Who is the nationwide top 5? I thought it was Trump, Bush, Walker, and then pretty much a big tie between Cruz, Rubio, Huckabee, Paul, and Carson. Or at least before the debate that’s what it was.
We know you hate President Obama. Once again, you’re using your familiar tactic of changing the subject when your side looks bad.
Once again–now’s your chance to talk up Your Guys least likely to induce projectile vomiting. Or hysterical laughter…
That’s not changing the subject. The electorate does not seem to endorse his view that Obama came in and fixed the problems. Republicans have won almost everything winnable. Except the Presidency. That’s the final piece.
The debate had 24 million viewers, because of him. Voters are paying attention already unlike any previous election because we finally have a reality tv candidate.
Voters are paying attention more in early primary states, and as you can see, Trump is doing more poorly in IA and NH than nationally.
…and Suffolk University with a post debate (7-10AUH) Iowa poll:
Trump 17
Walker 12
Rubio 10
Carson 9%
Cruz & Fiorina 7%
Bush 5%
Kasich 3%
Huckabee, Paul, Christie 2%
Margin of Error ±4.4%
Especially interesting are some of the findings directly about the debates that address Trump’s Charlie Sheen like “winning” theme since then.
That’s the kind of winning that looks a lot like losing
Yep. Trump’s strategy, such as it is, is very good at getting up to 25% quickly. Not so good for cobbling together majorities.
We can do proportional representation. How about only Trump’s hair gets elected President?
Real Clear Politics had the averages with Huck and Carson as 4 and 5 with Cruz a touch below at 6. It was razor thin, statistically insignificant differences for most of those who made the main stage. Really aside from Trump most of the field that made the primetime debate had overlapping margins of error.
It would seem that the biggest winner of that night was Carly Fiorina. Trump is eventually going down, and the other candidates in the main debate were overshadowed/tarnished by Trump’s noxious presence.
She also had the most to gain or lose. Had she turned in a mediocre performance her campaign would already be dead. Now she’s moving right into the top group. That will bring her more funding and more media exposure and a seat at the next big debate.
i do not get the people who think Carson did well. He’s a really impressive guy and seems like a nice man, but that debate showed he’s not remotely presidential material.
I thought John Kasich had a great night, fo much the same reason as Fiorina - he had the most to lose and now has moved himself up into the contender list.
The rest… Meh.
To be fair, even with his late start, he was already running fourth in NH in the RCP averages pre-debate. The last pre-debate poll had him in second with 15%. He mostly just maintained his position. He was also already in the top half of the field for fundraising when he declared. He had to get some national visibility to build on. He might not have been the most desperate though.
Glad to.
I disagree. He obviously couldn’t answer the question asked, so he went into a canned spiel that basically said what every other Fox News pundit has been saying since Obama took office — “America’s a great country! We need a stronger leader!” – but also managed to single out Egypt for praise, which in the last couple of years has suspended its constitution, massacred protesting civilians, and imprisoned or executed anyone prominent in criticizing the government, and concluded with “throughout the Persian Gulfs (sic),” which I noticed was cleaned up for him in the Fox News transcript.
I guess, if you could choke down his claim that he’s pro-education.
Meh. Mealy-mouthed and lukewarm is exactly how I would describe that answer. “We need more training for police,” and I suppose we’ll pay for it by cutting taxes.
I agree with this one. Somebody on his staff found a great quote for him to use.
But I notice you didn’t mention his question about the Iran deal. His answer, I shit you not, was that he tied a yellow ribbon around the old oak tree during the hostage crisis. And he said he’d tear up the deal on “day one,” and then “put in place even more crippling sanctions in place (sic), and then you convince our allies to do the same.” I’m in three different threads on this, so I don’t remember if I already said it in this one, but HTF is he going to get our allies to go along with sanctions, after wiping his ass with the agreement they worked so long to get?
IMO he showed himself to be totally clueless on foreign policy to everyone but the Fox News faithful. And I went into this not liking him because of his anti-labor actions, but thinking he was smart. I now think he’s an empty suit, and would be a disaster if elected President.
He wouldn’t be a disaster, but we can definitely do better. He’s probably my fifth or sixth choice.
Yes, if he does what he just said he would do about the Iran deal, terminating it on day one, he would be a disaster. Our former allies would see that it was the US, not Iran, who couldn’t be trusted to honor an agreement, and they would tell Walker to blow it out his ass when he asked them to go along with new sanctions. Iran would get the best of both worlds, renewed trade with western nations minus the US, and no obligation to suspend its nuclear program. Israel, with the enthusiastic agreement of Walker, would most likely start bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, and Walker might even be stupid enough to have our ships turn back ships from France, Russia, and China when they started sending weapons to Iran. And god only knows what gains ISIS would make during all this confusion.
Not to mention the usual Republican crap about cutting taxes while starting new wars, and sending the economy into another death spiral.
It would be an unmitigated disaster.
I think we are talking past each other across the wonk/hack divide (I’m an unreconstructed hack, and proud of it). Is Walker an empty suit? You bet. Would he be a disaster as president? ::shudder:: Absolutely. Both were also true of Ronald Reagan, whom I loathe (I do have some actual principles). As a hack, though, I can still admire Reagan’s political genius–in concert with his wife and other handlers, of course, and more so before he really started going super senile in the later stages of his presidency.
And I think Walker is the best *politician *currently running on either side, and in fact one of the best I’ve seen in years (hard to imagine anyone will ever top the all time champ, Bill Clinton).
I do get those people, or I have a strong hunch (based on intimations made in comments on RedState, where I often lurk) what their deal is. At the risk of incurring howls of protest, I think it’s that they see supporting him as a badge or talisman that can allow them to “let it all hang out” in discussions of Obama or police shootings. When someone accuses them of racism, they just whip out the “I’m voting for Ben Carson” card, and imagine it’s an instant trump card (heh, no pun intended) against the accusation.
Therefore, it doesn’t really matter what he says, as long as it’s nothing liberal. (Although as I noted in another thread, Carson seemed to slip up and intimate that he believed in materialism rather than a person’s self being in their soul.)
Well, sure, except for said electorate making him the first presidential candidate in over a half century to win a second straight election with a majority of the popular vote. 
Given Sarah Palin, it’s risible for a Republican to tout 2008 as their year of gravitas.
This.
But your quoted highlight includes “For one thing, he isn’t in favor of same-sex marriage”, which is pretty well negated by the fact that he proudly boasted to 24 million people of *going *to a friend’s same-sex marriage. I will be surprised if he is seen as conservative enough by most GOP voters.
I guess the electorate just blames all the other Democrats then. It’s almost necessary for the President to ask for a special fund for unemployed Democrats. And at a time when bright young Democrats are hard to find, his Presidency has sure short-circuited a lot of careers.
Sarah Palin was at least on paper qualified. The most popular governor in the country. Poor vetting, to be sure, but we’re also talking about a VP. It’s pretty hiilarious that Obama’s first shot at her, before we realized she was a moron, was to call her the “former mayor of Wasilla”. This at a time when Obama was a state legislator whose primary claim to fame was doing as he was told by the state Democratic leadership and ducking tough votes.
What are you talking about?
I repeat: What are you talking about?
He also accidentally came out in favor of civil unions a few years ago. His handlers walked it back ASAP but their explanation of what he meant was nearly nonsensical.
“Bright young Democrats” aren’t hard to find. There are plenty in Congress and state legislatures. This is a myth you’re the only one spreading.
Republicans have to get their licks in while they can, because they are climbing a down elevator. They benefit for now from a few structural advantages: their partisans vote more consistently in off years and are less likely to have issues that lead them to be taken off the voter rolls; they have a bunch of Senate seats that represent sparsely populated Western states; minority voters are heavily concentrated in urban House districts where their votes are wasted, leaving a lot of efficiently distributed 55-60 percent Republican districts.
But their voters are also old and white. Every day that passes, they are dying off and being replaced by 18 year old Latinos. There’s only so long they can hold the fort before the edifice collapses. And thanks to those evenly distributed seats, when it collapses it will be massive and widespread.
Thanks for getting it. Gyrate is confused. I guess he only knows about Presidential elections.