Presidential Debate II

by Jack

Of course this is just my take, but I think ol Donald lost some ground last night. He was entertaining as ever, but almost right off and completely out of the blue… he attacks Rand Paul? “I don’t even known why he’s here, he’s 11th” and Donald kept up the petty sniping for good part of the debate. But, I think he was being worn down by the other candidates who were firing right back at him. By the third hour we saw a softer side of Trump emerge. Donald is a really interesting guy, but he doesn’t know much about the world beyond real estate and he’s been guilty of continually saying wrong things, like his take on child vaccines an autism. (Carson helped him out on that one)

Carly Fiorina probably got the most leverage out of this debate and her numbers have to be up this morning. She did very, very well, she was near perfect throughout. She had a good grasp of the issues, she pounded on Hillary and there were some personal moments where she hit it out of the park. She stood up well to all attacks. She even had a pitch-perfect comeback to Donald’s remark about her looks, overall she was great. She’s an official contender now.

But, now that she is a contender, you know the opposition is going after her. The mud slinging begins with her tenure at HP and her failed California race. But, at this moment in time… she is untouched by any negatives. I noticed Carly is either serious or angry, almost 100% of the time. This is a common trait among new candidates. I know she is trying to come off as presidential, but one of Ronald Reagan’s greatest attributes (selling points) was his Lincolnesq sense of humor. So far Carly is coming off as one dimensional, but maybe that will change as she feels more confident in the spotlight.

I cringed when Marco Rubio started off telling a joke that bombed – he said “I am aware California is having a water shortage, so I brought my own” and he holds up a plastic water bottle. The audience groaned and Walker tossed him a forced laugh…awkward. But, he recovered quickly and went on to impress us.

Rubio is good talker, aside from his comedic attempts, he knows his issues and what to say. I heard he moved up a notch by the end of this debate. That’s the good part, the downside he’s a died-in-the-wool career politician with all the inherit trappings and flaws. Mainly, that’s the campaign money, who he owes and who he’s connected/beholding too. Same could be said for Bush, but that’s totally expected and its also why his campaign hasn’t ignited any enthusiasm and why Trump rocketed to first place right out of the gate.

Rand Paul’s only bright spot came when he clashed with Christie over pot. It was interesting, but pot is not a mainstream issue, especially when compared to ISIS, Iran’s nukes or North Korean cyber-attacks.

Scott Walker…mmmm, no need to comment. He’s going to be dropping out soon, nice guy, smart, but he’s done. We’re going to see a lot of candidates dropping out soon.

So far nothing has changed with the voters, they still feel like all politicians are all crooks and liars. That they all make phony campaign promises and once elected they treat their constituents like mushrooms. So the anger hasn’t soften one bit; they still want a strong, honest leader that will put the Constitution and the people ahead of all other considerations. Is Ben Carson that guy? He’s so soft spoken it’s hard to tell, but character-wise he fits with voter’s expectations. He’s extremely intelligence, moral, considerate and capable. He came from humble beginnings and I believe he is trustworthy. Obviously, these are all great things, but is he presidential, can he be tough and resolute when he needs too? Time will tell.

Part II by Tina G.

I think CNN should be criticized for creating an atmosphere for personal attacks. The first hour especially found the moderator asking one candidate what he thought of another candidates remarks over and over again. The candidates will do enough of this on their own in the free wheeling race, there’s very little danger that any voter will miss the snarks. CNN had an opportunity in a controlled environment to ask more substantive questions, set a more serious tone from the start, and help voters to become more informed. They recovered a bit after the first hour but I can’t help wondering how many people tuned out?

The candidates could have tried to rise above and sidestep the set up but had they done that they would have been perceived as unresponsive and they knew they wouldn’t stop what CNN had designed into the event…the questions would just keep coming

Trump got more time than any other candidate which I know could be controlled better. If Jim’s right, it may be that establishment Republicans and CNN were aligned (in sprit) to bring him down a notch. Having said that, I thought he brought himself down a couple of notches all by himself.

I was very impressed with Carly Fiorina. I thought her response to Trump, defending her record at HP, was even better than the face retort. She used facts to defend her performance and he just had a caustic accusation. she also held her own in maintaining control the floor when it was her turn to speak. She has good business sense, she knows how to get the economy going, she seems to know a lot about what’s going on in the world, and she is critical of the performances of Obama and Hillary. Carly is burdened by the need to prove herself in a job dominated by men. She’s done it before, she can do it again, but I fear it has made her a bit too serious.

Rubio’s knowledge on foreign affairs impressed me, as well as his speaking skills and passion. I think he learned his lesson on immigration but in DC whether it would matter or not is another story. That’s true for every candidate, all they’ll be able to do is fight hard in negotiations with Congress, as any good president must.

Ted Cruz wasn’t given enough time in my opinion…nor were Ben Carson and Scott Walker. I admire Cruz greatly for sticking to his position and I know he’s a very smart man. Ben Carson is also very bright and has a good command for what it takes to lead. Walker was great in the multiple battles he waged in his state and I strongly believe he has a good grasp on how to stand up to power groups to affect economic growth and efficiency. But I think his experience otherwise is a bit shallow.

I was pleasantly surprised by Chris Christie’s performance. I still have trouble seeing him as president (shrug).

Bush can’t help but have a good grasp on the economy and foreign affairs given his family background but people are just tired of Bush’s and Clinton’s. He’s accused of being a RINO but his record in Florida suggests otherwise. Immigration and Common Core will certainly give him fits. He did have a good record on education before Common Core in Florida. His funny little jab at Trump when he said his code name would be “energizer” was good. I’m afraid he’s a man in the wrong place at the wrong time what with the family thing, the “insider/rino” label, and the mood of the country.

Mike Huckabee is good in some areas but like Christie I just can’t see him in the big chair.

I have a libertarian streak but I was a bit turned off by Rand Paul’s performance. He comes off as resentful and moody. Now, maybe some of that is due to the lack of time he was given in both debates. But a president can’t afford to display snarky attitudes.

The NY Daily News has the numbers on how many people tuned in:

CNN was crowing Thursday that it snagged nearly 23 million viewers for its marathon three-hour GOP 2016 debate the night before — a record for the cable network.

The prime-time debate averaged a 14.7 household rating, according to data published by Nielsen, meaning that about one in seven homes in the U.S. that had televisions tuned in.

The numbers, however, fell just short of last month’s GOP debate on Fox News Channel, the first of the season, which drew about 24 million viewers. That debate remains the highest-rated primary debate in history, according to Nielsen data.

I have to wonder at the motives of CNN:

After Trump’s contentious performance at the Fox debate, CNN appeared to play up its own event as a quasi “fight night,” airing dozens of commercials in the days leading to the debate portraying it as a boxing match.

“That was the idea,” CNN President Jeff Zucker told the Los Angeles Times earlier this week. “This is Round 2 of a heavyweight bout.”

If that’s the case why set the tone as a mud fight unless you’re only interested in ratings, shilling for the Democrat candidate/s, or both? As an American pretty disgusted at the state of our economy at home, and the state of the world, I’m turned off by these games.