 |
| And Then There Were . . . :: Counts :: . . . :: Uses Fingers :: . . . :: Adds In The Undercard :: . . . Uh . . . A Bunch. |
He also got out-gunned by Marco Rubio in a planned exchange that Rubio was ready for when he tried to hit Rubio on missing votes in the Senate to run his presidential bid.
Rubio got advance notice, too, and came prepared. He reminded everyone of Jeb’s admiration for John McCain’s campaign in 2007 and 2008, when McCain… missed a ton of votes. The counterattack was precise and vicious: Rubio essentially accused Jeb of laying down with the liberal media devil out of desperation. He wasn’t wrong.From one Jeb Supporter:
Bush’s bad night benefited Marco Rubio most. Indeed, Bush donors were quick to complain about what they saw as a bad strategic decision to take on the junior Floridian.
“Marco is a [expletive] Jedi Master,” one distraught Florida donor said. “Hopefully these idiots learn not to [expletive] with him anymore. Not necessary.”The [expletive] is most likely 'fucking' / 'fuck.'
While Trump and Carson vanished somewhat towards the end, they likely did well because in the early part of the debate there was enough mud-slinging that their fans probably caught some of it before switching over to the World Series.
Rubio and Ted Cruz, however, likely won the night. Fiorina didn't have a bad performance--but she probably didn't get the breakout she needs to reverse her recent polling slide.
The Horrible Moderators
Condemnation was nearly universal from the left and the right with conservative watchers asking why Republicans keep letting leftists moderate their debates. A few possibilities:- With the exception of Fox, any other channel will have liberal moderators--that's how the MSM rolls.
- The GOPe wants to hammer social conservatives so they're okay with it?
- The GOPe knows that arguing with the liberal media is good for its brand so they secretly set it up.
The Omnivore, though, thinks it's just part bad dynamic and part fuck-up. The Democrats wouldn't let Mark Levin moderate one of their debates. The RNC could do a better job here.
Cruz v. Rubio
The establishment choices appear to be Cruz (sorta) vs. Rubio (likely) with, possibly, a side of Chris Christie as he had a good night too. Erick Erickson certainly thinks so. This is the "smart money" solution and as such, it isn't a bad guess. Cruz is stuck in the middle of the pack--but he's planning a break-out. Rubio is on the rise and he seems to have a pretty solid charisma-game. They both have their problems, however:- Rubio's funding hasn't been great and he hasn't, yet, built a stellar organization. A massive cash infusion after a few wins will help--but that's late in the game to build a robust effort.
- Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is trying to position himself for the Trump/Carson collapse but analysis shows that he doesn't get most of their votes. If Trump drops out, an innovative poll shows that Carson picks of most of the votes. Followed by Rubio. Then Bush. Then No Choice (tied with Cruz).
Trump and Carson
Verdict: Rubio gains a point, Trump and Carson maintain big leads because that’s just how this shit seems to work
— Allahpundit (@allahpundit) October 29, 2015
While Trump and Carson's debate won't please the pundits (although Carson fielded a question on why he would shop at Costco--a gay-friendly employer--fairly effortlessly) they likely did what they needed to in order to maintain their lead. Trump wasn't being humble when he said he wasn't much of a debater but for all of Ted Cruz's god-like (allegedly, anyway) debate skills from Harvard, Trump has had the best of it thus far.Trump, for the first time, didn't win the "Talked the most" award--which could be seen as part of his general slide against Carson--but (a) Carson talked even less and (b) in recent polling,
Trump is still, well, pretty dominant:
Trump also finished up with a note that he made the debate shorter than it would have been. That's true, powerful, and well, Trump. It's a good note to close on.
"Marco is a [expletive] Jedi Master.". Hmm. There are those who might like the sound of that... Others, I'm sure, who prefer the title "Sith Lord", thank you very much.
ReplyDelete-- Ω
INDEED [ :: Skkkkch--Wooorrrrrnnnooowwww-- :: ]
DeleteMy take on it...(and keep in mind this is about Republican Primary candidates, all of whom, imho, want to go in the Wrong direction on Most things)...
ReplyDeleteTrump
* A twit, capable only of ad hominem insults of his rivals, and giving grand "I'll fix
EVERYTHING really good" statements and unable to intelligently defend any of
the details.
* Un-electable.
Cruz
* A total Dick, apparently incapable of governing (which requires compromise).
* Electable? God Forbid.
Carson & Huckabee
* These are personally really nice guys, probably. But their bible-infused vision
of governance makes them simply scary.
* Un-electable in the General - too many of us don't like that shit.
Fiorina
* Comes across as very confident, but also rather harsh. Like it or not, that doesn't
work well for women politicians. Something I think Clinton has learned by now the
hard way. Plus, Omega here seems to think she has some pretty disqualifying
"stuff" in her closet.
* Electable? Not so much.
Rubio
* Last night, he showed himself capable of a good debate while looking reasonable
at the same time (unlike Cruz, who in spite of being (some say) a strong debater
is still totally unreasonable most of the time). And then there's the charisma.
A facet I've heard mentioned but really just hadn't seen - until last night.
Yep, gotta admit, when he smiles at the audience, it's a winner.
* Electable? Could be. That debate revealed him as a real-threat - if he survives
the Primary.
Kasich
* Lot of seemingly sensible things to say. I don't particularly agree with his positions,
but his diatribe against the electorate for leaning towards Trump or
Carson was dead on, and kudos to him for making the point loudly. When he said
he wanted a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, though, he lost my
support. Doesn't matter if it can't be done, it's an extremely bad and fiscally
disastrous idea for the country.
* Electable? After that amendment crack, I hope not.
Fortunately, I don't think he is.
(continuing)
ReplyDeleteChristie
* I thought Christie did well last night. He flubbed, in my opinion, by being
hypocritical/inconsistent in his rantings against "giving money to Washington", while
in the same breath saying funding should be doled out for this or that thing (can't
remember exactly) - uh, where's that come from? Zee Germans?
* Electable? Yea, of the Republican line up, I think he has one of
the best shots at the General, if he can get there. And if the loony GOP
right-wing-nut base doesn't decide to pout and say "fuck it, I ain't votin for nobody."
I say that because he's open to the idea that he's wrong on some things,
and that others might have ideas worth considering. That's leadership.
Very few of the others up there demonstrate that skill or willingness.
Bush
* Not much to do here but say "Wow" and kinda shake your head. He really did
demonstrated that he's terrible at debating. I'm thinking he really is a good
leader, in the sense of the terms I've described for Christie. But ya gotta be able
to make the public "believe". And he just doesn't. I wouldn't say disappointing,
since I'm hoping the GOP loses. But yea, surprising.
* Electable? Yea. Or, I thought so. Pretty unconvinced now.
Paul
* Paul has more strong points than most of his peers up there. But this group is
much more about drama than substance.
* Electable? Nope. Rand can't figure out if he's a libertarian or a
Republican. He shoots for the fiscal tightness, and argues (sometimes effectively)
for keeping Govm't out of peoples affairs. But then there's that whole social
conservative thing. He has to adopt that to get the nomination.
Gee don't you think an actually viable and regular 3rd party (Libertarians?) would
make elections and government better? I'm no libertarian, but... too bad.