I saw 9 Presidents on stage last night, plus one guy who wouldn’t be a good President but at least made some good points.
One of the actually valuable things that Trump is doing is speaking plainly about how the system works. We’ve never had one of the politicans’ paymasters run for office before.
And I think his crack about Clinton showing up at his wedding because he gave her money is a killer. If you say you don’t want Trump running the country, then don’t vote for Clinton, because Trump was and is still, her boss.
This has been my expectation as well. Who do you think gets the nomination if not Bush? Until last night, I thought (not as a supporter) it might be Rubio, playing the role of Obama in 2008, but I was severely overrating his charisma and ability to project readiness. (“Just 4 years ago, I had $100,000 of student debt!” does not address concerns about youth and inexperience.) Walker simply strikes me as a total doofus with lots of fringe social positions and a complete dearth of foreign policy insight.
I came away quite a bit more bullish on Kasich though.
I want the Democrats to win, so from my POV Kasich and Walker are the scariest. Bush is even more hated than Romney and McCain amongst the far right brigade. I don’t think they would rally around him. Walker is liked much more, but he’s not a good speaker. Kasich might be too moderate, but I don’t think he’s loathed. I could be wrong.
Trump has to bribe people to get them to come to his wedding? And that’s supposed to be a killer for anyone but him?
Gov. Kasich seemed pretty good, but I thought he was just trying too hard. It didn’t seem natural. I’ll keep an eye on him in subsequent debates. I, and the audience, liked his recognition that you can love gay people. I doubt he’ll be pushing any anti-gay marriage amendments.
I saw 10 guys I wouldn’t cast a vote for if my life depended on it.
Based on performance alone:
Christie came off as decisive and polished. Kasich came off as the person who could actually get things done, politically. Carson and Huckabee came off as total nutjobs. Walker, Paul, Bush were empty suits. Rubio was polished, but still looked like a Congress-critter, lacking in the mojo a President needs. Cruz and Trump were empty sacks of hot air, who dodged every question like a matador.
The kiddie table were even worse. None of them showed that they were remotely worthy of taking part in adult conversations.
For the candidates in the first debate, it was not enough to look okay. These candidates were all in big trouble, and needed to do SOMETHING to make people sit up and take notice.
Carly Fiorina accomplished that, and will definitely be at the “big people’s table” next time. But nobody else did.
Sometimes you lose a debate by saying or doing something stupid or embarrassing. But Perry, Jindal, Gilmore and Co. lost by not saying anything remotely memorable or even interesting.
ROFL! Look at the searches for people in the first debate. Rick Santorum starts out in the middle as I’m sure people know a bit about him already from the last few years, then his searches spike up and down before really dropping and placing last as the debate ends. Its almost like people looked for him, realized what his name stood for, recoiled in horror, searched again to make sure they were seeing correctly, then bottomed out in disgust! :D:D:D
Also amusing, a lot of people searched on how tall or how old candidates were. Like, a whole lot. Kind of an oddball search
I caught that too! I hope somebody uses it as a soundbite, its hilarious
The people who really want to single out the fact that these attacks are performed by Muslims generally do not differentiate between radical and non-radical Muslim. To them Muslim equals terrorist. If you fail to identify them as Islamists would not drive home the point that all Muslims worldwide are inherently evil.
It is. Trump wins when contrasted with wooden, robotic politicians like Hillary and Jeb who wouldn’t know when to go to the bathroom if the polls didn’t tell them. And the public knows it.
One interesting thing that I really haven’t seen a lot of commentators take into account when discussing Trump’s candidacy - his presence in the primaries, I think, will hugely inflate the Republican turnout. Because unlike the rest of the field, voting for Trump will give warm fuzzies to a lot of people.
This seems more likely after Bush’s weak-tea showing last night, but I can’t come up with a plausible answer to “if not Bush, then who?”
Trump? You gotta assume his campaign is going to crater at some point. While I don’t claim to understand his motivation, and still think he is trolling the world to some degree, he just didn’t show any depth and picks too many fights.
Rubio? I don’t see him having the gravitas to pull through this time. Maybe he’d be a 2020/2024 nominee?
Kasich? I think he had the best showing last night, but I just can’t see his message of sanity resonating with Republican primary voters. Why won’t he be this year’s Jon Huntsman?
Walker/Christie? Deeply unpopular governors in their own states, have a ‘mean’ edge to them, but Walker is still probably the most likely to win after Bush. Christie is likely too unpopular in his own party.
Paul/Carson/Cruz/Huck? C’mon.
Fiorina? She may have mastered the big-fish-in-a-small-pond debate, but at some point the fact that she’s completely unqualified takes over. When was the last time a major party nominated someone who had never served in the Senate or as a governor or VP? Ike?
One big question I had going into 2016 is whether the Republican unreality bubble had been burst at all by Romney’s loss. Based on the comments I’m seeing about Trump, I’m not sure it has. I suspect if he stays in the race past December, we’ll start to see a lot about skewed polls again.