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

Except Rubio confuses his compelling narrative with, real life !! He still insists on claiming his Grandfather escaped the communists in Cuba in 1957. Something as simple as that
His dance on immigration should tell anyone of the Right Bent he will twist turn and give the expedient answer. Depending the audience

Rubio will get chewed up on the national stage. Kinda like he has been in the Senate.
Did he really say last night he won't run for re-election?
Not sure what he runs on

from Dr Carson last night:

"the fact of the matter is, we have extremely well-documented proof that there's no autism associated with vaccinations. But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time.

And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that, and, I think, are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that's appropriate."

"put your right foot out
then your left foot in
and you do the hookey pookey and
you turn it all about "
 
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...

Huckabee is a great communicator. Simply is. Clear, measured, good tone, comes across as positive, etc. That's his strength and weakness (in that he sounds like a positive Baptist mega-church preacher, with all that that persona brings with it).

Paul was interesting to me - I actually loved his points about marijuana, 10th amendment, racial injustices, incarceration problems - I mean those where great and yet somehow in the end of his statements he seemed to lose the gains he had made. I'm not sure exactly why. Julio I think is onto part of it in one of his comments earlier. But by the end of exchanges between say Paul and Christie, where I started out aligning with Paul, by the end of the exchange my sympathies were with Christie and I thought Paul was taking whiny, cheap-shots.

Cruz has a big brain that's for sure. He's as articulate as they come and has a substantial resume - but he's creepy to me as well and I've just seen his cheap political stunts over the past year or so and he's lost me.

Katich would make a great VP or chief of staff. Politically, I think he's great on so many points and he'd certainly help the GOP electorally - they aren't winning without Ohio. Rubio-Kasich would be an interesting ticket or Fiorina-Kasich or Rubio-Fiorina.

Carson, I like him as an individual, but he's not ready and may never be. I think he got eaten alive on his Afghanistan answer. There's plenty of room to go against our Iraq actions, but not against the initial response in Afghanistan.

I was surprised by Bush too - I had just assumed that he'd be a smoother, more articulate version of W. But dang.
 
57Brave said:
Except Rubio confuses his compelling narrative with, real life !! He still insists on claiming his Grandfather escaped the communists in Cuba in 1957. Something as simple as that
His dance on immigration should tell anyone of the Right Bent he will twist turn and give the expedient answer. Depending the audience

Rubio will get chewed up on the national stage. Kinda like he has been in the Senate.
Did he really say last night he won't run for re-election?
Not sure what he runs on

from Dr Carson last night:

"the fact of the matter is, we have extremely well-documented proof that there's no autism associated with vaccinations. But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time.

And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that, and, I think, are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that's appropriate."

"put your right foot out
then your left foot in
and you do the hookey pookey and
you turn it all about "
Click to expand...

What's your point about Carson?
 
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...

It seems that way to me - or some combination of Rubio/Fiorina/Kasich. Long way to go yet, but those names just make too much political sense to me.
 
BedellBrave said:
It seems that way to me - or some combination of Rubio/Fiorina/Kasich. Long way to go yet, but those names just make too much political sense to me.
Click to expand...

GOP can't win without Bush, unless it's 1000000000% sure that Rubio can take Florida.

If you Can't win Florida, you can't win the election.
 
Krgrecw said:
GOP can't win without Bush, unless it's 1000000000% sure that Rubio can take Florida.

If you Can't win Florida, you can't win the election.
Click to expand...

Not sure they can win with Bush. As much as I might like Bush's position on immigration and his Latino sympathies, he's unnecessarily ticked off the base, has committed several unforced errors, and well remains a Bush.
 
BedellBrave said:
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).
Click to expand...

Well, I appreciate the point about tone being perceived differently. I just felt like he was trying so hard to come across as "strong and forceful" that it would have been more subtle to wear a giant sign around his neck that said "strong and forceful."

The climate change answer did sound pugilistic and overly strident to me, a little over the top, and while it was good for the audience, it would have been easily countered if given in an actual debate—even a GOP debate—instead of this weird forum. Oddly enough, Ann Coulter's shot at him was pretty spot-on. "Now I'm in Reaganesque Great Communicator Mode." "Now I'm in Forceful Alpha Daddy Leader Mode." "Now I'm in Compelling Personal Story Mode." Seriously, I understand the hype, but I've never seen him in a venue where I feel like he lives up to it.

Part of my problem with his immigration answer is precisely that he WAS pandering, and he's the guy who's supposed to be the leader on the issue. He's supposed to be the grownup, and prefacing your remarks with "there needs to be a wall, absolutely" is not a grownup answer. I think his rejoinder about communicating his message in Spanish was one of the best and most genuine moments in the debate (and you can tell he is comfortable with the answer, believes it, and has communicated it many times).

Again, to me he's always been the guy who SHOULD grab the flag and carry it forward, but I'm not sure that he's going to have the skills to connect with the general electorate.
 
BedellBrave said:
Not sure they can win with Bush. As much as I might like Bush's position on immigration and his Latino sympathies, he's unnecessarily ticked off the base, has committed several unforced errors, and well remains a Bush.
Click to expand...

Did anybody here see the movie The Happening (the one where the plants and vegetation emits some sort of stuff that makes humans kill themselves)? M Night Shamalyn(sp) flick? Good premise, pretty good actors, really good (IMO) director but the movie was terrible. The acting all looked "stiff and forced", hard to put your finger on exactly what the problem was, it just didn't flow the way a movie should flow. That's how Rubio strikes me. Nice looking fellow, obviously knows stuff, seems to have a good personality and at least gives the impression that he has something to say, but when he says it it just doesn't "feel right". It reminds me of the acting in that movie, it just doesn't seem "natural".

Carson seems like a nice man, but I agree with you guys, just don't see him as presidential, or even as a politician, which coming from me would seem to be a compliment.

Cruz reminds me of the former president of Iran, obviously intelligent but the ****e that comes out of his mouth scares me. He seems to represent the most radical "last days" elements of religion, like the Ahmadneisfsjfajidad supposedly thought he was supposed to be the Muslim who did the stuff necessary to usher in the 12th Imam and the end of the world, which of course would mean the end of all non Muslims. Cruz has that creepy vibe about religion too, a story I heard that his dad supposedly said that Cruz was (in his opinion/prophetic judgement) one of the last day prophets who was supposed to carry out God's orders regarding "taking the wealth of the sinners which had been laid up for the just" and apparently in Cruz Sr.'s screenplay his son was going to play one of "the just". RUN, don't walk away from this ahole.

Kasich reminds me a little of Newt, who could say some of the most brilliant stuff you ever heard and usually it came when he wasn't being a partisan buffoon but just simply speaking from the heart, but then 5 minutes later he'd be talking about the "Kenyan tribesman" in the White House. I've heard Kasich say some great stuff, then turn around and have a WTF moment. I do agree he'd make a good VP, in the great and recent tradition of fairly smart people who say really dumb stuff.

I don't know enough about Fiorino, she seems like a business person version of Carson to me, not an insult just a "what are you doing running for president" kind of thing.

I think Rand Paul just did what most politicians do sooner or later, he sold out some of his core beliefs in trying to be all things to all people. I heard him on Bill Maher one night and he sounded like somebody who actually stood for certain things and wasn't going to sell out just to be popular. Then the campaigning started...

Bush baffles me, I've heard him speak before and sounded scarily good, I say scarily because I DON'T want another Bush or another Clinton in the White House, but his campaigning seems more like somebody who wants to remain relevant politically but not really challenge anybody who's ahead of him, quite a few WTF moments.

Walker is a slime ball IMO on a par with any I've ever seen. He's so good at what he REALLY does that the Koch's actually bought him a pair of monogrammed Gucci knee pads.

Trump is still Trump. Good speaker, not great, but seems to know how to keep his crowd interested. Has zero idea what he would do if elected, no specific plans at all except, "elect me and I'll make the nation great again", but nothing really important beyond that. He says whatever he thinks and doesn't back down or apologize and the "I'm sick of political correctness" crowd loves him.

I'd still like to see a Bernie vs. Trump run next year. Imagine how many strokes, heart attacks, and nervous breakdowns that would give the establishment on both sides!!!
 
Trump's campaign/ appeal reminds me of Jesse Ventura.
I'll let 50pound tell us how that song goes

Carson is an empty suit in the Hubert Cane tradition. I keep waiting for him to say "999" then qualified by , "but, 666 is good too"

Bush doesn't seem to have his heart in it. I watched him govern for 8 years after getting beat by Lawton Chiles. He had a fire then. Not so much now - and, he said 43 kept us safe on the most watched show in CNN history. Too many unforced errors

I agree with Trump on Fiorini :) . Let's remember why she is here -- because she was run out of business on a rail then thought she had had the hubris to think she had a governing message. That message being - "I can be a prick too" I don't see her appeal selling nationally

until he folded on vaccinations last night I thought Paul was sensible. He was spot on on immigration. I did think he was going to walk across the stage and punch Trump early on when Trump mocked his poll numbers.

Does anyone else think it a matter of time before this gets physical? Not just Paul and Trump. If I was Jeb I would have pushed Trump on the issue of insulting his wife. Christie wouldn't take that crap

Christie and Walker are damaged goods.

Cruz and Rubio remind me of Eric Canter. Back benchers - with a very very narrow national constituency. I thought Rubios joke about his water was a reference to his flub of the response to State or the Union. See what I mean -- he doesn't connect.

Kasich comes off Presidential. I disagree with him strongly on policies. But as far as having to have someone I could trust to not go rogue with the nuclear code or even to negotiate internationally or deal with the everyday politics of 300M people --- he is head and shoulders above the rest

....

Only things missing were Sarah or Michelle
 
AdolescentEvergreenElephantbeetle.gif
 
Finally was able to watch the debate. Had to avoid this thread for spoilers.

As expected, I found it light on substance but highly entertaining. If Trump is going to stick he's going to need to start expounding on some of his more bombastic promises -- I think it was Tapper (in tandem with Bush?) who called him out, just a little bit, on his immigration plan. But I really wanted to see him pressed on the details; he's grown accustomed to the little wave of his hand and the 'I promise' or 'I guarantee' answers, but I think at some point -- quite soon -- the electorate says that jig is up. Otherwise, I thought the apperance attack on Rand 'Poodle' Paul was golden, but pretty juvenile.

Jeb was pretty unimpressive. His bumbling is a little endearing to me in a Pappy kind of way, but he definitely looked extremely overmatched in one-on-one sparring and like Julio/SAV pointed out he's clearly lacking what W. was expert at exuding: school-boy charm and sloppy frat boy machismo. The scene when he turned to Donald and said, 'Good one!' after the former said that Humble would be his Secret Service nickname literally made me laugh out loud. As has always been the gripe, he gets a little too professorial at times and seems to have difficulty succinctly or concisely presenting his ideas. His winning line was that his brother kept the country safe, but he botched the overall line of questioning and I thought he butchered the Roberts question. It's going to continue to be an uphill battle for him to distance himself from his family, and it disappoints me that his consultants haven't better prepared his responses to topics like the Iraq War.

As for the rest of the lot, I agree with 57 that Carson acted like he was medicated and nauseatingly non-committal. That said, I think he would be an excellent VP. Fiorina knows her stuff, but she comes across as a cold, nagging uber-bitch in the mold of Michele Bachmann. Rubio didn't impress, likewise Walker -- who is the definition of one-trick pony. Kasich intrigues me, he's folksy and has a truly sellable track-record. Cruz desperately wanted to 'jump into the briar patch' by claiming he was a climate change skeptic ... the perfect example of why I can't take him seriously ... wish Tapper had given him the opportunity to make a dunce of himself in that situation.

More later.
 
From Trump's advisor, if he had one: Just stand there and say nothing. Try to look presidential. Every few minutes, appear to be amused. Say nothing.
 
what is honestly the point of having so many "candidates" up on stage? Like do we really need Fiorina up there? She is a terrible candidate with no earthly shot of winning. I know Rand has no shot, either, but he's at least a good, worthwhile candidate, and would have a shot if the GOP weren't the GOP. People like her being up there is almost like a show, and it takes away from actual candidates' time to talk. I'd like to hear more from Rand, but nope! We need that Trump v. Fiorina reality show minutes! Christie, too. He has no shot and just takes up (a lot of) air and space.
 
Hawk said:
Finally was able to watch the debate. Had to avoid this thread for spoilers.

As expected, I found it light on substance but highly entertaining. If Trump is going to stick he's going to need to start expounding on some of his more bombastic promises -- I think it was Tapper (in tandem with Bush?) who called him out, just a little bit, on his immigration plan. But I really wanted to see him pressed on the details; he's grown accustomed to the little wave of his hand and the 'I promise' or 'I guarantee' answers, but I think at some point -- quite soon -- the electorate says that jig is up. Otherwise, I thought the apperance attack on Rand 'Poodle' Paul was golden, but pretty juvenile.

Jeb was pretty unimpressive. His bumbling is a little endearing to me in a Pappy kind of way, but he definitely looked extremely overmatched in one-on-one sparring and like Julio/SAV pointed out he's clearly lacking what W. was expert at exuding: school-boy charm and sloppy frat boy machismo. The scene when he turned to Donald and said, 'Good one!' after the former said that Humble would be his Secret Service nickname literally made me laugh out loud. As has always been the gripe, he gets a little too professorial at times and seems to have difficulty succinctly or concisely presenting his ideas. His winning line was that his brother kept the country safe, but he botched the overall line of questioning and I thought he butchered the Roberts question. It's going to continue to be an uphill battle for him to distance himself from his family, and it disappoints me that his consultants haven't better prepared his responses to topics like the Iraq War.

As for the rest of the lot, I agree with 57 that Carson acted like he was medicated and nauseatingly non-committal. That said, I think he would be an excellent VP. Fiorina knows her stuff, but she comes across as a cold, nagging uber-bitch in the mold of Michele Bachmann. Rubio didn't impress, likewise Walker -- who is the definition of one-trick pony. Kasich intrigues me, he's folksy and has a truly sellable track-record. Cruz desperately wanted to 'jump into the briar patch' by claiming he was a climate change skeptic ... the perfect example of why I can't take him seriously ... wish Tapper had given him the opportunity to make a dunce of himself in that situation.

More later.
Click to expand...

Interested to hear your impressions.

Walker's public employee unions schtick is the "noun, verb, 9/11" of this presidential cycle. If there is a problem that can be solved by kicking public employees in the teeth, he's definitely the guy. I think Kasich would be good—very good—in a small room and is hamstrung trying to run to the right. He doesn't have much of a choice, but he's definitely not playing to his strengths.

Rubio is the puzzler to me. I think that the positive reviews from his performance are mostly from those in the conservative commentariat desperate to get Trump off the stage and ambivalent to Jeb. I was seriously underwhelmed. He's the political version of a five-tool-can't-miss prospect who hits the bigs and plays only well enough to stay in the lineup.

Bush was, as you, say unimpressive . . . never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I disagree with you about Fiorina. She was sharp on policy and, IMO, polished and tone-appropriate. When her answers got longer she delved into what sounded to me like mushy corporate motivational speech (which is probably exactly what it was) and lost me entirely, but there was no single person on the stage who did more to help her cause than did she.
 
Hawk said:
Finally was able to watch the debate. Had to avoid this thread for spoilers.

As expected, I found it light on substance but highly entertaining. If Trump is going to stick he's going to need to start expounding on some of his more bombastic promises -- I think it was Tapper (in tandem with Bush?) who called him out, just a little bit, on his immigration plan. But I really wanted to see him pressed on the details; he's grown accustomed to the little wave of his hand and the 'I promise' or 'I guarantee' answers, but I think at some point -- quite soon -- the electorate says that jig is up. Otherwise, I thought the apperance attack on Rand 'Poodle' Paul was golden, but pretty juvenile.

Jeb was pretty unimpressive. His bumbling is a little endearing to me in a Pappy kind of way, but he definitely looked extremely overmatched in one-on-one sparring and like Julio/SAV pointed out he's clearly lacking what W. was expert at exuding: school-boy charm and sloppy frat boy machismo. The scene when he turned to Donald and said, 'Good one!' after the former said that Humble would be his Secret Service nickname literally made me laugh out loud. As has always been the gripe, he gets a little too professorial at times and seems to have difficulty succinctly or concisely presenting his ideas. His winning line was that his brother kept the country safe, but he botched the overall line of questioning and I thought he butchered the Roberts question. It's going to continue to be an uphill battle for him to distance himself from his family, and it disappoints me that his consultants haven't better prepared his responses to topics like the Iraq War.

As for the rest of the lot, I agree with 57 that Carson acted like he was medicated and nauseatingly non-committal. That said, I think he would be an excellent VP. Fiorina knows her stuff, but she comes across as a cold, nagging uber-bitch in the mold of Michele Bachmann. Rubio didn't impress, likewise Walker -- who is the definition of one-trick pony. Kasich intrigues me, he's folksy and has a truly sellable track-record. Cruz desperately wanted to 'jump into the briar patch' by claiming he was a climate change skeptic ... the perfect example of why I can't take him seriously ... wish Tapper had given him the opportunity to make a dunce of himself in that situation.

More later.
Click to expand...

I think the Jeb line of "kep us safe" was laughable.

Even if you don't attribute the 9/11 attack to Bush, how can you discount the the following wars that have resulted in 10,000 American deaths, a complete destruction of our civil liberties, and most of all, a road to financial bankruptcy for the country. We may be "safe" in that we were not killed on our soil a second time, but our financial condition is certainly not safe, our civil liberties are not safe, and the men and women who were thrusted into pointless wars were not safe.

Lastly, the correlation of the Iraq war and ISIS is inescapable. ISIS is the "biggest danger to our national security" I'm told by many. But if it's not ISIS, then it's Iran, and the toppling of Sadamm certainly empowered Iran like never before.
 
sturg33 said:
I think the Jeb line of "kep us safe" was laughable.

Even if you don't attribute the 9/11 attack to Bush, how can you discount the the following wars that have resulted in 10,000 American deaths, a complete destruction of our civil liberties, and most of all, a road to financial bankruptcy for the country. We may be "safe" in that we were not killed on our soil a second time, but our financial condition is certainly not safe, our civil liberties are not safe, and the men and women who were thrusted into pointless wars were not safe.

Lastly, the correlation of the Iraq war and ISIS is inescapable. ISIS is the "biggest danger to our national security" I'm told by many. But if it's not ISIS, then it's Iran, and the toppling of Sadamm certainly empowered Iran like never before.
Click to expand...

I don't watch these things (my side or the other side), but catch the snippets and read the reviews (more accurately the horse race announcers), but I was struck by how no one jumped on Jeb's "kept us safe" line. 9/11 can't be laid solely at W's feet, but it's pretty clear that some pertinent information was ignored then (like Obama ignores some pertinent information now--see, I can be fair) that contributed to the event. I want to make it clear that I'm not saying it could have been stopped. Given Richard Clarke's account, that's not the point. It shouldn't have been a surprise that we were going to see a terrorist event on our homeland.

Anyway, thanks for the shout-out 57. I've been roughly equating the Trump effort with that of Jesse Ventura here in Minnesota (and Jesse has reached out to Trump). If I'm Trump right now, I come out and say "I took every shot and I'm still standing." His problem--and the media just doesn't seem to get this at all--will be translating the angst lode he's mining into support on the ground in caucus states. Primary states won't be as big a problem for him to garner delegates, but a 30,000 foot strategy usually doesn't win these things. I think the same could be said for Fiorina, who also seems to be lacking a ground game. Carson has some ground game and I think that will show up, but I don't know if it's enough.

The clips of Fiorina showed her to have both mettle and intelligence, but I don't think she should be trotting out her business credentials vis-a-vis Trump. The fact that Fiorina lost by 10 percentage points to Barbara Boxer in a year in which the Republicans swept everything doesn't say much for her as a candidate. I suppose she can point out that Lincoln lost to Stephen Douglas. I think Boxer's ads from 2010 about the exporting of jobs during Fiorina's tenure at HP likely put a ceiling on Fiorina's candidacy.

I'm still thinking it will be Jeb when the dust settles. Like Hawk says, he has his father's ability to take a simple direct answer and turn it into a veritable banquet of mixed metaphors and malaprops, but he still has a ton of money that should translate into a strong ground game. My observation on the Bush brothers is that Jeb is, if not smarter, more reflective that W. When W. said something ridiculous, he'd just stand by it. He had his stammers and malaprops, but he didn't try to back his way out of stuff. Jeb's train of thought just seems to jump tracks mid-answer.

Other than Jeb, I think Cruz and Rubio will be the lurkers who will probably have the greatest impact. Cruz is nine shades of crazy, but he's a dynamic speaker. He's the closest to Trump on some of the hot-button issues and he also has solid roots with the Evangelical vote. Rubio is a sharp guy and has a great policy team (as does Fiorina), but, unfortunately, policy teams write white papers and don't knock on doors or make phone calls and it's grunt work over brainpower that's the key at this juncture.

The guy that gets lost in this is Kasich, who would probably be a pretty good President. He just seems to have taken red meat out of his political diet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top