Ok so having finally seen the 3rd debate (thanks CNBC for basically making it unavailable to anyone) its time for a debate review.
Now for those who didnt read my first two debate analysis or just flat out cant remember the "rules" here they are again:
The way this works, I'm going to start with the Candidate I think has the bleakest future and move up. However after each number showing the candidates present prospects, I will also list a second number in () after the name, which is the "number" based on the polls going into the debate. So for example #1 Clinton, (10) would mean the candidate (Clinton in this fictional case) who currently looks the best, came in to the debate with the worst support in the polls.
Now please note in this debate several of the candidates were tied in the polls in both 4th place and last place (a 3 way) hence why you may see the number 4 and 8 more than once and no 5, 9 or 10.
Also like last time there will be a 3rd number following the second, this is where I placed the candidates standing in my evaluation of the first debate. So using Clinton again #1 Clinton (10/8) would mean I think Clinton did the best, came into the debate in 10th, but I had thought should have been entering at 8th in my previous analysis.
10. Carson (2/9)
I cant sugar coat this one.....this debate was an almost unprecedented disaster as far as Dr. Carson goes.
See it turns out everything we knew about Dr. Carson was a lie.....and if you dont believe me, just ask him yourself. 10% flat tax? well actually not so much. supports oil subsidies? again not really. Worked with Mannatech? Nope. Is anti gay? Not really.....
And that was only the beginning. See he finally had to admit his 10% thing wouldnt work (or at least admit to it in a debate, having previously admitted as much in an interview weeks ago) but then claimed that 15% would work....only to get fact checked by the moderator who actually did the math live.....and had no answer for her at all.
Later Carson was asked how he can be anti gay and serve on the board of Costco (a company with very pro gay policies)
His answer to that one was that just because your against gay marriage/treating gay people equally doesnt make you homophobic
I wonder if he thinks it makes you a racist if you just happen to believe some darker skinned individuals should be considered property and not people?
Seriously, Dr. Carson, you *were* a well respected brain surgeon.....I think its well past time you take what little public respect you still have left from that and get out of politics while you still can.
9. Cruz (6/4)
So yea....now we get to the star debate....and not in a good way.
So I admit upfront, Cruz is suffering a little here from the fact the debate took place a few days ago. Normally I do these things the next day so as just judge the results on the debate itself, but I have to make an exception here.
The CNBC debate got a lot of criticism....mostly directed at unfair questions.....to the point the RNC has pulled out of all future NBC debates. Now the problem is most of those unfair questions were not in fact unfair at all. They were asking the candidates about their positions and policies. The go to soundbite though for how "unfair" everything is came from Ted Cruz:
“Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?” “Ben Carson, can you do math?” “John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?” “Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign?” “Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?
How about talking about the substantive issues the people care about?”
Problem is, these ARE the issues people care about. Making sure a candidate running for president has policy (Trump), that their policy works (Carson), if they disagree with other candidates on policy and why (Kasich), and why people dont support them (Bush)
Now yes, I skipped over Rubio.....that single question was slightly unfair....but it comes up to pretty much any senate candidate running for president. (and for the record, there actually were some very bad or unfair questions....but the ones Cruz and the RNC singled out arnt them)
Now on its own....that wouldnt be that bad. But then the RNC when and made Ted Cruz's rant here their poster child for their decision to ban NBC from hosting any more debates.
And its worth noting, outside of the far right, pretty much everyone else, left, moderate and "near right" thinks that decision was a horrible mistake that could undermine the whole parties message on being tough on ISIS, Putin, or well *anything*
And now that whole idea has Ted Cruz's face plastered all over it.
Though to be fair, even without the RNC magnifying the pain...Cruz didnt have a great night. That still would have been his only memorable moment...but its possible he'd have placed as high as 7th and not 9th in this list.
8. Huckabee (7/10)
So there was a debate, and Huckabee was there....but thats basically it. Dude didnt have a single original thought to say. In fact most of what he said was to follow up with his agreement with other candidates polices.
Well except when he said we should “cure the four big cost-driving diseases…diabetes, heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer’s” Now I'm all for researching the fuck out of these horrible and deadly diseases but I dont actually think they are at all linked to the economy....especially more so than tax rates, spending levels, ect like the Huckster was implying.
Its I suppose an admirable goal....but being used here for the absolutely silliest of reasons....and to cover up the fact Huckabee doesnt have an economic policy.
7. Bush (4/7)
Jeb Bush had two big moments here....both bad.
The first came when he tried to piggyback off a flordia paper suggesting Marco Rubio should resign for missing votes in the senate......and Rubio basically totally kicked his ass in reply, by calling him out for his previous support of other senators with worse records, then saying Bush only went after him cause they want the same job.....to which Bush had NOTHING as a reply.
Then he was asked if he still supported a position he took 4 years ago....about not taking a 10 to 1 cuts to tax increases deal. He then spend the next 3 minutes trying to explain why he both did and didnt still hold his previous position....if he'd taken one.....and then ending with a metaphor about making out with a Democrat who agreed with the position he did and didnt take.
It was just awkward weird and bad....
6. Chris Christie (8/3)
Christie really only had one major contribution to the debate, his screed against Social Security and his totally accurate portrayal of it having been totally emptied out and spend by politicians in what was basically theft.
The problem for Christie.....the politician who actually did it was a guy named Ronald Reagan.
It wasnt a crippling blow for him, per say in this debate but as he did leave a massive trap for himself should a moderator ever question him on it (which of course depends on media reaction the NBC debate ban) he could be in big trouble with the primary electorate.
But that being his own notable moment, and it not having been a major issue yet, keeps him right in the middle of the "nothing special" debate performance crowd.
5. Trump (1/2)
So Trump DOMINATED the entire first debate....and most of the second. But was basically not heard from much in this debate.
Possibly because a much higher percentage of the questions here focused on policy ideas....which you might remember was the section of the debate where Trump went quite last time.
Yea, he got some points for his attack on Super Pacs....and likely a lot of people (me included) agree with him. But when your the Frontrunner, and no one can really remember your debate performance and you fade into the background.....well you got to call that one a fail.
4. Rand Paul (8/6)
Just like in the last two of these I did, Rand Paul serves his function of being the line between those who had a good debate and those who had a bad one. Just like his previous debates, he said nothing new, its the same speech he's given for years...but hey at least it works for him as he consistently gives average debate performances, enough to keep him in the debates...not good enough for him to win the nomination, which as I stated before, I dont think he actually wants to do.
So yea, the fact that Rand Paul is in 4th, is basically indicative of the fact most everyone else had a bad night.
3. Marco Rubio (3/1)
Rubio was on track to win the night in my opinion, having very deftly exposed an attempted attack on his record (or lack of) by Jeb Bush earlier and having stayed out of the fray about the allegedly unfair questions, and did a good job deflecting his own personal financial difficulties.....and then the second hour hit.
Rubio kicked off the second hour by praising the Benghazi committee for all the new and damning information it revealed in the Hillary testimony......a point of view so out of touch with reality, that not only would ALL liberals and moderates disagree, but so did most conservatives, including the committee chairmen himself who said the hearings revealed nothing new.
Then, in full delusion mode, Rubio attempted to point out that Hillary/the Democrats hadnt called the attacks terrorism when they happened. Apparently, Rubio wasnt watching the Presidential debates in 2012 when another Republican with the initials M.R. tried to make the same attack against another democratic presidential candidate....an attack that failed so badly it put the final nail in the coffin of the other M.R.'s presidential campaign.
Now this one delusion was the only dark spot on an otherwise good campaign performance, so it was only fair to kick him down to "just above the dividing line (Paul)" as overall he did well...just not as good as those above him.
2. Kasich (8/5)
Everything Kasich said was solid. Nothing he said was stupid...except his balanced budget amendment idea....but that likely would be agreed to by all republicans on the stage so doesnt hurt him much.
And got to give him credit....he managed to answer every question....while also making sure every question (even about weed) turned into a question about the economy in a way that seemed to make sense (unlike Huckabee and his diseases)...so that Kasich could brag about his role in balancing the budget in the Clinton years and promise to do it again.
So yea, definitely won the "politician of the night" award.
1. Fiorina (4/8)
Much like Kasich, she was on a roll. Basically hit every question and avoided saying much of anything stupid.
Like Kasich one exception....where she talked about reducing the tax code down to 3 pages....because according to her, most Americans can only understand 3 pages of information at a time. Which did come across to me at least as slightly insulting, no matter your stand on the length of the tax code
Now I almost gave the top spot to Kasich (who as you may recall got top billing on my first debate analysis) since Fiorina rambled..(a reoccurring problem for her) and her responses all sound like memorized mini speeches she delivers and not thought out answers...so her "style" on that for lack of a better term comes across as robotic and perhaps not educated on the issues....just able to regurgitate a speech....albeit a regurgitation that sounded a lot less stupid than her last debate performance (even if disagree with her on the issues...she at least seemed to have an answer for them)
But what got her the top spot in my opinion was that she was the recipient of one of the most unfair questions of the night (that Ted Cruz skipped over in his rant)...and she managed to hit a homerun with her answer anyways: Heres the question.
"Mrs. Fiorina, it’s interesting that you bring up Mr. Perkins, because he said a lot of very questionable things. Last year, in an interview, he said that he thinks wealthy people should get more votes than poor people.
I think his quote was that, “if you pay zero dollars in taxes, you should get zero votes. If you pay a million dollars, you should get a million votes.” Is this the type of person you want defending you?"
Perkins by the way was the guy who fired her from HP calling her massively incompetent and other things in the same vein....Fiorina had mentioned in her response a question about being fired that Perkins later changed his mind and thought she had done better than he originally said and the question above was the follow up.
And lets be honest, asking someone about the political positions of a supporter who doesn't work for the campaign is about as unfair a question as you can get....so how did Fiorina reply:
"Well, this is one of the reasons why Tom Perkins and I had disagreements in the boardroom, Becky.
Nevertheless, one of the things that I think people don’t always understand is how accountable a CEO actually is.
So you know, I had to report results every 90 days in excruciating detail. I had to answer every single question about every single result and every single projection in public until there were no more questions.
And if I misrepresented those results or those projections in any way, I was held criminally liable. Imagine — imagine — if a politician were held to that standard of account.
I will run on my record all day long.
Basically she called the guy crazy...said that was part of the reason they didnt work well together, insulating herself from the incompetent charge (and therefore negating the previous question shes been asked about it)...then said that she was fired because she gets held to a much higer standard...which she wants to see applied to politicians tapping in on american disillusionment with Washington.
Seriously, while I think the lady would be a horrible horrible president...that really was the reply on the night and a clinic on how to defend against a tough question without looking like a crybaby like ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE on the stage (notably Cruz and Rubio) did.
So yea....shockingly to me, the winner of Debate #3 the woman whos delusional rants in Debate #2 basically made her look like she was headed back to the kiddie table: Carly Fiorina.
So yea, to end; for those keeping track at home, Trump won debate 1, Rubio debate 2, and Fiorina now debate 3.
Granted, due to the RNC boycott that resulted from this debate...and the problems thats going to bring the GOP as a whole....maybe no one wins in this debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment