haven't figured this out yet and just check the straight ticket box, electing whatever GOP creep is the nominee, no matter how extreme. I keep hoping the public will eventually figure this out, but I'm not optimistic about it happening anytime soon.
I was not surprised by any of the positions, what bums me out are the millions of people that agree with many of these stances. It's post-debate, and FOX is still on--the Megan Kelly Show, and it's amazing the terse rhetoric, concerning foreign policy, from both Cruz and Huckabee, is what is resonating with the Republicans who viewed the debate. They are talking to these Ohio Republicans and they gobbled it up. :(
Trump--he looked terrible. His lack of a response to the question about his accusations of the Mexican gov't actively sending
criminals to the US; he also looked terrible on his response about buying politicians for favors in the future, you could feel the exciting flame being snuffed out on that response. His Rosie comment was creepy, and it was creepy that not one of the candidates called him out on it for being a creep.
Paul got knocked around tonight, but I like how he held his own; according to the pundits that I'm watching now he did not do well. What do I know?
The Christie and Paul face-off was interesting as it's going to be an internal question that the Party is going to have deal with....there are a lot of paranoid Republicans that for sure agree with Paul's stance.
Scott Walker for sure is going to be bummed out about his abortion stance....he will never escape his response tonight.
Gee, my Dad was a bartender, my Dad was a mailman, my Dad was an alcoholic and left my family...these guys could not have fought harder to show their supposed humble beginnings. JEB! amazingly was silent on that one! :)
John Kasich's response to his own personal feelings about gay marriage and religious liberty was perfect. As an aside, he is one Republican candidate who does not come off as a hater, I think he's going to pick up traction and will be a candidate coming in down the stretch next summer. Again, what do I know?
Ted Cruz is an ass. I have no idea what appeals to your cousins there in Texas about him, Bear, but he is one destructive mean-spirited creep.
Carson came off level-headed. That said, knowing how incredibly conservative he is...it's hard to listen to him.
I still can't believe that there's more than 15 more months of this to go.... (eye roll).
Bear, you think Biden is going to run? Any thoughts on it?