Let me just say, the questions asked during this first debate were horrendous. “Did god speak to you, if so what did he say”, “if your child were gay, what would you say to them”. I was deeply disappointed by the topics fox decided to address but i saw some potential in all the candidates. I like scott walker’s breaking up the unions (my teacher mother would kill me for saying that), I like Paul’s foreign policy, I like Trump’s matter of fact approach, Ben Carson surprised me and I liked the way he carried himself (yet no true substance was addressed). Bush did a good job separating himself from his family. Again, my biggest problem from last night was the direction from the moderators.
I just skipped thru a little bit on Youtube for a chuckle. Ineed horrendous questions, and the whole thing really, a bunch of circus freaks. How did everyone get so weird??
Carson seems like an okay guy, but he was out of his league last night. Trump was good (read: entertaining) unless he had to speak for more than 30 seconds. Then it was apparent he knows less than Jon Snow. Paul made some good points, but his ill-fitting suit really pissed me off. Not the type of guy I’d want sitting across from Putin. Everyone talking about pro-life made me want to abort myself. The guy from Ohio actually seems like the most level-headed of the bunch. He’ll probably get the VP spot. Walker did about as well as he could. Christie is basically the professional politician version of Trump, which isn’t a horrible thing. Jeb was Jeb.
IMO, Rubio “won” by virtue of not having any blunders. I felt that each of the other candidates had at least one blunder, and some more than that. I really enjoyed the Christie-Paul exchange, I’d say Christie’s numbers will increase following last night. And I don’t believe Trump has horrible, I actually thought he did OK given that he is clearly the least-polished of the lot.
america gets the candidates they earn.
I didn’t get a chance to watch the main debate or the undercard. I honestly don’t see the point until 1/2 the field drops out. I follow national politics pretty closely and know who these folks are though, so I’m not going to learn much from basically soundclip debates. I suppose there is some benefit for the majority of the electorate who have never heard of most of the candidates.
+1
We get the elected officials we earn. We really have no control over the pool of candidates from which we can choose.
There was a whole lot of this going on in my household during the debate:
already done on the same day. The smaller jokes were on a debate at 5pm (Fiorina et al); while the bigger jokes were at 9pm (the Trumps).
I hope a smart person wins ( for now I hope Hilary wins). GOP has several great members, non of them are in the race.
Fox News is 24/7 funny
No.
I’m sure there is some awesome candidate for president living somewhere in Seattle who would do great things for the USA. Thing is, he/she is not running for president.
We get a small pool of people who want the job. Who in their right mind spends mega millions to earn a few hundred thousand a year!?
The small pool is usually full of the hacksaws of society who couldn’t make it anywhere but government.
The small pool is bought by big corporate and lobbies via regulatory capture theory.
Us little people log on to the internet and p!ss and moan with how much our elected officials suck…
If only that BSD from Seattle/Atlanta/Fargo ran for president…
The debate to me felt like a Saturday night live skit. I could not take any of them seriously. The GOP is in real trouble based on what I saw last night. Rubio seems like the most logical choice based on his ability to get millenials and hispanics to vote for him. I like Carson but he seems weird to me, a bit aloof.
The “Happy Hour Debate” only served to give TV time to the rest of the field. It might result in someone making the jump to the main stage in the next debate, but doesn’t make the debate(s) any more meaningful in the long run. Until the total field is down to 6 or 8, the debates are going to be nothing but prepared soundbites. Even then, most of the time is spent on prepared statements that may or may not address the question actually asked. I would love it if the debate hosts required candidates to prepare detailed, written position papers on a dozen or so domestic and international topics in order to “qualify” for the debate. The papers could be as long or as short as the candidate likes, but they would have to actually address the topic and give specific positions and the rationale for those positions. That will never happen though.
I thought the debate was obtuse.
That’s very acute of you.
Sounds like you’re talking about Trump.
I’m pretty sure trump can win this muthafukka if he really wanted to.
We got Mitt Romney, and he still lost. People care about whether gays can do other gays, or who they would like to have a beer with (although that will never happen), not who is best at running large organizations.
Bush is gonna get the nomination. Carson was clueless and reading from a script.
Jeb Bush is probably the most electable candidate plus he’s got that Mexican connection in his wife and speaks spanish. Would be a landslide if trumps decides to run as an independent and take even more votes away from the republicans.