|
On January 20 2012 12:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Okay report card time:
Newt Gingrich - B+ - Quick responses, especially with SC voters regarding the economy.
Ron Paul - A - Good answers as usual, brings up issues many Americans agree/concerned with.
Romney - D+ - Crashed and burned on the tax issue, dodged several questions by going to the repetitive attack Obama, Roman Empire theory of Military strength, then said he won't release last years tax returns because he doesn't want Obama to win. Then suggest increase Government by proposing National I.D. Cards.\
Santorum - C - What can you say about Santorum, he wasn't as bad as Romney.
Pretty fair assessment, I might be inclined to give Santorum a C+ though just to contrast that Romney really did do so much worse than everyone else tonight.
|
On January 20 2012 12:03 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 12:02 allecto wrote:
After that debate, I'm seriously confused how Romney has been the frontrunner for so long. Did he do something right sometime in the distant past or is it just more funding? He's so ambivalent about his position everyone can reluctantly stand for him. Especially since he's the only one who can beat Obama. But few people actually like him.
I never understood the logic that he could beat Obama. If hes weak on Bain in a Republican primary, the one place where being a businessman who has no issue firing people shouldnt matter, then that issue in a general election would kill him.
|
On January 20 2012 12:03 Lavalamp799 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 12:00 ticklishmusic wrote:
K, so I'd say Paul is the winner of this debate- he looked presidential, fended off the attacks well and managed to avoid making anything really controversial. Gingrich is second because he was pretty witty, but the wife issue is going to hurt. Santorum got torn apart from all sides. But, Romney is covered in blood and the sharks can smell it. Everyone got a piece of him tonight. I'd say Paul got the least out of this debate. The other three just seemed to discuss amongst themselves and almost ignore Paul for most of the debate. I think Gingrich "won" the debate, especially coming out firing at the start. Romney is always extremely well spoken and knows how to get the cheers, so I think it was a fairly positive debate for him as well. One thing I noticed about Romney tonight is how he said his one regret was he wished all the times he attacked Paul, Gingrich, or Santorum that he was attacking Obama instead. It's like he's speaking as if he already won the nomination, and is switching his focus on Obama now.
I think that's just him still trying to win the nomination because it's exactly what the republicans want to hear lol
|
On January 20 2012 12:03 Lavalamp799 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 12:00 ticklishmusic wrote:
K, so I'd say Paul is the winner of this debate- he looked presidential, fended off the attacks well and managed to avoid making anything really controversial. Gingrich is second because he was pretty witty, but the wife issue is going to hurt. Santorum got torn apart from all sides. But, Romney is covered in blood and the sharks can smell it. Everyone got a piece of him tonight. I'd say Paul got the least out of this debate. The other three just seemed to discuss amongst themselves and almost ignore Paul for most of the debate. I think Gingrich "won" the debate, especially coming out firing at the start. Romney is always extremely well spoken and knows how to get the cheers, so I think it was a fairly positive debate for him as well. One thing I noticed about Romney tonight is how he said his one regret was he wished all the times he attacked Paul, Gingrich, or Santorum that he was attacking Obama instead. It's like he's speaking as if he already won the nomination, and is switching his focus on Obama now.
The other candidates tried to marginalize Ron Paul because they don't want to fight him. It's a lose-lose situation. They can't pry off any of his voters, as he has the most solid and loyal base out of all of them. Moreover, he's a vastly more experienced candidate and debater, and as we saw, he can hit pretty hard.
Thing is, whenever Romney hit a difficult spot, he fell back to attacking Obama.
|
On January 20 2012 12:05 Adreme wrote:
I never understood the logic that he could beat Obama. If hes weak on Bain in a Republican primary, the one place where being a businessman who has no issue firing people shouldnt matter, then that issue in a general election would kill him.
He can beat Obama not because of his positions, which pretty much nobody knows what they are. He can beat Obama because the economy sucks and he doesn't look as crazy as the rest of the candidacy. Except Ron Paul, but Ron Paul is too niche.
Or, to be blunt, he's the most acceptable person who is not Obama.
|
These guys said nothing whatsoever of substance in this debate. It seems like the only reason they had it was to get viewers, not to actually have an intellectual discussion about politics.
He can beat Obama not because of his positions, which pretty much nobody knows what they are. He can beat Obama because the economy sucks.
Or, to be blunt, he's the most acceptable person who is not Obama.
Obama is far from hated. Polls show him at a tie with Romney and Paul if either of them get the nomination and beating the other two if they do. Obama's approval rating is also just under 50%. He's not hated by everyone, and once he actually starts campaigning, he'll destroy any of these Republican candidates. He's a significantly better speaker and campaigner and I firmly believe that unless something goes catastrophically wrong that none of these Republican candidates are good enough to beat him.
|
On January 20 2012 12:05 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 12:03 acker wrote:On January 20 2012 12:02 allecto wrote:
After that debate, I'm seriously confused how Romney has been the frontrunner for so long. Did he do something right sometime in the distant past or is it just more funding? He's so ambivalent about his position everyone can reluctantly stand for him. Especially since he's the only one who can beat Obama. But few people actually like him. I never understood the logic that he could beat Obama. If hes weak on Bain in a Republican primary, the one place where being a businessman who has no issue firing people shouldnt matter, then that issue in a general election would kill him.
There is no logic to it, he can't. Sorry to spoil anybody on the 2012 election but all the smart republicans and big donors have hidden away for 2016.
|
On January 20 2012 12:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Obama is far from hated. Polls show him at a tie with Romney and Paul if either of them get the nomination and beating the other two if they do. Obama's approval rating is also just under 50%. He's not hated by everyone, and once he actually starts campaigning, he'll destroy any of these Republican candidates. He's a significantly better speaker and campaigner and I firmly believe that unless something goes catastrophically wrong that none of these Republican candidates are good enough to beat him.
This is true for now. However, Europe has a very good chance of crashing around mid-year, and it'd be very simple to pin the resulting fallout on Obama. That would fall under "catastrophically wrong".
Voters really don't care all that much about whether presidents are responsible for something. They care about what actually happens.
|
On January 20 2012 12:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:These guys said nothing whatsoever of substance in this debate. It seems like the only reason they had it was to get viewers, not to actually have an intellectual discussion about politics. Show nested quote +He can beat Obama not because of his positions, which pretty much nobody knows what they are. He can beat Obama because the economy sucks.
Or, to be blunt, he's the most acceptable person who is not Obama. Obama is far from hated. Polls show him at a tie with Romney and Paul if either of them get the nomination and beating the other two if they do. Obama's approval rating is also just under 50%. He's not hated by everyone, and once he actually starts campaigning, he'll destroy any of these Republican candidates. He's a significantly better speaker and campaigner and I firmly believe that unless something goes catastrophically wrong that none of these Republican candidates are good enough to beat him.
He's significantly better at reading off a teleprompt and has more money and is the incumbent.
And when Greece defaults in March and the rest of Europe gets hurt, people will be feeling a bit worse about Obama because the ramifications at home will not be small.
|
On January 20 2012 12:11 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 12:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Obama is far from hated. Polls show him at a tie with Romney and Paul if either of them get the nomination and beating the other two if they do. Obama's approval rating is also just under 50%. He's not hated by everyone, and once he actually starts campaigning, he'll destroy any of these Republican candidates. He's a significantly better speaker and campaigner and I firmly believe that unless something goes catastrophically wrong that none of these Republican candidates are good enough to beat him. This is true for now. However, Europe has a very good chance of crashing around mid-year, and it'd be very simple to pin the resulting fallout on Obama. Voters really don't care all that much about whether presidents are responsible for something. They care about what actually happens.
I highly doubt if Europe crashes all the blame will go to Obama; there are bigger issues to talk about at home than Europe's crisis.
|
On January 20 2012 12:13 Lavalamp799 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 12:11 acker wrote:On January 20 2012 12:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Obama is far from hated. Polls show him at a tie with Romney and Paul if either of them get the nomination and beating the other two if they do. Obama's approval rating is also just under 50%. He's not hated by everyone, and once he actually starts campaigning, he'll destroy any of these Republican candidates. He's a significantly better speaker and campaigner and I firmly believe that unless something goes catastrophically wrong that none of these Republican candidates are good enough to beat him. This is true for now. However, Europe has a very good chance of crashing around mid-year, and it'd be very simple to pin the resulting fallout on Obama. Voters really don't care all that much about whether presidents are responsible for something. They care about what actually happens. I highly doubt if Europe crashes all the blame will go to Obama; there are bigger issues to talk about at home than Europe's crisis.
His point is that europe crashing (whatever that means) would in turn effect the american economy.
|
On January 20 2012 12:13 Lavalamp799 wrote:
I highly doubt if Europe crashes all the blame will go to Obama; there are bigger issues to talk about at home than Europe's crisis.
If Europe crashes, that will be the biggest issue at home. It'd literally be a double dip for the US economy, even though Bernanke and Obama have worked on severing (insulating, if you prefer the term) financial markets from Europe for over six months, now*. There's no way in hell we'll be able to cushion the blow enough for it to not matter.
*Basically reducing the number of assets we're holding that come from potential distressed Europe markets. Or something. It'll help, but it won't stop everything.
"Europe crashing" basically means "severe financial distress in the Eurozone caused by Greece or some other nation".
|
|
|
On January 20 2012 12:11 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2012 12:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:These guys said nothing whatsoever of substance in this debate. It seems like the only reason they had it was to get viewers, not to actually have an intellectual discussion about politics. He can beat Obama not because of his positions, which pretty much nobody knows what they are. He can beat Obama because the economy sucks.
Or, to be blunt, he's the most acceptable person who is not Obama. Obama is far from hated. Polls show him at a tie with Romney and Paul if either of them get the nomination and beating the other two if they do. Obama's approval rating is also just under 50%. He's not hated by everyone, and once he actually starts campaigning, he'll destroy any of these Republican candidates. He's a significantly better speaker and campaigner and I firmly believe that unless something goes catastrophically wrong that none of these Republican candidates are good enough to beat him. He's significantly better at reading off a teleprompt and has more money and is the incumbent. And when Greece defaults in March and the rest of Europe gets hurt, people will be feeling a bit worse about Obama because the ramifications at home will not be small.
If Romney wins nominee he can fairly easily be painted as a rich guy who doenst understand or care about the middle class. They could go for the tax plan, they could use the classic "corporations are people my friend" quote or his saying he only pays 15% in taxes to just eviscerate him. He can not in a debate say "I will create jobs" because the line from Obama will be "you spent years destroying them"
Europe is also far less likely to crash then you seem to fathom. Yes if the deal falls thru than everything could go south real fast but the deal has almsot fallen thru about 10x by now and nothing has changed yet. Even if for some reaosn it does go south around mid next year the the map is still so good for Obama against Romney that I dont see him being able to come back from it.
|
On January 20 2012 12:19 Adreme wrote:
Europe is also far less likely to crash then you seem to fathom. Yes if the deal falls thru than everything could go south real fast but the deal has almsot fallen thru about 10x by now and nothing has changed yet.
I hope you're right.
|
This post debate analysis on CNN is hilarious. John King's feelings are hurt! I'm waiting for him to start crying.
|
|
|
On January 20 2012 12:24 xDaunt wrote:
This post debate analysis on CNN is hilarious. John King's feelings are hurt! I'm waiting for him to start crying.
To be fair it was pretty harsh lol, I thought he handled himself really well
|
I think obviously Romney is the favorite to win. He has been all along. He's a smooth talker (part of the reason I don't trust him at all). Very charismatic, good looking, etc. But everything he has going for him, Obama is even better.
I'd be really interested to see what would happen if Paul won the nomination, though. Because he is tied 50/50 with Obama right now, but that's despite a rather obvious media blackout. Personally, I think Paul would have a better chance at winning the election than Romney, but Romney will get the nomination.
|
On January 20 2012 12:24 xDaunt wrote:
This post debate analysis on CNN is hilarious. John King's feelings are hurt! I'm waiting for him to start crying.
John King was the obvious loser in this debate. Man, he got blasted by the audience for trying to ignore Paul. And also by Newt for asking that silly question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
