Anyone Watching Tonight's Debate?

[franksolich]

IMHO, I think Newt did ok. Bloodied, but still standing. Romney's numbers are going to go down. Perry might come up.

Just my two cents.

That's what I wanted to know, sir.  Thanks!

[TVDOC]

I know it's all subjective, but which one looks like a winner at the moment?

The way I'd call it:

Newt (by a wide margin)
Perry (really did himself some good tonight)
Romney (speaks well, answers the questions, but isn't convincing)
Bachmann (did very well, but too much emphasis on evangelical issues)


Paul  (a waste of good airtime)

doc

[Chris_]

I haven't seen any recent debates at all, but I think Gingrich's personal baggage will cost him with the social conservatives and the blue-hairs in the northeast.  Perry is too far out there for them and it's a numbers game when half your primary states are in New England.  Romney is still the one to beat due to sheer numbers of oldtimers and bluebloods in the GOP that will vote for the nice boy.  I hate to keep repeating myself, but it really doesn't look like anything has changed.  Still the same old same old dragging the Republican party down in the general election.

[TVDOC]

I haven't seen any recent debates at all, but I think Gingrich's personal baggage will cost him with the social conservatives and the blue-hairs in the northeast.  Perry is too far out there for them and it's a numbers game when half your primary states are in New England.  Romney is still the one to beat due to sheer numbers of oldtimers and bluebloods in the GOP that will vote for the nice boy.  I hate to keep repeating myself, but it really doesn't look like anything has changed.  Still the same old same old dragging the Republican party down in the general election.

I think this year might be a surprise......the old guard is losing control of the party (they saw the handwriting on the wall last year).  Romney may well win in New Hampshire, but then comes the momentum generated by the southern primaries, both SC abd FL, Newt has a commanding lead right now.

It's still early, but I'm not ready to hand over control to the "Old guard" yet.

doc

[Chris_]

I hope you're right.  This bad habit the GOP has of picking the next guy in line needs to end.  They've been doing it since 1988 and then some.

[Ralph Wiggum]

I haven't seen any recent debates at all, but I think Gingrich's personal baggage will cost him with the social conservatives and the blue-hairs in the northeast.  Perry is too far out there for them and it's a numbers game when half your primary states are in New England.  Romney is still the one to beat due to sheer numbers of oldtimers and bluebloods in the GOP that will vote for the nice boy.  I hate to keep repeating myself, but it really doesn't look like anything has changed.  Still the same old same old dragging the Republican party down in the general election.

I have not committed to anyone yet (Thanks Herman).

Newt would be my favorite at the moment...Bachmann & Santorum have no chance.

I'll post another thread once the actual caucus crap is about to get closer.

As long as Barry loses, I'm good with that...(D'uh!)

[Ralph Wiggum]

I haven't seen any recent debates at all, but I think Gingrich's personal baggage will cost him with the social conservatives and the blue-hairs in the northeast.  Perry is too far out there for them and it's a numbers game when half your primary states are in New England.  Romney is still the one to beat due to sheer numbers of oldtimers and bluebloods in the GOP that will vote for the nice boy.  I hate to keep repeating myself, but it really doesn't look like anything has changed.  Still the same old same old dragging the Republican party down in the general election.

IMHO, all of Newt's personal stuff has been discussed and parsed to death.  He's done a pretty solid job explaining/apologizing/etc...thus far.

[Lacarnut]

The way I'd call it:

Newt (by a wide margin)
Perry (really did himself some good tonight)
Romney (speaks well, answers the questions, but isn't convincing)
Bachmann (did very well, but too much emphasis on evangelical issues)


Paul  (a waste of good airtime)

doc

That is the way I see it with the exception of Bachmann She did not do herself any good going negative. Voters want to know who has the best ideas and who can trounce Obummer. Newt wins that one.

[Eupher]

His father was kind of that way too, I guess.

I wouldn't say that.

I was just a youngster when George Romney was governor of Michigan and a pre-teen when he made his run for the Republican nomination for prez in 1968.

I recall him being fairly popular as governor, even in a blue state. Of course, he was fairly big in the auto industry in the Fifties, and I think was the CEO of the American Motors Corporation (Rambler, anyone?).

He wound up foundering against Nixon for some fairly dumb statements he made during the campaign. Had to do with Vietnam and "brainwashing" or some such, IIRC. He also wasn't eligible to become president, as he was born in a Mormon enclave in Mexico. Kinda funny how that worked against him then, and it doesn't really apply for the current president today, but I digress....

[NHSparky]

I think this year might be a surprise......the old guard is losing control of the party (they saw the handwriting on the wall last year).  Romney may well win in New Hampshire, but then comes the momentum generated by the southern primaries, both SC abd FL, Newt has a commanding lead right now.

It's still early, but I'm not ready to hand over control to the "Old guard" yet.

doc

Yeah, Romney will likely win NH, but it certainly won't be by anywhere near the expected margin.  Hell, it is possible he doesn't win at all--he didn't in 2008, and frankly, he MUST pull NH by double-digits to remain a viable candidate.  At that point, he's going to get his ass handed to him in SC, Florida, and all but a couple of states (Michigan, Maine) before Super Tuesday.  He's going to be seriously struggling against Newt.

Romney needs to win and win decisively in a majority of states prior to Super Tuesday, because that day has states like Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia--states which Romney will NOT win, no way, no how.  He needs to come out of ST with significantly more delegates than Newt, or he can take that fork he combs his hair with and stick it in his campaign.

[DumbAss Tanker]

IA and NH are both aberrations, IA because of the stupid caucus system and NH because it's just a wild card, and in the general election both are small-population states with a tiny number of EC delegates.  It is an unfortunate distortion of everything that makes sense that they come first.

[TVDOC]

I thought that there were two "high points" to last night's debate.

The first was when Megan Kelly with Fox (a lawyer BTW) asked Gingrich a "gotcha" question about his position on the judiciary........Newt brought the house down with his answer that the 9th Circuit should be abolished as the most warped and ineffective of the appellate courts, and that the founders never envisioned that the judiciary should actually ever "make law".  Those  that do should be dragged before congress and held accountable, with enough frequency to keep the others in line.  He referred to it as the "tyranny of lawyers", and cited several early presidents that fired (or impeached) a considerable number of federal judges for the same reasons.  His position was that the founders very specifically planned that the "separation of powers" never meant that the judiciary should be "superior" to the legislative branch regarding the making of law and public policy......always secondary.

The second was when Bachmann called out Ron Paul on his foreign policy.......she really got in his face, even calling him a liar.  Paul sputtered and spit and then put on his "tin foil hat" for the world to see.....it was delectable.......Paul's response was even booed by the crowd......



doc

[Karin]

Neal Boortz covered your first instance on today's show.  Brilliant.  The SC makes me nervous as hell.  We now have one guy who's going to decide all of America's healthcare destiny.  This was never envisioned by the founders. 

[docstew]

Neal Boortz covered your first instance on today's show.  Brilliant.  The SC makes me nervous as hell.  We now have one guy who's going to decide all of America's healthcare destiny.  This was never envisioned by the founders. 

Not if the Congress can force Kagan to recuse. At that point, it becomes 4-4 at worst

[Lacarnut]

I thought that there were two "high points" to last night's debate.

The first was when Megan Kelly with Fox (a lawyer BTW) asked Gingrich a "gotcha" question about his position on the judiciary........Newt brought the house down with his answer that the 9th Circuit should be abolished as the most warped and ineffective of the appellate courts, and that the founders never envisioned that the judiciary should actually ever "make law".  Those  that do should be dragged before congress and held accountable, with enough frequency to keep the others in line.  He referred to it as the "tyranny of lawyers", and cited several early presidents that fired (or impeached) a considerable number of federal judges for the same reasons.  His position was that the founders very specifically planned that the "separation of powers" never meant that the judiciary should be "superior" to the legislative branch regarding the making of law and public policy......always secondary.

I loved that; betcha liberal heads exploded after hearing that loony judges might be purged.