|
Debate thoughts...
First, taping everything, then going out for an evening of bar trivia makes for a long night. We didn't even win tonight.
The JV debate was a bit painful. I don't see any of these four candidates breaking through.
Graham: I get what he's saying, but he seems to be positioning himself as the candidate who hides under the bed and scares children.
Santorum: A lot of self-congratulation for a guy who has only two turns in the Senate and has been out of office for eight years.
Pataki: I think he played as well as he ever has, but mainly he seemed like a moderate voice of reason paired with three who are fighting for a different audience. In a less partisan world, he might have a chance, but he wasn't inspiring.
Jindal: I become more and more disappointed with him every time out. He's frustrated, and it shows. He seems to want to dedicate his candidacy to taking down Trump. Not a bad idea, but I don't think it works that way. He has a solid command of the issues, but he also seems like he thinks he's always the smartest one in the room.
The varsity debate was really good. After CNN said it would try to make the candidates address each other, I thought it would be a long stream of gotcha, but the moderators were very much on topic and held control just enough to accomplish what they were looking for without being nasty. Fox did a great job with the opener last month and CNN met their challenge. We're getting a much better picture of the candidates than ever before.
Trump: He's learning a little about controlling himself, but he still has very little substance. I think he has an unrealistic view of what a president does. While the idea of the president being an outsider appeals to me, Trump doesn't. I want someone who can articulate a plan. Being a leader is more than just being able to command a stage.
Bush: His body language and demeanor are of someone who really doesn't want to be there. In many ways, he's the moderate we may need. His command of the issues is excellent. But is he a leader? If you could combine the two Bush brothers, you might well have a decent president. Separately, I don't think so.
Walker: His instinct is still trying to tell people why they should vote for him. But he's not a commanding speaker and I'm not sure why he continues with this approach. It would be easy to forget he's there.
Kasich: In terms of qualifications, he's exceptional. But he's also probably the worst speaker in the entire group and seems more like a guy you'd want in your cabinet rather than in the Oval Office.
Fiorina: No question the audience loved her. Her responses to Trump were perfect. She's very polished. I think she will continue to gain. I want an honest assessment of how she did at HP. We might be at a point where any assessment would be hopelessly political, but I want to know.
Christie: I thought he did very well, but all the pandering to the audience seems like false humility.
Paul: He did a good job separating his ideas from the rest of the group. But he always seems angry and maybe a little confused on foreign issues.
Cruz: He is wonderfully articulate and if he has staying power, he should grab the right-wing vote. But he's probably too extreme for the position. I always feel with this type of candidacy that they're just going to offend the other side on day one of the presidency, and then it's a four-year battle to get anything passed.
Rubio: At some point, he and Bush will square off for the vote from more moderate Republicans who don't mind an insider. He struggles to get his opinions out there, however.
Huckabee: We've know Huckabee for what seems like decades. Nice guy, good speaker, way out there politically.
Carson: The mature, half-asleep approach is pleasant, but I still have no idea what he wants to do in office.
My thoughts about points gained or lost today (points being arbitrary):
Fiorina +5, Christie +3, Cruz +3, Rubio +2, Pataki +1, Trump 0, Huckabee 0, Santorum 0, Bush -2, Carson -2, Kasich -3, Paul -3, Walker -4, Graham -5, Jindal -6.
|