I refused to watch the post debate talking heads in order to put my own first impressions down regarding the debate. Here is my list of the candidate performances from best to worst. My rankings are based exclusively on what happened tonight, independent of their baggage.

Gingrich - By far the best debater of the bunch. He came across as very articulate and he knew his stuff. IMO he said the right things to be highly effective at persuading people to give him a shot. He was powerful in his answers

Paul - He effectively demonstrated the minimalist approach that most Americans are beginning to hunger for. He can become that 3rd alternative for people who are tired of the D vs. R dichotomy we see today. However, for how great he was on the constitution and domestic issues, he will not win over very many people on his foreign policy issues. I understood exactly where he was coming from, but he could not articulate his foreign policy well enough IMO.

Santorum - Many may disagree, but I think Santorum solidified his position among social conservatives. Social conservatives still make up a significant amount of the GOP, and he said enough good things about taxes and the economy to go up IMO. Specifically, his line about the debt ceiling was logical, and most people will recognize that the U.S. did in fact need some wiggle room via a debt ceiling increase in the short term regardless of our feelings.

Pawlenty - He tried to articulate that he was a man of action as opposed to ideas. He conveyed that well IMO, but sniping with Bachman and occasionally with Romney wasted valuable time that he could have used to flesh out his opinions more.

Romney - You may not have liked his answers when it comes to business, but he positioned himself as a businessman effectively enough that people will want to trust him to improve the economy. He positioned himself as right leaning moderate to appeal to the neocons and independents. Largely underwhelming, but he looks like a "safe pick".

Cain - He's engaging and can speak well. However, he comes across as a 2 dimensional character - he can't shake that CEO mentality. Also, he is out of his element in foreign policy. Not enough depth for people to trust his judgement. Being a good CEO is not enough.

Bachman - Robotic answers. It almost looked like she shoe horned prepared answers to go with questions that were close enough. Reminds me of Palin, and that alone will squelch her chances as this campaign moves on.

Huntsman - Decent answers to a number of questions, but he is basically cannon fodder. I got the impression that he wasn't in it to win it, unlike the other candidates who looked like they were actually trying.


That's my take on it. I think Newt might be getting some momentum moving forward. You can't write this guy off yet.

(08-11-2011 10:47 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I refused to watch the post debate talking heads in order to put my own first impressions down regarding the debate. Here is my list of the candidate performances from best to worst. My rankings are based exclusively on what happened tonight, independent of their baggage.

Gingrich - By far the best debater of the bunch. He came across as very articulate and he knew his stuff. IMO he said the right things to be highly effective at persuading people to give him a shot. He was powerful in his answers

Paul - He effectively demonstrated the minimalist approach that most Americans are beginning to hunger for. He can become that 3rd alternative for people who are tired of the D vs. R dichotomy we see today. However, for how great he was on the constitution and domestic issues, he will not win over very many people on his foreign policy issues. I understood exactly where he was coming from, but he could not articulate his foreign policy well enough IMO.

Santorum - Many may disagree, but I think Santorum solidified his position among social conservatives. Social conservatives still make up a significant amount of the GOP, and he said enough good things about taxes and the economy to go up IMO. Specifically, his line about the debt ceiling was logical, and most people will recognize that the U.S. did in fact need some wiggle room via a debt ceiling increase in the short term regardless of our feelings.

Pawlenty - He tried to articulate that he was a man of action as opposed to ideas. He conveyed that well IMO, but sniping with Bachman and occasionally with Romney wasted valuable time that he could have used to flesh out his opinions more.

Romney - You may not have liked his answers when it comes to business, but he positioned himself as a businessman effectively enough that people will want to trust him to improve the economy. He positioned himself as right leaning moderate to appeal to the neocons and independents. Largely underwhelming, but he looks like a "safe pick".

Cain - He's engaging and can speak well. However, he comes across as a 2 dimensional character - he can't shake that CEO mentality. Also, he is out of his element in foreign policy. Not enough depth for people to trust his judgement. Being a good CEO is not enough.

Bachman - Robotic answers. It almost looked like she shoe horned prepared answers to go with questions that were close enough. Reminds me of Palin, and that alone will squelch her chances as this campaign moves on.

Huntsman - Decent answers to a number of questions, but he is basically cannon fodder. I got the impression that he wasn't in it to win it, unlike the other candidates who looked like they were actually trying.


That's my take on it. I think Newt might be getting some momentum moving forward. You can't write this guy off yet.

Very well written. And I agree about Santorum.

So my overall thoughts from the debate:

Santorum: He's done for. Bottom of the bucket at the straw poll.
Pawlenty: He's done for. Hurt his shot in the straw poll.
Paul: Probably slightly increased his support.
Newt: Probably greatly increased his straw poll showing, but probably no help long term.
Bachmann: Slightly hurt her standing. Bachmann's greatest weakness is her mouth.
Cain: Push, maybe slightly helped his cause. No air time, really.
Huntsman: Increased his name recognition a good bit, but overall probably a push.
Romney: Push. He'll still be the frontrunner, but good luck finding a Republican excited about that.

(08-11-2011 10:30 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 10:26 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  As an outsider. I think Mitt is the chosen one. It's his turn in line.............but.......... and this is a big BUT, all of the energy is with Paul. He won every GOP debate in 2008. This is the guy's element. Poll after Poll shows Paul wins these things. He never can gain traction. If the right people drop out Paul could do it. I type that, but in reality I JUST know THEY won't allow it.

What would a Paul/Newt or a Newt/Paul ticket look like against Obama? It damn sure would be interesting. I doubt RP would do this but...Newt came out very cozy tonight in regard to Dr. Paul's positions.

If you give Newt enough time, he will rise to the top of the field. People have short term memories. They are becoming more astute politically than they have been 10 years ago, but with this new insight will come a lot of "clean slates". I think the people will give Newt that clean slate. Remember, in 2008 it looked like Gulliani was the clear cut front runner at first...look at what happened to him.

Not a word about Ron Paul in the Hannity follow up. Did he fare better on any other networks?

(08-11-2011 11:01 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Not a word about Ron Paul in the Hannity follow up. Did he fare better on any other networks?

Did not see any other networks at the debate, at least relevant networks (who demonstrate bias).

(08-11-2011 11:05 PM)TampaKnight Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 11:01 PM)Dak10 Wrote:  Not a word about Ron Paul in the Hannity follow up. Did he fare better on any other networks?

Did not see any other networks at the debate, at least relevant networks (who demonstrate bias).

FauxNews.com has about a half dozen debate stories up. He is mentioned in two them ... one 8 word sentence with his response to Perry. The other droning on about foreign policy and strongly implying he's fringe and that Santorum was teaching him a lesson. It's Faux dude ... what do you expect ... fair and balanced?? YEA RIGHT.

It's sad when I have to get decent journalism from the New York Times ... well ... from a NYT employee ... well ... from the damned TWITTER ACCOUNT of a NYT employee.

Nate Silver, who does the 538 blog tweets:

"Winners tonight, in rough order: 1. Fox News (great questions), 2. Rick Perry; 3. Ron Paul; 4. Mitt Romney; 5. Barack Obama."

(08-11-2011 11:17 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  It's sad when I have to get decent journalism from the New York Times ... well ... from a NYT employee ... well ... from the damned TWITTER ACCOUNT of a NYT employee.

Nate Silver, who does the 538 blog tweets:

"Winners tonight, in rough order: 1. Fox News (great questions), 2. Rick Perry; 3. Ron Paul; 4. Mitt Romney; 5. Barack Obama."

That's not even decent sarcasm.

Paul was the only winner on that list.

Well, to get good coverage you apparently have to go local.

The Des Moines Register with easily the best write up so far:

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/20...gn-policy/

(08-11-2011 10:11 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  They got that intel after waterboarding someone 200 times. THERE was NO AL QUADEA in IRAQ no matter how much you want to believe it.

That was the fault of the guy being waterboarded.

(08-11-2011 10:37 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Cain came across as a neanderthal. Primitive bulky.

Wow. Why not just call him an ape? It's what you mean.

1st paragraph on MSNBC

Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney shared the stage Thursday night with seven other presidential candidates in a contentious Iowa debate — which found the underdogs snipping at each other, vying for the number two spot.




WTF who watched that debate and FELT Romeny even came close to 1. Much less the others sniping at each other. Newt certainly didn't snipe at anyone. (other than the panel). Cain and Huntsman didn't snipe at anyone either. Bachman, Pwaltney, and Santorum did for their own strategic reasons.

(08-12-2011 07:19 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-11-2011 10:37 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Cain came across as a neanderthal. Primitive bulky.

Wow. Why not just call him an ape? It's what you mean.

I know right. Who knew mach was such a racist?

I wonder if this coronation will work. The base doesn't like the guy. Can't get excited about him. I've never heard anyone in here rally around Mitt Romney. I don't get it.

(08-12-2011 08:09 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I wonder if this coronation will work. The base doesn't like the guy. Can't get excited about him. I've never heard anyone in here rally around Mitt Romney. I don't get it.

Yes...It will work because Mitt represents the status quo. As much as the GOP wants to be stalwarts of change, they lack the guts to actually do it.
Sure.... Romney will make great promises and the GOP will rally around him and post a platform designed to beat Obama. Unfortunately that platform will end up in the trash heap if they gain the WH. Then..it's back to the business of corporatism, cronyism and "their" style of big government. Nothing substantial will have changed except the resident in the WH.

You might want to save this post for future reference as to how easy it is to predict the mechanics of government.

I think Romney is a talking suit...I honestly like the idea of a Newt/Paul ticket. Newt being POTUS.

Ron Paul accidentally the whole thing.

http://www.topix.com/issue/fox/gop-debate-aug11

(08-12-2011 08:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Ron Paul accidentally the whole thing.

http://www.topix.com/issue/fox/gop-debate-aug11

You know damn well that this will simply be explained away by the media as an organized Paul effort. Fox will never admit otherwise.

(08-12-2011 08:55 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Ron Paul accidentally the whole thing.

http://www.topix.com/issue/fox/gop-debate-aug11

Fox aired a different poll showing Newt and Mitt the winners. Paul towards the bottom. Sh*theads! :muttering: