2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[Butter]

Trump 2016: I'm better than you.

Print it up.

[NobodyHere]

The moderators are absolutely horrible.

[tarcone]

Tequila? Colorado brownies? Go Ted Cruz!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The moderators are absolutely horrible.

If my Facebook feed is any indication Rubio scored big when he took a shot (or two?) at the moderator.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If my Facebook feed is any indication Rubio scored big when he took a shot (or two?) at the moderator.

Almost all of the candidates attacked the moderators (for their horrible questioning and blatant lying) and the leftist media.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wustin

Almost all of the candidates attacked the moderators (for their horrible questioning and blatant lying) and the leftist media.

Interesting.

If you go by both the personal comments and now the various links that are being shared, it was him that stood out to the apparent exclusion of everyone else. Even a couple of my biggest Trump backers are giving him the win for tonight.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Interesting.

If you go by both the personal comments and now the various links that are being shared, it was him that stood out to the apparent exclusion of everyone else. Even a couple of my biggest Trump backers are giving him the win for tonight.

Rubio and Christie did very well. Rubio pummeled the media the most and handled scrutiny from the moderators splendidly. Christie debunked the whole "free stuff" propaganda from the left and gave a great response to handling climate change.

Edit: My two cents. This debate was pretty much just candidates vs moderators.

Edit again: Got Cruz confused with Christie

[JPhillips]

The birthplace of the Tea Party is now left wing media?

[Solecismic]

Thoughts on the varsity debate...

John Kasich came out, as advertised, trying to make his mark with strong statements against Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson. The moderators were pleased, and gave him plenty of time.

CNBC led with a question no politician should or would answer directly - the job interview question even a high school senior knows how to answer. What is your greatest weakness? Only the moderator tried to take away the only right answers. No one fell into the trap, though.

Then came a series of questions designed to pick at the flaws of individuals. Some warranted, some unwarranted. And it was working.

Ted Cruz, however, changed the debate by turning his gotcha question around on the moderators. The crowd responded with enthusiasm. From then on, the debate was more a collective Republicans versus the mainstream media event.

The candidates did a good job keeping that narrative in mind the rest of the way and I think it was very effective. Was Ted Cruz's moment the moment that the Republicans stopped what seems to be a month-long losing streak? Was this the moment that this became a presidential campaign rather than 14 Republicans in search of an identity?

I don't know. It felt like something, though.

Individual thoughts:

John Kasich: What I noticed about Kasich was physical. He was shaking. He had some sort of nervous tic with his facial muscles. He was turning red. I asked my wife, who is in Ohio right now (where she works) if he has a medical issue. She doesn't know. He is a very popular governor in Ohio. My wife is a Democrat and she thinks he's a decent person. My thoughts are that he seemed a little more focused tonight, but angry and nervous and not presidential. I would love to have his experience and understanding somewhere in the process, but not at the top. I think he hurt himself more than any other candidate.

Mike Huckabee: He came off, as he always does, as a genial and reasonable defender of the people. Because the debate focused on the economy, his grandstanding on social issues didn't emerge. So he did well.

Jeb Bush: His attack on Marco Rubio, where he turned to face Rubio and called for him to leave the race, was the low point of the evening. Rubio handled it smoothly and Bush's remarks didn't take into account the pieces Rubio had already addressed. Bush didn't have a moment during the debate, so all I'll remember is the way he acted contrasted with how Cruz answered his gotcha question. Bush hurt himself tonight, maybe even more than Kasich.

Marco Rubio: He did a great job maintaining an even demeanor and advancing his own cause. I don't think he changed the game, but he made a case for being the moderate choice over the other moderates. He is very likable. I can see him jumping considerably in the polls.

Donald Trump: The problem with being a bit of a circus act is that when people have already seen the act, they need something new. So he's a kinder, gentler Trump lately, which is necessary. But he still isn't providing substance. He's the guy who runs the mile by setting a ridiculous pace in the first lap, then he's out of the race by the third lap. He didn't hurt himself, but this is the point where he needs to parlay all the attention he has received into something substantive. I don't remember a single thing he said all night.

Ben Carson: To me, he's still a guy who can provide great insight into the problems that face our country, but I don't see him as leading our way through these problems. He helps himself by not responding to obvious bait. He's an asset to the entire party. But nothing suggests he's all that interested in having a leadership role. This wasn't a foreign policy debate, so I think that helped him.

Carly Fiorina: She had another strong performance, but the moderators were perhaps tougher on her than anyone. That hurt. At some point, she has to stop telling us that she can lead and start showing us how she will lead. I don't think this debate hurt her that much, but it didn't help, and at some point people will start to coalesce around the anti-Washington candidates. I think they would choose Carson or Trump right now.

Ted Cruz: He had his moments tonight. Like Huckabee and Santorum, the lack of social issues in the debate helped him. He was focused, and tried to make the case that he can take on Washington from within. But his response about having a beer and poking fun at the marijuana law in Colorado, while intellectually compelling, didn't sound very presidential. It will be interesting to see if he can gain traction as the right-wing choice. I think his ceiling is limited.

Chris Christie: The negatives here are the physical. He was leaning on the podium, which is good advice as long as you're not televised from the side - which CNBC did far too much. It's a shot that would be played in every Democratic ad if he won the nomination. He had a very good debate, though. Maybe the best of everyone in terms of issues answers and making a case for the general. It will be interesting to see if he can revive a broken candidacy.

Rand Paul: He appeared less angry tonight, which is a good thing for him. But he didn't move his candidacy forward very well. All I can remember is his promise to filibuster the budget agreement. This is not an issue that makes people think of the presidency. I don't see how he can remain in the race that much longer.

CNBC: Not a good performance. The moderators appeared smug, interrupted far too much, focused on gotcha questions rather than the issues. They may have given the Republicans the moment they desperately needed.

[Dutch]

I think Rubio is proving to be a qualified leader. Those big ears will be satired to death though if he were to be Prez.

[Subby]

.@nytimes Can't read the article because I don't have a subscription, but I can tell you this - I am not going anywhere.

— Chris Christie (@ChrisChristie) October 29, 2015

if you can't find your way around a paywall, how can you possibly defeat ISIS https://t.co/YbwWrCowJm

— Caitlin Kelly (@atotalmonet) October 29, 2015

[tarcone]

With all the issues facing this country, the moderators ask about fantasy football. What a bunch of stooges.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by tarcone

With all the issues facing this country, the moderators ask about fantasy football. What a bunch of stooges.

Yeah, but...

Christie led the push for in state electronic gaming in NJ and a sizable portion of the US population plays daily fantasy sports. There are a lot of people that would make some portion of their voting decision based on a position on daily fantasy.

[tarcone]

I guess. kind is a sad statement. But I don't play the daily fantasy sports. I have a friend who does. I'm going to ask him if that is an issue that would sway his vote.
Maybe I'm out of touch on that issue.

[JPhillips]

It's not like they asked who to start at RB this Sunday. The daily fantasy stuff has been a big story for the past few weeks. It certainly isn't the most pressing issue, but how many times should "What would you do about ISIS," be asked?

[tarcone]

Maybe it was the format. Only 30 second responses. Not enough topics.

A better question would have been about the football coach in Washington that just got suspended for praying. That would have given more insight into the candidates than fantasy sports.

[Butter]

If it's such a non-issue, then they should just legalize sports betting and gambling online at a federal level and be done with it.

Oh, what's that? This is a legitimate issue, it was just framed a little poorly? Got it, thanks disembodied voice.

[Ryche]

Personally the online gambling thing is a much bigger deal than abortion. Everyone has their trigger issues.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

If it's such a non-issue, then they should just legalize sports betting and gambling online at a federal level and be done with it.

Oh, what's that? This is a legitimate issue, it was just framed a little poorly? Got it, thanks disembodied voice.

I'm not sure how legitimate it would be as an issue of importance for a 2 hour Presidential debate. For a Congressional candidate? Okay, maybe. They at least deal with legislation that could have an impact.

But if it's an issue within the first two hours of Presidential topics for someone then I hope & pray they aren't planning to vote. And no matter how low my regard is for the average voter, I don't believe for a second it's in the top 120 minutes for 99.5 % of them either.

It's better than "boxers or briefs" as questions go ... but not by a huge amount.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's better than "boxers or briefs" as questions go ... but not by a huge amount.

Oh for chrissake Jon, don't give the moderators any more ideas....

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Oh for chrissake Jon, don't give the moderators any more ideas....

Relax, they already thought of it.

It was rejected on the grounds that the question might be deemed insensitive to those who go commando.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm not sure how legitimate it would be as an issue of importance for a 2 hour Presidential debate. For a Congressional candidate? Okay, maybe. They at least deal with legislation that could have an impact.

But if it's an issue within the first two hours of Presidential topics for someone then I hope & pray they aren't planning to vote. And no matter how low my regard is for the average voter, I don't believe for a second it's in the top 120 minutes for 99.5 % of them either.

It's better than "boxers or briefs" as questions go ... but not by a huge amount.

But it isn't the first two hours, we're on hours six and seven. That's part of why it didn't bother me. Should every debate just be the same questions?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But it isn't the first two hours, we're on hours six and seven. That's part of why it didn't bother me. Should every debate just be the same questions?

If that's what we're down to for questions/topics then they probably shouldn't have bothered with another debate in the first place afaic.

Which, y'know, I'd be on board with frankly.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, but then how would CNBC get it's ratings?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah, but then how would CNBC get it's ratings?

That's actually been one of my (largely sarcastic) theories about their crew's performance the other night: stage fright.

They basically had a two-hour audience that was almost equal to their typical monthly viewing.

[JPhillips]

And they had too many questioners that aren't used to research and facts. Santelli and Cramer rant and rave well, but they aren't the people to ask probing questions about important topics.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If that's what we're down to for questions/topics then they probably shouldn't have bothered with another debate in the first place afaic.

Which, y'know, I'd be on board with frankly.

At least 50 million people play daily fantasy. Lots of other questions effect far fewer people.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

At least 50 million people play daily fantasy. Lots of other questions effect far fewer people.

Umm ... they just had their single biggest day ever a couple of weeks ago.

There were 7.52 million entries to the two sites' tournaments

And that doesn't account for how many were multiple entries, dopplegangers, etc.

There's your core audience for this. Counting some other number is like counting me among "online poker players" 'cause I played $20 worth over several months about a decade ago.

[larrymcg421]

I actually think questions about gambling or other issues without a clear partisan dividing line like that are very useful, especially in a primary debate where there's often lots of circle jerking.

[ISiddiqui]

At the very least, it is an interesting question to see how candidates can think on their feet.. as I doubt anyone prepared for that one .

[TroyF]

I did not see the debate, but have read enough to know what happened. MSNBC was very stupid and shortsighted in how they did this. They tried to treat this debate as though the democrats were voting on one of these guys. That's not how it works. This is for the Republican Party to pick their candidate, not for the dems to go "GOTHCA"

There will be plenty of time for that during the year long election cycle. Asking Trump about his "clown" campaign? Seriously? ok, he's running one, he has zero chance the further we get. I don't think anyone believes otherwise. All of that said, how can a "respected" news anchor ask such an unprofessional, idiotic question? You don't put yourself down the level of the guy you are asking.

Really stupid. Really unprofessional. Really bad.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I did not see the debate, but have read enough to know what happened. MSNBC was very stupid and shortsighted in how they did this. They tried to treat this debate as though the democrats were voting on one of these guys. That's not how it works. This is for the Republican Party to pick their candidate, not for the dems to go "GOTHCA"

There will be plenty of time for that during the year long election cycle. Asking Trump about his "clown" campaign? Seriously? ok, he's running one, he has zero chance the further we get. I don't think anyone believes otherwise. All of that said, how can a "respected" news anchor ask such an unprofessional, idiotic question? You don't put yourself down the level of the guy you are asking.

Really stupid. Really unprofessional. Really bad.

You should check which network hosted the debate.

Hint: The Tea Party was born there.

[Solecismic]

What's frustrating is that in the stories that have been written about CNBC's reaction to this criticism is that they're still proud because they feel the moderators may have changed the presidential race.

That's the so-called liberal media arrogance that frustrates so many people. It's not their job to change the race, it's their job to inform the public about the race.

So they ask tough questions and let the candidates differentiate themselves with their answers. Instead, at times Wednesday, the moderators were more playing the role of the Democratic opponent delivering an attack ad on television.

Meanwhile... Rand Paul promised us a filibuster to stop the bipartisan agreement to add untold trillions to our national debt....

It lasted 20 minutes. Poor tired Rand Paul. Probably time to retire the campaign.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My Way News - GOP suspends partnership with NBC News for February debate

[ISiddiqui]

Liberal media? As pointed out earlier in this thread, wasn't CNBC the birthplace of the Tea Party? Santelli's rant, anyone?!

[Kodos]

Who watches CNBC?

[JPhillips]

So far the liberal media attacking the GOP has consisted of Fox News, CNBC, and a CNN panel with Hugh Hewitt.

If that's not good enough, what is?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Liberal media? As pointed out earlier in this thread, wasn't CNBC the birthplace of the Tea Party? Santelli's rant, anyone?!

Long time between there & that debate.

[ISiddiqui]

He's still on the network.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Who watches CNBC?

Virtually no one.

Even ratings-challenged CNN routinely drubs them on a daily basis.

For some perspective their typical audience is a bit larger than TNA Impact gets each week but not by a crazy amount. (and actually not better than the ratings Impact used to get)

[JPhillips]

Will you say anything to get elected?

Just a reminder of the liberal media's first question to Hillary.

[Solecismic]

I thought the first two debates were good. Tough questions, but fair.

CNN was soft on the Democrats. The tougher questions were all obvious. Hillary has an easy answer to that opening because it leads straight into an opening statement.

The CNBC moderators, and if you didn't see it this way I don't know what to say, seemed to approach the debate like they felt they had a duty to derail each campaign.

Crowdpac showed the extent of the media bias in terms of their personal donations to politicians. It's rather extreme.

[Thomkal]

I'm sorry but what were the Republicans thinking-having the debate on CNBC where they are put down and made fun of every chance they get? They are the liberal "twin" to FoxNews, and it shouldn't have come as a surprise or shock as to the type of questions they would be asked. Trump even criticized Megyn Kelly on Fox-they don't like any media, liberal or not, and just want to make it look like the media is to blame, not their own opinions.

[Solecismic]

I think you're confusing MSNBC with CNBC, which is understandable - same ownership and all. But CNBC does have respected financial programming. People who follow this stuff know Harwood, for example, is a strong Democrat, but still were shocked by his behavior on Wednesday.

People are saying this came from the top at CNBC.

I don't think this hurts the Republicans. Though it would if it were repeated a lot. Cruz articulated in 20 seconds, beautifully, what Republicans have been saying for years - there's a bias in the media and it makes a huge difference.

Cruz has gone from pretty much out of the race to possibly a front-runner (his politics are much too far to the right for my vote, though) because he recognized the moment and changed the debate just that quickly. Even people who know they won't vote for him are calling him a hero.

And Trump is Trump. The Fox and the CNN debates were fair - and it was fair for Kelly to bring up the sexism question. Most Republicans, I think, had no problem with it. The difference between those debates and Wednesday's debate was extreme.

[Senator]

Interesting thread and insights, everyone.

[miked]

I thought they were gotcha questions, and some were irrelevant (I don't think Marco Rubio's personal bumps in finance matter much, they really belabored it). I do think Carson's relationships do matter...people talked about Rev. Wright out the wazoo, whether Michelle Obama stood for the anthem, etc. The fact that Carson is on the take from shady companies is a big deal. Also, he flat out lied. He has appeared in videos for that company, pushed pseudo-science (even pushed it on stage), and told us that he could not imagine why his picture was on the site. Silly.

Clearly they are having trouble with these 10 person formats where it's very difficult to get anything of substance. I actually thought Kasich made some good points, especially about these phantom tax plans. Cut taxes and revenues will sky rocket because of...ECONOMICS!

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Cruz has gone from pretty much out of the race to possibly a front-runner (his politics are much too far to the right for my vote, though) because he recognized the moment and changed the debate just that quickly. Even people who know they won't vote for him are calling him a hero.

Was Clinton a hero when she called out the "vast right wing conspiracy"?

[JPhillips]

I'm fine with the assertion that the debate was poor.

But why does the GOP have to go to conspiracies about everything that goes against their wishes?

The liberal media is out to get them
Obamacare was unfairly rammed down our throats
The Supreme Court is liberally biased
Boehner and McConnell could pass the conservative agenda if only they weren't RINOS
Inflation is secretly out of control
The unemployment rate is five to ten times what is reported
Polling organizations are skewing the polls to benefit liberals
The WMD are still out there

And on and on and on.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The unemployment rate is five to ten times what is reported

They are every bit as responsible for this one as the Democrats are. They may want to be quiet about it.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You should check which network hosted the debate.

Hint: The Tea Party was born there.

I guess you are mistaking me for someone who gives a crap who hosted the debate. I don't judge a network by liberal, conservative or if they have little green men asking the questions.

I'm so sick of the garbage with "biased" networks. Whatever network you watch, it's biased as all hell. Fox for the reps, MSNBC for the; dems, CNN for whomever they feel like on a given day (they have been so far up Hillary's ass this campaign, I think it's fairly clear who they want to win) This network birthed the tea party, that network birthed the 1% movement.

I don't give a rats ass. All I know is that the questions were ridiculous and unprofessional. You don't ask a presidential candidate about his "comic book campaign" You don't bring up facts and forget where you got them. I would have fired a member of my junior college staff for being that sloppy.

It was a shameful journalistic display, even in this day and age of constant horrific journalistic displays.