Winners and Losers in the First Republican Debate

[Jack Hays]

The 538 site is about as non-partisan as it gets. Here's their take on the impact of the first debate.

2016 Election
The Post-Debate Losers (Walker) and Winners (Fiorina)

By Harry Enten

You’ve already heard a lot of different takes about who won and who lost the first Republican presidential debates last week. We’ve deliberately waited to name names; winning the media spin after a debate is often more important than “winning” the debate itself. But now it’s been several days, and we have some post-debate polls to look at (seven as of this writing, to be exact).[SUP]1[/SUP] And there are a few clear winners and losers.
One quick word before we get to that, though: We’ve warned you not to take polls at this stage of the race too literally, especially when they involve Donald Trump. But if you’re going to look at polls, it’s at least better to look at a set of them rather than to cherry-pick one or two surveys. Some candidates who have been touted as post-debate winners (John Kasich) and losers (Rand Paul) haven’t seen their numbers move much, in fact. But a few others have. . . .

 

[Threegoofs]

Given the answers I heard to the questions proposed, I think we are all losers with a crew like this.

 

[nota bene]

Given the answers I heard to the questions proposed, I think we are all losers with a crew like this.

Ya, and then you consider the options the Democrats are offering and have to think again.

 

[Threegoofs]

Ya, and then you consider the options the Democrats are offering and have to think again.

The sheer amount of idiocy on the GOP side is overwhelming, especially in the light of a GOP Congress that is just awful.

The Dems could nominate a bucket of goo and it would be a better choice. At least the goo wouldn't crash the economy and kill thousands of Americans in futile Middle East wars.

 

[Rentoc]

The sheer amount of idiocy on the GOP side is overwhelming, especially in the light of a GOP Congress that is just awful.

The Dems could nominate a bucket of goo and it would be a better choice. At least the goo wouldn't crash the economy and kill thousands of Americans in futile Middle East wars.

Off topic I know, but.....

Neither Republicans nor Democrats killed Americans in "futile" Middle East Wars, and both parties are to blame for the crash of 2008. It's time we all stopped being partisan hacks and called it straight.

 

[Threegoofs]

Off topic I know, but.....

Neither Republicans nor Democrats killed Americans in "futile" Middle East Wars, and both parties are to blame for the crash of 2008. It's time we all stopped being partisan hacks and called it straight.

Well, this Republican is apologizing for it:

Rep Jones RNC Apologizes Iraq War Vote Winning | Video | C-SPAN.org

I think the GOP were certainly leading the charge here, and the democrats were to afraid to oppose the war because they remembered what happened in Gulf War 1 to congressman who voted against the war.

And I think there is some pretty strong evidence that a lazziez faire attitude toward regulation contributed heavily to crashing the economy in 2008. While both parties, again, contributed, I think we can say that the party who is most stringently antiregulation is probably the one you wnt to avoid here.

You may think this is partisan hackery, but its not. The Democrats are truly the lesser evil here - I think their populist anticorporate stances and other positions are ridiculous too.

 

[WSUwarrior]

Given the answers I heard to the questions proposed, I think we are all losers with a crew like this.

The sheer amount of idiocy on the GOP side is overwhelming, especially in the light of a GOP Congress that is just awful.

The Dems could nominate a bucket of goo and it would be a better choice. At least the goo wouldn't crash the economy and kill thousands of Americans in futile Middle East wars.

Well, this Republican is apologizing for it:

Rep Jones RNC Apologizes Iraq War Vote Winning | Video | C-SPAN.org

I think the GOP were certainly leading the charge here, and the democrats were to afraid to oppose the war because they remembered what happened in Gulf War 1 to congressman who voted against the war.

And I think there is some pretty strong evidence that a lazziez faire attitude toward regulation contributed heavily to crashing the economy in 2008. While both parties, again, contributed, I think we can say that the party who is most stringently antiregulation is probably the one you wnt to avoid here.

You may think this is partisan hackery, but its not. The Democrats are truly the lesser evil here - I think their populist anticorporate stances and other positions are ridiculous too.

Youre having a tough time in this thread.

 

[Threegoofs]

Youre having a tough time in this thread.

Not really.

Maybe your having a tough time grasping the point?

 

[Riveroaks]

Carly and Rubio -- that's what I thought originally yes.

I did not realize Carly won so big however -- bigger than Rubio.

I sure hope Carly gets to debate with the boyz next time.

 

[Riveroaks]

Given the answers I heard to the questions proposed, I think we are all losers with a crew like this.

The main thing we learned out of the 1st GOP debate is who are the good speakers.

Rubio is, Carly is, Jeb is not, Cruz is not and a bit crazy to boot.

The others got face time and we got name recognition.

 

[Riveroaks]

Ya, and then you consider the options the Democrats are offering and have to think again.

Bernie is getting interesting. What we have learned about him so far but without a DEM's debate is that he is offering an alternative to Hillary.

If you absolutely cannot trust a woman to have her finger on the button, then Bernie might impress you.

Hillary's approval ratings with women are falling. This is the only hope for a truly democratic election in 2016.

Otherwise the ladies and women are going to give us Hillary all because of gender pay back.

Not saying we don't deserve it.

Actually I would trust Hillary before Elizabeth Dole anyway.

 

[Riveroaks]

The sheer amount of idiocy on the GOP side is overwhelming, especially in the light of a GOP Congress that is just awful.

The Dems could nominate a bucket of goo and it would be a better choice. At least the goo wouldn't crash the economy and kill thousands of Americans in futile Middle East wars.

Let me restate for you in the English language and at the college level your viable point -- if we lose divided government after this upcoming election then it could be worse than anything that the DEM's are offering.

You are correct about that.

 

[Riveroaks]

Off topic I know, but.....

Neither Republicans nor Democrats killed Americans in "futile" Middle East Wars, and both parties are to blame for the crash of 2008. It's time we all stopped being partisan hacks and called it straight.

Excellent points. Worth noting. GHW and GW Bush sure killed a whole lot of Iraqi's however over the years in the Middle East. And all this time the real enemy has been Iran.

The crash -- yes -- that was Clinton's doing and GW's failure to take any preemptive measures against it -- correct.

 

[Threegoofs]

Let me restate for you in the English language and at the college level your viable point -- if we lose divided government after this upcoming election then it could be worse than anything that the DEM's are offering.

You are correct about that.

Well, my point was actually that the GOP are bigger idiots than a bucket of goo.

What college did you go to, anyway?

 

[MTAtech]

Ya, and then you consider the options the Democrats are offering and have to think again.

What was important in the debates was not what was said but what was not said. There was almost no discussion of the economy in the debate, which is actually weird if you consider the Republican talk about how Obama has destroyed the economy. But now, they don't talk so much about it.

On the ACA, they talk about repealing it but can't say what they would replace it with.

The fact is, the policies of the Democrats are working pretty well -- and the fact that these do-called debaters can't really attack the progress of this administration and their policies.

 

[MTAtech]

Excellent points. Worth noting. GHW and GW Bush sure killed a whole lot of Iraqi's however over the years in the Middle East. And all this time the real enemy has been Iran.

The crash -- yes -- that was Clinton's doing and GW's failure to take any preemptive measures against it -- correct.

If you think that policies made during Clinton waited eight years to cause the 2008 crash, you are deluding yourself. The crash was caused by a housing bubble in which investment firms made lots of money taking high risk mortgages and selling them as AAA. Citibank already admitted it sold junk to customers and paid fines.

If you think the government had to force investment firms to do things that made them huge profits, one is more delusional.

 

[Riveroaks]

If you think that policies made during Clinton waited eight years to cause the 2008 crash, you are deluding yourself. The crash was caused by a housing bubble in which investment firms made lots of money taking high risk mortgages and selling them as AAA. Citibank already admitted it sold junk to customers and paid fines.

If you think the government had to force investment firms to do things that made them huge profits, one is more delusional.

There was extensive reporting back in 2008 and 2009 as to what kicked off the housing bubble, and the root cause was found to be Clinton's policies for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You can read about it if you google it long enough, the read, read on, and read carefully.

 

[Riveroaks]

Well, my point was actually that the GOP are bigger idiots than a bucket of goo.

What college did you go to, anyway?

I know, and I got that, but it took a few readings because you so cleverly couched it in high school speech.

In grad school I was assigned to teach upper division undergrad technical writing in the business college. That's why I am so picky about grammar and syntax. Sorry.

 

[WSUwarrior]

Not really.

Maybe your having a tough time grasping the point?

Probably because you didnt make one, lib.

 

[Threegoofs]

I know, and I got that, but it took a few readings because you so cleverly couched it in high school speech.

In grad school I was assigned to teach upper division undergrad technical writing in the business college. That's why I am so picky about grammar and syntax. Sorry.

Well, you may want to focus on clarity and accuracy, because if you don't have that, grammar and syntax are pointless.

 

[Riveroaks]

Well, you may want to focus on clarity and accuracy, because if you don't have that, grammar and syntax are pointless.

I am always clear and accurate to a fault. It all began with my writing legal briefs and investigations for courts martial in the USMC.

Then expanded after teaching technical writing in grad school.

Then became refined while working with international British, Canadian, and Japanese executives in corporate finance.

Deep in the elephant grass the wind never stirs.

Deep in an office the wind never stirs either.

 

[nota bene]

Just out of curiosity, which text did you use? One of Bedford's?

 

[Threegoofs]

I am always clear and accurate to a fault.

You might want to proofread your posts.

Just sayin'.

 

[Jack Hays]

You might want to proofread your posts.

Just sayin'.

You are the one in error.

 

[MTAtech]

There was extensive reporting back in 2008 and 2009 as to what kicked off the housing bubble, and the root cause was found to be Clinton's policies for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You can read about it if you google it long enough, the read, read on, and read carefully.

Such reports were only from conservatively biased sources that blame the government. There was ample evidence that Freddie and Fannie were minor players and the major players were institutions that had no government insurance. As Joe Nocera said (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/opinion/nocera-an-inconvenient-truth.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss). Both were not the cause of the financial crisis and if you believe that you are being conned.

Over at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, two resident scholars, Peter Wallison and Edward Pinto, have concocted what has since become a Republican meme: namely, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were ground zero for the entire crisis, leading the private sector off the cliff with their affordable housing mandates and massive subprime holdings.

The truth is the opposite: Fannie and Freddie got into subprime mortgages, with great trepidation, only in 2005 and 2006, and only because they were losing so much market share to Wall Street. Among other things, the Wallison-Pinto case relies on inflated data — Pinto classifies just about anything that is not a 30-year-fixed mortgage as “subprime.” The reality is that Fannie and Freddie followed the private sector off the cliff instead of the other way around.