Second Republican Debate

[Bubba]

Interesting take on the debate and the Republican electorate from across the pond via The Economist.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-st ... n/NA/email" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[madhatter]

Interesting take on the debate and the Republican electorate from across the pond via The Economist.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-st ... n/NA/email" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the biggest and likely most important similarity between carson and trump is that neither is a slave to being PC...I like carson, cant see trump getting the nomination ( though I have no idea what will end up derailing him, but still think he'll be derailed eventually) can't see carson getting it either honestly...

Started flipping though the guide looking for the debate and ended up watching the lynyrd skynyrd tribute concert... What I watched was pretty good, but except for warren haynes I had no idea who I was watching til I looked it up online... ( shut it off and DVR'd it after haynes second song)Blackberry Smoke doing MCA and Cheap Trick doing gimme back my bullets were both great...Cheap Trick totally killed it IMO...

[Mister Moose]

I watched the entire debate, and wouldn't consider that article to be a useful overview.

Carly Fiorina summed up the process well when she said the character of the candidates will be revealed, over time, and under pressure. It's a long road, and judgments made from just one debate are no more accurate or live no longer than the next several news cycles. (Unless you're Howard Dean or Dan Quayle)

The Donald provided zero additional substance, and promises a detailed tax plan in 2 weeks. Carson failed to ignite this time, but probably lost no ground either. I'd give Christy the nod for most camera time for an underdog.

I liked the format better. Much more debate back and forth took place. Not very much overtalking. They did a lot of split screens so you could watch the speaker, and the person being spoken about. Trump looked several times like he was either in high school, or he was uncomfortable when he was listening and the subject of criticism. Jeb was #2 in bad listening posture. The rest did fairly well, although towards the end the camera caught Huckabee wiping his brow from the sweat, not a good look. I keep thinking the depth of Trump will come out eventually, as there has to be depth there to be that successful. So far he's doing a good job hiding it.

Fiorina, on the other hand, spoke at twice the pace of Bush or Cruz, and packed 10 times the information into her words. She had an excellent summary of Russia's involvement and motivations with Syria. She spoke with authority, humor, and class. I'm expecting to see a big bounce in her numbers. Like I said previously, rising star. And the fact that the guy who led her firing at HP just took out full page ad regretting her firing and endorsing her takes away her biggest negative.

[freeski]

Fiorina, on the other hand, spoke at twice the pace of Bush or Cruz, and packed 10 times the information into her words. She had an excellent summary of Russia's involvement and motivations with Syria. She spoke with authority, humor, and class. I'm expecting to see a big bounce in her numbers. Like I said previously, rising star.

Her response on Russia early in the debate was one of the most intellectually powerful statements I've ever heard. For her to respond under the pressure last nigh in that way was remarkable. One excellent salient point after another in rapid succession. It made me smile. You can memorize all you want, but when it's game time, to perform like she did on that question was incredible. She didn't just list off what she memorized but, tied it all together in an excellent argument. She's a contender; if she doesn't get it she would add to any ticket as a VP.

Trump... meh
Rubio, good performance
Christie, get that man a cheeseburger.

[Highway Star]

I watched all but the end, paying attention maybe 70% of the time. Funny to see how the MSM spins it. This is worth reading:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... -analysis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Carly Fiorina will most likely be represented to the public as the “winner” by the professional legacy media structures. New York and Park Row will advance a specific pro-Carly meme; in part out of necessity for their financial overall objectives and interests.

However, for the high-information voter, all of the 30-second talking points -which will be highlighted as reasoning for her great performance- were really just repetition of well-rehearsed sound bites we have heard before.

None, absolutely NONE, of the Carly applause lines were original. Fiorina has used each and every one of them before in the exact same word and sentence structure.

The visibly negative aspect to Carly’s performance was her zealously in delivering those well-rehearsed points; increasingly evident in her interruptions to present them. Seven times in the first 3/4 of the debate Carly was exclaiming “jake”, “jake”…. or “Dana”, “Dana”,… in her effort to deliver them. It was simply too much. And was also transparently obvious based on twitter recognitions therein.

However, for the lower information voter it was probably less noticeable.

More strong reporting / analysis:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president ... ush-tanks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[biged]

Interesting comments. I thought Fiorinas remarks and a few others sounded like they were psycho paths. I wonder how many people remember barbara boxers hair comments.

[Mister Moose]

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... -analysis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, for the high-information voter, all of the 30-second talking points -which will be highlighted as reasoning for her great performance- were really just repetition of well-rehearsed sound bites we have heard before.

None, absolutely NONE, of the Carly applause lines were original. Fiorina has used each and every one of them before in the exact same word and sentence structure.

This is (partly?) true, the call to Bibi on the first day sound bite, the reveal character over time and under pressure soundbite, the HP explanation soundbite I had all heard before. That doesn't change their content. I hadn't heard the "I think women in america heard Mr Trump very clearly" soundbite was new...hadn't heard it before and was only relevant in the last few days. It was probably one of her most penetrating moments. And for many of these candidates, their soundbites haven't been heard yet. They need to be repeated to the portion of the audience that hasn't heard them yet. Every candidate aired their core mantras. Trump's immigration, Kasich's balanced budget, Paul's Iraq vote, and on and on.

I think the comment on "low information voters" is a little much. You have to give credit to anyone sticking out the 3 plus hours. The voter gets to know the candidates over the course of the entire campaign and the debates. Few follow the horse race as closely as the trainers and the jockeys.

So I find myself wondering why the negative focus on Fiorina... Is the author pro Trump?

The final question/answer by Donald Trump was excellent and summed up his candidacy: “Actions speak louder than words – what you heard tonight was a lot of words, what I will deliver is action“.

That's excellent? We haven't heard much yet what actual actions (Other than a really nice wall with a lovely door) Trump will take.

[deadheadskier]

Fiorina, on the other hand, spoke at twice the pace of Bush or Cruz, and packed 10 times the information into her words. She had an excellent summary of Russia's involvement and motivations with Syria. She spoke with authority, humor, and class. I'm expecting to see a big bounce in her numbers. Like I said previously, rising star. And the fact that the guy who led her firing at HP just took out full page ad regretting her firing and endorsing her takes away her biggest negative.

Her biggest negative is she's a liar.

Even Fox News called her out and she continued the lie instead of coming clean. Fiorina = Republican Hillary

[shortski]

Fiorina, on the other hand, spoke at twice the pace of Bush or Cruz, and packed 10 times the information into her words. She had an excellent summary of Russia's involvement and motivations with Syria. She spoke with authority, humor, and class. I'm expecting to see a big bounce in her numbers. Like I said previously, rising star. And the fact that the guy who led her firing at HP just took out full page ad regretting her firing and endorsing her takes away her biggest negative.

Her biggest negative is she's a liar.

Even Fox News called her out and she continued the lie instead of coming clean. Fiorina = Republican Hillary

Not to stir the pot, because I would never do that, but is lying a genetic defect?

[Mister Moose]

Fiorina, on the other hand, spoke at twice the pace of Bush or Cruz, and packed 10 times the information into her words. She had an excellent summary of Russia's involvement and motivations with Syria. She spoke with authority, humor, and class. I'm expecting to see a big bounce in her numbers. Like I said previously, rising star. And the fact that the guy who led her firing at HP just took out full page ad regretting her firing and endorsing her takes away her biggest negative.

Her biggest negative is she's a liar.

Even Fox News called her out and she continued the lie instead of coming clean. Fiorina = Republican Hillary

From what I've heard on the planned parenthood tapes, it was a verbal description (by a witness) of a fetus with a heartbeat, not a video. This fetus, with a heartbeat outside of the womb, was not accorded medical care as a living human, it was used for research. At the rate these videos continue to leak out, there is the possibility that Fiorina has seen a video that has not gone public yet. More likely is her at some point parsing the difference between a person's account on the video, vs a video of the actual event. Fiorina did not say in the debate such a video existed, she used imagery in her language to convey the event being described on the video. When asked by Chris Wallace "will you acknowledge that..it was only described by someone who'd claimed to have seen it on the video, there is no actual footage of the incident...?", she said, "No, I don't accept that at all, I've seen the footage".

That's a long ways from a lie. Nothing Fiorina said was untrue. Compare the two statements in color. The videos exist, the witness on the video recounts the beating heart, and intact brains were harvested (according to the witness). Have you yourself heard/seen the tapes, or are you going on media coverage?

The one characterization by Fiorina I never remember hearing on the tapes is " We have to keep it alive so we can harvest it's brain". While that was never said on the tapes (by my memory), it's pretty close to what was portrayed. I think those that support Planned Parenthood's abortion practices would do well not to shine too bright a light on Fiorina vs the tapes, because what the tapes do contain is pretty damning, and not that far off from what she said. Unless you can impugn the witness.

I think those calling Fiorina a liar may be pretty far out on a limb here. I think you can accuse her of casting the video in her own light, and then avoiding discussing her casting of light. The bigger issue is the videos themselves, and what questions they raise, not Fiorina's scenic portrayal of the videos.

Compare that to:
"The reason the embassy was attacked was because of an anti Islamic video."
"There were no classified documents on my server"

[deadheadskier]

She said she watched a tape of a fully formed fetus on the table, heart beating, legs kicking etc. She outright challenged the President to watch that tape. Her campaign has been pressed to provide the tapes she challenged the President and Clinton to watch and they have not been able to provide the tape showing what she said she saw.

That tape does not exist.

Chris Wallace gave her ample opportunity to clarify the statement. The truth would have been, "Either people misunderstood what I was saying or I misspoke. What I meant was the video shows a witness account of the scene I described, not the actual surgery." She doubled down and said she saw the tape of the surgery happening.

You can argue severity if you want, but she 100% was lying.

[Mister Moose]

She doubled down and said she saw the tape of the surgery happening.

When did she say that?

[deadheadskier]

She doubled down and said she saw the tape of the surgery happening.

When did she say that?

At roughly 40 seconds Wallace explains that all fact checking organizations have said that there is no footage of the horrific scene she described, only a witness account. She responds she doesn't except that at all and had seen the footage.

She is lying.

[deadheadskier]

George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America the morning after the second Republican debate.

He said, “Another powerful moment last night was when you talked about those Planned Parenthood tapes. But analysts who’ve watched all 12-plus hours say the scene you’ve described, that harrowing scene you described, actually isn’t in those tapes. Did you misspeak?”

Fiorina, "Rest assured, I have seen the images that I talked about last night."


Maybe she's like George from Seinfeld. "It's not a lie if you believe it"

[Mister Moose]

She doubled down and said she saw the tape of the surgery happening.

When did she say that?

At roughly 40 seconds Wallace explains that all fact checking organizations have said that there is no footage of the horrific scene she described, only a witness account. She responds she doesn't except that at all and had seen the footage.

Interesting interpretation, but I think she was saying she didn't accept that at all, that she didn't agree with Wallace's characterization. That she had seen[watched] the footage is not being disputed, right?