Home » Open thread: tonight’s debate[s]

Comments

Open thread: tonight’s debate[s] — 36 Comments

  1. Three-quarters of the way through the GOP debate, and I find this group much more reasonable than the candidates that were on stage at the previous GOP debate! Amazing what the loss of one candidate can do!

  2. Ted was boxed out by Fox, and purposefully ignored. They were obviously careful not to allow him to shine as he normally would. I don’t think he had a great debate. Rand Paul did very well. Rubio, Christie also did fine jobs. And Carson. I hope the People of Iowa could see the establishment box out of Cruz and the obvious attempt to incite a gang up on Cruz. Surprisingly, the field up there avoided the invitations and just went around Wallace and attacked the real enemy, Hillary and Obama. They were all class in my opinion. Bush was a non entity. Huckabee was busy elsewhere, sucking up to the only passable Christian according to him, Trump. Hackable is such an obvious jackal in Shepherd’s clothing. I’m sure he may be attached by his lips to Donald’s caboose as we speak, begging for the VP spot. Is Morning Schmoe getting Donald his coffee while he’s angling for his spot?

  3. Many good moments. Too much encouragement fo attacks on one another by the moderators. Did not add anything to the debate.

    I didn’t see anyone who might have helped himself in any great way.

    The Paulistas were out in force. Senator Paul received the most raucous applause, no matter what he said.

    ‘Twill be interesting to see what the Hawkeyes do next Monday.

  4. I found this debate much more interesting than the couple I caught with Trump there. I don’t hate Trump, but I find his rhetoric distracting and a bit annoying.

    Rubio surprised me–I was leaning toward Cruz but now I’m leaning toward Rubio. The pundits are saying he lost points on the amnesty/immigration question that showed his potential flip flop. I’m pragmatic enough not to expect politicians to be perfectly consistent on evolving issues. Rubio’s “we have to get control of immigration before we can address amnesty” really works for me and has always been my position.

    I just want to win, and I’ll support any of them–but tonight Rubio looked to me as the best candidate to beat Hillary.

  5. Does it matter that Bill Sammon is a Fox News Vice President and in charge of the Fox News debates and questioning? His daughter, Brooke Sammon, is Marco Rubio’s Press Secretary. No wonder Rubio was allowed to shine, and Ted Cruz was “boxed out”. But hey…I’m just a conservative from California who believes that Rubio’s current immigration stance is as strong as the cardboard box he needs to stand on to reach the dinner table. It begins, and ends on immigration for me, so I passed on the FOX debates. I was watching C-Span live.

  6. I passed on the debates also. I did watch Trump’s little speech at his fundraiser touting how he cashed in chits to raise money from his wealthy friends. It was very interesting to see Santorum and Huckabee pose on stage with a campaign poster as backdrop.

    Let’s add it up how many informal and formal endorsements he’s got:
    Palin
    Gov. Branstad
    Jerry Falwell, Jr.
    Santorum
    Huckabee

    There is a clear message here, telling Iowa voters it’s OK to vote for him even though he isn’t an evangelical nor a conservative, from evangelical and conservative leaders. Should this con artist win Iowa he will be the nominee and probably president.

  7. I guess you guys saw a different debate than I did. I thought Cruz was clearly the center of the debate, and got the most time — does anybody run a timer on these things? As Cruz said, at least the first questions were all, “Governor Bush, please attack Ted.” “Senator Paul, please attack Ted,” and so on.

    Somebody must have told Rubio he wasn’t forceful enough, because he seemed to be playing the tough guy. When Christie speaks, you know he really is a tough guy, he doesn’t have to put it on. With Marco, it seemed very forced — it’s not his natural state. Rubio said about terrorists,Carson “And when we catch them, they’re going straight to Guantanamo.” Christie didn’t say anything, but I could almost hear him thinking, “And if I catch them, they’re going for a swim in the Pine Barrens wearing a concrete bathing suit.”

    I was very pleasantly surprised by Carson. He answered his few questions with aplomb and knowledge. You don’t get to be one of the world’s greatest neurosurgeons without being able to learn quickly. He knocked the “gotcha” question about Russia throwing its weight around in the Baltics out of the park. and he was 100% right about pumping oil and gas as a means of keeping Putin down — in a cage, I think he said.

    Carson also homered on another “gotcha” question as to whether hew was qualified to be President. His answer was spot on — “I’ve gotten more 2 am phone calls than everybody else on this stage combined. I’ve had to put together a team and make life-and-death decisions more than anyone on this stage.” (not verbatim.)

    I was also amazed to find myself in agreement with Rand Paul. when he said abortion is a matter for the states. (Maybe that’s because that’s my position as well.) Even more so about his bill to make the 14th Amendment applicable to the unborn. Even I didn’t think of that! That was brilliant!

    I had lunch with a friend of mine today (yesterday) who mused, “Wouldn’t it be great if one of the candidates stood up and said, “If I’m elected President, the first thing I do will be to nominate Carly Fiorina for Homeland Security, Chris Christie for Homeland Security. Donald Trump for Trade Representative, Ted Cruz for Attorney General,” etc., and everybody gets up, shakes hands, and hits the campaign trail. Obviously, that’s not going to happen, but wouldn’t it be nice if it did?”

  8. I always take some time to reflect on such happenings. As a biologist friend of mine commented, we scientists seems to process verbal exchanges much more slowly than our colleagues in the humanities and social studies.

    So here’s my morning after: No winner at all. While it was good to hear the adults talk without the obnoxious kid around, I came away less impressed with all the candidates. In some sense they all look so much better when one is able to contrast them with Trump directly.

    If Cruz would be less robotic, and more genuine he would lock it up. Rubio was way to artificial in his “toughness”. Carson is again, just to gentle in his basic demeanor. Jeb…eh… Kaisich, please stop telling us about how great Ohio is after your stint. While I disagree with Paul on almost everything, he came across as the most genuine.

    Notice my theme: In terms of general policy and credentials I would really vote for any of them, except maybe Paul. What I am looking for is that spark of honesty, and a showing of their actual personality. Though in Carson’s case, that maybe a detriment. For Rubio, Cruz, Bush, and Kaisich, I never got the sense I was hearing the real person.

    I was flipping channels during commercials over to a show on the Challenger disaster. Near the end it showed Reagan’s speech. I was profoundly struck at how real and genuine Reagan came across in everything he said. Maybe it was his acting background, but it seemed like you were seeing a true person, not a scripted, forced personality.

    For God’s sake people, let your guard down and show us the real deal. In some sense that’s Trump’s appeal. He maybe a total ass, but you know it when you see him…he’s at least a genuine ass.

  9. I forgot to mention Christie.. Freudian slip?? I like Christie’s demeanor, but the Obama hugs still clouds my vision of him. Trust??? Hmmm…

  10. Dull without Trump.
    Also disgraceful was having YouTube videos of democratic operatives asking gotcha questions in a republican debate.
    Particularly sick was the Bernie supporting islamanazi woman with her BS talking points that Jeb agreed with instead of turning it around by saying that there are far more anti Semitic acts or that people are just fighting back.

  11. I didn’t watch, but was chagrined to read quoted, certain Trump directed quips from my present choice Cruz, which seemed forced, and somewhat cloying.

  12. Say what you want about The Donald, but …

    Here’s the headline from an AOL window,

    “Kelly fiercely takes down Rubio, Cruz during debate

    With Trump absent from Thursday’s debate, the moderator took aim at the next two highest-ranking candidates.

    Brutual way she turned their own words against them …”

    “Brutal” indeed. Add “stupid” too.

  13. What the debate demonstrated is that Fox is as much of a problem as the rest of the MSM. What Trump demonstrated is how incredibly easy it is now to stage an event, live stream it and have C-Span broadcast it put together in 24 hours.

    These are not debates. In real debates moderators don’t show video in order to attack candidates. Debates are:
    Resolved the US is in decline;
    or
    Resolved Obamcare should be replaced with a free market system;
    or
    Resolved the US should declare war on ISIS.

    Going forward the RNC should stage all primary debates, exclude all networks, choose the moderators, live stream on Youtube and broadcast on C-Span and require that the debates are about explicating the candidates positions not creating food fights and asking gottcha questions. That’s what stump speeches and paid media are for.

    And the above should apply to the upcoming general election debates.

  14. I thought Marco won. Ted is stiff and looks practiced but I can look past that. Carly won the first debate and she should have been on the main stage on merit alone.

  15. Fox is losing me during this primary season. Between O’Reilly openly shilling for Trump, and Megyn Kelly playing the “Gotcha Queen”, they are clearly not on my wave length any more.

    I sure miss Brit Hume. What a breath of fresh air when he does guest commentary.

    Hannity did a good post-debate interview with Kasich. I still like Kasich. (A friend who was a long time Aide to Senator Glenn, and knew Kasich (also of Ohio) thinks very highly of him.) I have warmed to Christie; and I could live with Bush.

    Cruz intrigues me. Maybe a little seasoning is in order; but I wouldn’t have to hold my nose to vote for him. Rubio seems artificial.

    The JV debate was interesting. Again, McCallum and the boy moderator seemed to think their job was to start playground scuffles. The candidates would have none of it. Those are good people in that group.

  16. “Going forward the RNC should stage all primary debates”

    You are assuming the RNC wants good debates. I don’t think that’s the case, because then the GOPe candidates wouldn’t look so good.

    To me, the RNC is as much of a problem as the MSM.

  17. Harold,

    I recommend an adapted version of the Congressional hearing format, the kind broadcast on C-SPAN, where each candidate takes a turn under spotlight being deposed by a panel of the other candidates.

    An outside moderator could serve as a quasi-chair to referee the series, but he or she wouldn’t provide the substantive content, ie, examination of the candidates. The format should allow for exchanges between candidates as well as examination, though weighted towards examination. The moderator mainly makes sure each candidate on the panel is given their allotted time, though they may pass their time to another panelist. The panelists can individually choose to use their allotted time exclusively, to work together, or even work with the candidate on the stand.

    In exchange for being exposed on the stand, the deposed candidate receives the focus of the evening and an opening and closing statement. A common website should be set up for the candidates to upload testimonial material, even in real-time by staffers during the hearing.

    The panelists get to direct the examinations and even grandstand, though again, the ground rules and the moderator should make sure the weight goes to examination.

    The series would take several days, but so do play-off series in sports. I think an adapted Congressional hearing format would be dramatically riveting and much better informative about the candidates than the current ‘debate’ format.

  18. Eric — how about a panel discussion, where each candidate was a significant amount of time to both state his or her position and respond to questions on a strictly limited (i.e., one or two) issues? I mean, “state your position on Russia’s possible aggression into the Baltics in 60 seconds” is just idiotic.

  19. Physicsguy. Although we may agree that Trump is a genuine ass; that is all that is genuine about him–in my opinion.

    A little disconcerting to read comments on a nominally conservative forum suggesting the Cruz is not cuddly enough to be President. Personally, I do not give a rat’s behind about cuddly. I want a competent, tough minded, decisive, constitutionalist. I will get my cuddles elsewhere (I have a loving old Siamese cat).

  20. I’m not sure the RNC would completely give up its power to manage the debates. They have shown however a willingness to use their power to dump NBC and National Review.

    As for a panel interrogation Rick Warrens interviews of the candidates was one of the best formats so far. The candidates had time in a non-hostile environment to express their positions.

    Whatever the new format it requires getting rid of so called journalists who want to make a name by dumping on Conservatives.

  21. I predicted a 50 percent.drop compared to the last Fox News debate. That happened. Comparing to Fox Business News is wrong because the base audiences are very different.

    Most of the Iowa networks were broadcasting Trump live. Having. the last two Iowa winners on stage was a great move.

    He has raised five million and counting.

    Meanwhile Cruz had a bad night.

    How many ways did Trump win? I count four.

  22. PatD:

    My earliest comment on the subject of the ratings for Thursday’s debate, made just a couple of days ago, was addressed to you personally, in a discussion you and I were having on the subject. In it, I made it clear that the debate audiences were going down down down anyway for each debate, and that it would make no sense to compare this new debate with the very earliest one or ones in terms of audience, but that Trump fans would do so anyway:

    I have no idea what Fox’s ratings will be. I do recall that their ratings were very high for the first debate, and all the debate ratings have been going down ever since. The most recent debate was on Jan 14, and it was the least-watched so far. It went like this:

    “Some 11 million viewers tuned into Thursday’s Republican presidential debate–the lowest total in the “Trump era,” but still not bad historically.”

    I can’t find a link with the ratings for all of them, but I seem to recall it’s been a downward line. There’s probably even a mathematical formula for the graph of the downward line. So even if Trump had been attending tomorrow’s debate, I’d expect the audience for it to be a bit lower than 11 million (I don’t know how much lower unless a saw the slope of the graph of the decline for previous debates).

    As I said, I have no idea what the ratings would be; it could go either way. But I would expect it to have gone down anyway, had he been there. I also predict that, even if it doesn’t go down, quite a few Trump supporters will use earlier debate figures to compare it to and claim that is has gone down.

    Then I added, in a comment specifically addressed to you on the next day:

    It’s normal for ratings to continue to go down with each debate, and I expect this one will be lower, as well.

    Obviously a reference to the fact that they go down with each debate. It’s gone down over time, no matter what network the show has been on.

    Your reply to that comment was specifically addressed to me:

    A 10% drop in ratings would be expected. A 50% drop would not. Let’s see. I’m betting a yuuge drop in ratings for Fox.

    If you now are saying that we should interpret that remark of yours as ignoring everything I said about what we should compare to what, and that your “50% drop” prediction meant to compare the first Fox debate with this most recent one, that would mean you are doing exactly what I predicted Trump supporters would do if the ratings for the debate actually went up compared to the previous one (which the ratings did do).

    Plus, if your prediction was as you say (comparing very first debate to this one), we’d have to interpret your prediction in a nonsensical manner. You would be claiming that, if Trump had been in attendance at the debate yesterday, interest would have remained nearly as high for this debate as for the very first debate—where his presence at any debate was a complete novelty and therefore interest was extremely intense. That’s absurd. That first Fox debate drew the highest rating ever for a primary debate, 24 million.

    So, as I predicted, you have done as I wrote:

    I also predict that, even if it doesn’t go down, quite a few Trump supporters will use earlier debate figures to compare it to and claim that is has gone down.

  23. Pat D:

    You not only may have overstated your case, you did overstate your case.

    Plus, as I’ve pointed out over and over, you are comparing the wrong things. People didn’t watch the first debate in such extraordinarily, record-breakingly high numbers because it was on Fox. They watched it because it was the first debate. The one last Thursday night on Fox was the seventh one.

    If you look at that chart at the link you provided, there were only two times the number of viewers increased between an earlier debate and the one right after it. The first time there was an increase was between the debate on November 10 on Fox Business and the one on Dec. 15 on CNN. That 11/10 Fox Business debate drew 14 million and the 12/15 CNN debate drew 18 million. If you do the math, that represented an increase of 28% for the CNN debate over the Fox Business one.

    Compare that to what happened with Thursday’s debate. The previous debate had been on 1/16 on Fox Business, and it had an audience of 11 million. Thursday’s debate on Fox drew an audience of 13 million. That’s an increase of 18%, which is a smaller increase than the previous increase but not that much smaller. And it’s a fairly relevant comparison, because it’s a comparison between a previous debate on a smaller network (Fox Business in both cases) and a next debate that’s on a bigger network (CNN or Fox).

    Was that small decline in the increase between the first two and the second two due to Trump’s absence? I wouldn’t doubt that some of it might have been, because it would make perfect sense that some Trump supporters—particularly those who’ve made up their minds—would fail to tune in. But we don’t know. Instead, it might have been because over time, people have debate fatigue. I know I do, and I’m more interested in politics than most people.

  24. I was only off by two percent. The time periods between consecutive debates on eack station were comparable to within a month. Fox figures should have looked like the Cnn figures. I suspect Trump supporters stayed away.

    Off to Turandot.

  25. Pat D:

    The drop was 10%, as I said, it you make the right comparison, not 50%. Unless you were comparing apples and oranges—the very first debate with the 7th.

    And of course some Trump supporters didn’t watch. That was hardly unexpected or unpredicted, and although I’m sure Fox would have liked to have them, they made their decision knowing that they’d probably lose some Trump supporters.

  26. When I get home I’ll do the math and adjust for the different time scales.

    You are discounting that it was the last debate before Iowa. That should have had a positive impact, but’ll ignore that.

    Wrt to people go for Trump? The short answer is the Gop has betrayed its base and is working with the Democrats to implement their progressive agenda. It starts with borders.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>