2016 Presidential Debates Thread [2-13-'16 GOP South Carolina]

Tier one:
Fiorina gets the biggest bump, is the big winner. Jeb doesn't hurt himself, but doesn't show the chops that he needs to show. Rubio gets airtime that he needs but has a tone problem. Cruz shows some facility in spots, doesn't clown himself but doesn't really distinguish himself either.

Tier two:
Kasich's appeal doesn't really translate in this forum, Rand hit a couple of high notes and fizzled elsewhere, Carson isn't the trainwreck that I expected, Christie is flat but didn't self-destruct.

Tier three:
Trump got murdered in the first half and salvaged a bit in the second by showing some humility, but his better moments were of the "me, too" variety, which hardly plays to his strengths. Walker is an empty suit who has nothing to say beyond his personal narrative, which pales in comparison to others on the stage. Huckabee needs to hang 'em up.
 
I think it varies on your cup of tea.

I think Christie overall had a debate that would make him more appealing to the base. Carson brings nothing to the table. Rand did well in the limited time he had. Cruz and Walker are robots. No appeal or charisma unless you like how radical they are.

Jeb is just not as charismatic or charming as Dubya. He's like that introvert in class that is trying to be popular. Rubio will have fans but a lot of what he said was dull and he looked green. Huckster was solid if you agree with what he says. People are saying Donald was getting gangbanged but you'd never know it by his reaction and face. He is an asshole but he does have a charm to him which is why I think he's popular. They care more about his bluntness than policy. Just like they don't like their idea of America getting bullied around the world right now.
 
Rubio has the tendency to sound like the kid that gets teased and is ready to pull a columbine at any moment. He seems so tense whenever he talks it's not really a calm and welcoming tone. It just ends up making him look rather artificial.
 
BedellBrave said:
Funny how we hear tone differently.
Click to expand...

I did say it varies on your cup of tea. Rubio just screams artificial. Christie had some cliché one lines but his tone seems much more genuine.

I think FiorIna is this season's Herman Cain. Will jump into the lead at some point then just completey get forgotten about.
 
John Kasich might be the only one on that stage I could see voting for depending on things

I like part of what Rand said too

other than

Ted Cruz is ****ing insane and should be put in a hospital. seriously
 
The Don said:
I think it varies on your cup of tea.

I think Christie overall had a debate that would make him more appealing to the base. Carson brings nothing to the table. Rand did well in the limited time he had. Cruz and Walker are robots. No appeal or charisma unless you like how radical they are.

Jeb is just not as charismatic or charming as Dubya. He's like that introvert in class that is trying to be popular. Rubio will have fans but a lot of what he said was dull and he looked green. Huckster was solid if you agree with what he says. People are saying Donald was getting gangbanged but you'd never know it by his reaction and face. He is an asshole but he does have a charm to him which is why I think he's popular. They care more about his bluntness than policy. Just like they don't like their idea of America getting bullied around the world right now.
Click to expand...

I feel you on Jeb vs. W. As much as Dubs was clueless and out of his depth when things didn't go his way, as a campaigner he projected charm and alpha strength that Jeb doesn't show. I think Jeb beefed the question about pulling advisors from his brother/pops pretty badly. He had an opportunity to distinguish himself and didn't take it.

If Rubio was a better communicator, I think he would be an easy winner. Cruz (who makes me want to puke, mostly) is more palatable to me when I see flashes of big-brain lawyer, but he spends so much of his time playing to the cheap seats that it's hard to take him seriously. Walker is an empty suit.
 
BedellBrave said:
Funny how we hear tone differently.
Click to expand...

I'm with The Don on that one. Rubio seemed consistently nervous, strained, and strident, even when he had room to talk. His climate change answer probably played well in the room but would get socked out the park in a debate with an opponent who differed with him on substance. He had the best answer on immigration but he prefaced it with "sure, build a fence" in a way that was so unwieldy and forced that it was an obvious pander to the base. He's one of the best, if not THE best candidate on the stage, but he didn't carry himself that way.
 
From a debate standpoint, Fiorina, Christie and Rubio all had good nights. Trump had a bad night. I'm really surprised at how substandard Bush is on stage. Walker is about exciting as a coat of beige paint.

Carson has struck a cord with GOP folks, and I think he'd be doing better if he didn't sound like a guy who had just woken up from a surgery.

Kasich is probably my preferred choice out of them all, but he's probably too moderate to get the nod.

Paul had some good answers, but hardly any air time.

Cruz makes me want to rip my brain out.

If Huckabee wasn't so damn looney tunes on every social issue, he'd be a far more feasible candidate.
 
bravesnumberone said:
From a debate standpoint, Fiorina, Christie and Rubio all had good nights. Trump had a bad night. I'm really surprised at how substandard Bush is on stage. Walker is about exciting as a coat of beige paint.

Carson has struck a cord with GOP folks, and I think he'd be doing better if he didn't sound like a guy who had just woken up from a surgery.

Kasich is probably my preferred choice out of them all, but he's probably too moderate to get the nod.

Paul had some good answers, but hardly any air time.

Cruz makes me want to rip my brain out.

If Huckabee wasn't so damn looney tunes on every social issue, he'd be a far more feasible candidate.
Click to expand...

Carson sounds like he's the one high on marijuana. Has that weird smile on his face for every answer and his oratory levels are all on the same level.

Romney and McCain were moderates and were also the last two nominees. Kasich won't get the nomination not because he's a moderate, but because he doesn't have the starpower of Romney or McCain to get the nom as a moderate.

Cruz scares the hell out of me. He is probably the most conniving one on the stage. And the way he looks into the camera and talks reminds me of any movie where the fascist propaganda talking head speaks on a TV to everyone to assure them of safety, security, and prosperity.

Christie is aiming for the Romney angle too, with the "I'm a Republican governor in one of the most liberal states", he actually sounds like he has governed rather conservatively. Still don't think Southern Republicans would get fully behind him. Even Romney struggled a bit in the Deep South.
 
Julio3000 said:
I feel you on Jeb vs. W. As much as Dubs was clueless and out of his depth when things didn't go his way, as a campaigner he projected charm and alpha strength that Jeb doesn't show. I think Jeb beefed the question about pulling advisors from his brother/pops pretty badly. He had an opportunity to distinguish himself and didn't take it.

If Rubio was a better communicator, I think he would be an easy winner. Cruz (who makes me want to puke, mostly) is more palatable to me when I see flashes of big-brain lawyer, but he spends so much of his time playing to the cheap seats that it's hard to take him seriously. Walker is an empty suit.
Click to expand...

Hawk and I have gone back and forth on Jeb and his anchor that is Dubya. I think Jeb could win the nomination riding the coattails of Dubya (whom is still rather popular with the majority of Republicans). The loudest pop of the night in the crowd was when Jeb said "my brother kept us safe". Just shows you that Dubya is still very very popular amongst the base.

I think however that will hurt him ultimately in the general. Jeb may have the best chance to win the hispanic vote other than Rubio. Dubya carried the hispanic vote at 40% last time? I think Romney and McCain were in the 20's.
 
The Don said:
Carson sounds like he's the one high on marijuana. Has that weird smile on his face for every answer and his oratory levels are all on the same level.

Romney and McCain were moderates and were also the last two nominees. Kasich won't get the nomination not because he's a moderate, but because he doesn't have the starpower of Romney or McCain to get the nom as a moderate.

Cruz scares the hell out of me. He is probably the most conniving one on the stage. And the way he looks into the camera and talks reminds me of any movie where the fascist propaganda talking head speaks on a TV to everyone to assure them of safety, security, and prosperity.

Christie is aiming for the Romney angle too, with the "I'm a Republican governor in one of the most liberal states", he actually sounds like he has governed rather conservatively. Still don't think Southern Republicans would get fully behind him. Even Romney struggled a bit in the Deep South.
Click to expand...

Well, I think you have to look at it a different way than just McCain and Romney being moderate.

In 2008, McCain's main competition was Romney and Huckabee. McCain was hit hard early on for his stance on immigration that almost sunk his campaign. But the reverence people hold for him for his military service wasn't the only thing that helped him. With Romney, it was the whole moderate and Mormon thing. Huckabee didn't have the national appeal. Ron Paul just didn't jibe with a lot of Republicans. Fred Thompson and Rudy fizzled. Rudy was incredibly hawkish, but a very liberal Republican in other areas.

In 2012, Romney essentially flip flopped on quite a lot of things, not unlike John Kerry in 2004, but a bit more so. Rick Santorum is ****ing nuts, and most people understood that. Newt was old news. Ron Paul had his base, not much else. Herman Cain and Rick Perry fizzled early. Bachmann, see Santorum. Huntsman never stood a chance, but I think he would have been a solid president.

It's not like McCain and Romney were going up against really good conservative communicators. I think there's a few in this race that have more potential to be that. There's some craziness, but it's a deeper field overall.

I think a lot of Republicans see it as they have had nearly seven years of Obama by now, and they think he has gotten far more liberal in his second term, particularly following the mid-terms, and they want a complete overhaul.

In the end, something tells me the ticket will end up being Rubio/Kasich. They'd be complete dumbasses not to at least have Kasich, considering how crucial Ohio is.
 
bravesnumberone said:
Well, I think you have to look at it a different way than just McCain and Romney being moderate.

In 2008, McCain's main competition was Romney and Huckabee. McCain was hit hard early on for his stance on immigration that almost sunk his campaign. But the reverence people hold for him for his military service wasn't the only thing that helped him. With Romney, it was the whole moderate and Mormon thing. Huckabee didn't have the national appeal. Ron Paul just didn't jibe with a lot of Republicans. Fred Thompson and Rudy fizzled. Rudy was incredibly hawkish, but a very liberal Republican in other areas.

In 2012, Romney essentially flip flopped on quite a lot of things, not unlike John Kerry in 2004, but a bit more so. Rick Santorum is ****ing nuts, and most people understood that. Newt was old news. Ron Paul had his base, not much else. Herman Cain and Rick Perry fizzled early. Bachmann, see Santorum. Huntsman never stood a chance, but I think he would have been a solid president.

It's not like McCain and Romney were going up against really good conservative communicators. I think there's a few in this race that have more potential to be that. There's some craziness, but it's a deeper field overall.

I think a lot of Republicans see it as they have had nearly seven years of Obama by now, and they think he has gotten far more liberal in his second term, particularly following the mid-terms, and they want a complete overhaul.

In the end, something tells me the ticket will end up being Rubio/Kasich. They'd be complete dumbasses not to at least have Kasich, considering how crucial Ohio is.
Click to expand...

I've been hearing or years that Rubio is the guy to articulate the conservative message in a fresh and inclusive way, and I understand it in the abstract, but I just haven't seen it from him. I think he and Jebbers are the only potential general election winners in the bunch. Walker has some generic appeal, but he's been less than impressive so far. Strikes me as an empty suit. Kasich actually has the track record of a guy who can unite and lead, but I doubt he'll play with the base (even as a VP) and is pretty low-wattage for the big stage. Not that I think that should discount him, but it's likely to. Cruz could galvanize the right, but he is a seriously flawed national candidate. His appeal has always been so rooted in opposition and reaction that I can't even imagine how he would play to a nationwide audience.

I guess there's Christie, but . . . I dunno.
 
The Don said:
Carson sounds like he's the one high on marijuana. Has that weird smile on his face for every answer and his oratory levels are all on the same level.
Click to expand...
He did look and sound like he was on medication, almost slurring his speech at times. Maybe he always sounds like that, I dunno, or maybe he's always on medication. I had heard so much about him that I was expecting more.

Cruz scares the hell out of me. He is probably the most conniving one on the stage. And the way he looks into the camera and talks reminds me of any movie where the fascist propaganda talking head speaks on a TV to everyone to assure them of safety, security, and prosperity.
Click to expand...
I think he's a shyster. Are we to believe that a graduate of Harvard Law School doesn't know how to pronounce "Ayatollah Khomeini"?
 
Carson never gave a straight answer. He qualified every answer by taking the other side.

I appreciate someone seeing both sides and even see it as a quality in leadership -- but, this process is meant to give us a peek into what the candidates would do with "both sides". He avoided that -- and in some circles gets credit
 
Julio3000 said:
I'm with The Don on that one. Rubio seemed consistently nervous, strained, and strident, even when he had room to talk. His climate change answer probably played well in the room but would get socked out the park in a debate with an opponent who differed with him on substance. He had the best answer on immigration but he prefaced it with "sure, build a fence" in a way that was so unwieldy and forced that it was an obvious pander to the base. He's one of the best, if not THE best candidate on the stage, but he didn't carry himself that way.
Click to expand...

Maybe it was because I didn't watch all of the debate, or because I actually like Rubio as a candidate, but in the time I watched I thought his tone was strong & forceful (though not pugilistic) and controlled. He wasn't bumbling like Bush, pandering like Cruz, nervous like Carson, quirky like Kasich, bullying like the Don, etc.

I think the specific points you make about climate change and immigration have more to do with your views and policy difference than they do to tone. I didn't hear/see the one about immigration, but I did see the one on climate change. My thought on it as regard to tone and strategy within the context was that he sounded confident, direct and concerned (about the economic stresses involved). Strategically, he was able connect with a base full of skeptics of liberal "cures" with a populist/economic concern and in a way that went right at a press and liberal bias (which of course plays well).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top