Ben Carson

[shockmonster]

Rubio was the best talker. He scares the h out of me as did a few others. Way to hawkest for my taste. I hear a lot of Miami Cubans like him. Not so much here in Key West.

Without the US to lead, the world becomes a very dangerous place. Just wait until ISIS goes nuclear or Iran gives them access to those weapons. Russia and China are flexing their muscles in the world in ways they wouldn't have dreamed 10 years ago. Obama has been a disaster and we are now paying the price for losing elections to democrats. That is why it bothers me that we have a divided party. We need to win this election. Peace only happens through strength.

[ShockerEngineer]

It frustrates me that so much of the red meat revolves around social issues which are proven losers.

Secure the borders? You bet, it's almost an inarguable point...specifics on methods for securing it are glossed over quickly though since it's, ummmm, tricky and expensive. It is way more fun to talk about absurdities like blanket deportation and tweaking the 14th amendment and/or case law to eliminate birthright citizenship. That is exactly the kind of pandering that serves to further alienate a large and incredibly fast-growing demographic in purple states. What purpose does lobbing that grenade serve since it is 100% impracticable? Even if your favored candidate did not insert foot in mouth on this issue, the brand continues to suffer when it is handled in this fashion.

Kim Davis? Terrific, if only this were 2002. The GOP has been proven to be on the losing side on this issue and as the older generation continues to pass on, the gap on it will only continue to widen. Pandering to old folks with a foot in the grave seems like a poor investment here since it's almost never single-issue determinant for that age group (unlike say, social security).

John Roberts? Are you serious? That was embarrassing.

Vaccines? In what universe does Carson not go full HULK MODE on Trump when he has the gall to disagree with Carson on this? If his goal was to stay out of the fray and not engage (which I think it was), then he did a mostly fine but snoozeworthy job. But my goodness, do not lend credibility to that kind of crap by refusing to stamp it out emphatically. He should have ripped Trump's spine out a la Predator vs. Carl Weathers right then and there for the world to see. Play your ace of spades doctor.




There are supremely winning arguments to be made on corporate income tax rates, personal income tax rates, foreign policy in SO many areas (touched on many times in an inarticulate way by most, although not all), etc. where the general population absolutely agrees with the republican platform. Hammer on that stuff please! Quit playing the race to the right with completely untenable positions on issues that reinforce the public perception of a party of old white dudes scared of ceding status.

/rant

I second this rant.

[Steeleshocker]

I second this rant.

I will third it.

[shockmonster]

It frustrates me that so much of the red meat revolves around social issues which are proven losers.

Secure the borders? You bet, it's almost an inarguable point...specifics on methods for securing it are glossed over quickly though since it's, ummmm, tricky and expensive. It is way more fun to talk about absurdities like blanket deportation and tweaking the 14th amendment and/or case law to eliminate birthright citizenship. That is exactly the kind of pandering that serves to further alienate a large and incredibly fast-growing demographic in purple states. What purpose does lobbing that grenade serve since it is 100% impracticable? Even if your favored candidate did not insert foot in mouth on this issue, the brand continues to suffer when it is handled in this fashion.

Kim Davis? Terrific, if only this were 2002. The GOP has been proven to be on the losing side on this issue and as the older generation continues to pass on, the gap on it will only continue to widen. Pandering to old folks with a foot in the grave seems like a poor investment here since it's almost never single-issue determinant for that age group (unlike say, social security).

John Roberts? Are you serious? That was embarrassing.

Vaccines? In what universe does Carson not go full HULK MODE on Trump when he has the gall to disagree with Carson on this? If his goal was to stay out of the fray and not engage (which I think it was), then he did a mostly fine but snoozeworthy job. But my goodness, do not lend credibility to that kind of crap by refusing to stamp it out emphatically. He should have ripped Trump's spine out a la Predator vs. Carl Weathers right then and there for the world to see. Play your ace of spades doctor.




There are supremely winning arguments to be made on corporate income tax rates, personal income tax rates, foreign policy in SO many areas (touched on many times in an inarticulate way by most, although not all), etc. where the general population absolutely agrees with the republican platform. Hammer on that stuff please! Quit playing the race to the right with completely untenable positions on issues that reinforce the public perception of a party of old white dudes scared of ceding status.

/rant

I agree that economic/tax plans were mostly ignored and should have been a much larger part of the debate. However, it was 3 hours so they had a lot of time to explore some of the stupid statements by Trump (exporting 11 million illegals out of the country for example) to pander for votes (which are red meat to a portion of the Republican Party) that just isn't possible.

[SB Shock]

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/09/branco-cartoon-about-face/

[Kung Wu]

One other thought: They need to cull the herd badly. There's just too many candidates in the debates now. If they could pare it back to the top 5 candidates (give or take) based on some independent poll that they trust, it would be much better.

[ShockTalk]

One other thought: They need to cull the herd badly. There's just too many candidates in the debates now. If they could pare it back to the top 5 candidates (give or take) based on some independent poll that they trust, it would be much better.

The problem is, 3 of those top 5, or so, spots are not made up of the type of candidates that make up most of the remaining.

Among that large group, there is too many that believe they should be in that top 5. They might have expected 1, maybe 2, but certainly not 3 non-traditional candidates at the top.

[FlyingWheat]

One other thought: They need to cull the herd badly. There's just too many candidates in the debates now. If they could pare it back to the top 5 candidates (give or take) based on some independent poll that they trust, it would be much better.

Or perhaps at this point split in to two debates, one with 1-3-5-7-9 and one with 2-4-6-8-10, etc. It's still way too early to relegate some of these guys to JV, aside from what you may personally believe about them.

[SB Shock]

Or perhaps at this point split in to two debates, one with 1-3-5-7-9 and one with 2-4-6-8-10, etc. It's still way too early to relegate some of these guys to JV, aside from what you may personally believe about them.

Varsity
Bush
Carson
Fiorina
Rubio
Trump

JV
Cruz
Jindal
Kasich
Walker
Christie

Freshman
Huckabee
Paul

Junior High
Gilmore
Graham
Pataki
Perry

[FlyingWheat]

Varsity
Bush
Carson
Fiorina
Rubio
Trump

JV
Cruz
Jindal
Kasich
Walker
Christie

Freshman
Huckabee
Paul

Junior High
Gilmore
Graham
Pataki
Perry

I see what you're saying, but it's better to take a larger field and split randomly. You don't want to create a cycle where early performance has tio much of an impact on prime time spotlight, especially when early performance is so tied to name recognition and staying in the news (trump).

[Kung Wu]

Varsity
Bush
Carson
Fiorina
Rubio
Trump

JV
Cruz
Jindal
Kasich
Walker
Christie

Freshman
Huckabee
Paul

Junior High
Gilmore
Graham
Pataki
Perry

Can you dump the latest polls after the debate? From your last post, I gotta move Paul, Christie, and Walker to the cut list. I think there are six on Varsity and you gotta put Cruz on varsity. But if that all changed after the debate (highly doubt there was much of a momentum swing) then we might have to rethink.

I think the cut is 5%. And if you are _declining_ AND below 5% you are D.O.A. That sucks, because I like hearing Paul's perspective very much, but there's just too much noise to really see some progress with the "candidates that have a chance".

[Kung Wu]

I see what you're saying, but it's better to take a larger field and split randomly. You don't want to create a cycle where early performance has tio much of an impact on prime time spotlight, especially when early performance is so tied to name recognition and staying in the news (trump).

Actually, if you want to win the final election, you DO want to start dwindling it down quickly in order to get maximum name recognition and moolah focused on the minimal number of candidates.

[FlyingWheat]

Actually, if you want to win the final election, you DO want to start dwindling it down quickly in order to get maximum name recognition and moolah focused on the minimal number of candidates.

Depends on your balance and priority of getting the best candidate versus increasing your ability to sell the candidate you have. I know people fall on both sides, and it's a tough balance, but that's why it's 14 months until the general election.

[SB Shock]

Can you dump the latest polls after the debate? From your last post, I gotta move Paul, Christie, and Walker to the cut list. I think there are six on Varsity and you gotta put Cruz on varsity. But if that all changed after the debate (highly doubt there was much of a momentum swing) then we might have to rethink.

I think the cut is 5%. And if you are _declining_ AND below 5% you are D.O.A. That sucks, because I like hearing Paul's perspective very much, but there's just too much noise to really see some progress with the "candidates that have a chance".

I will when they start coming out (and there is enough to see a trend).

I would love to put Cruz on varsity - but can not get any traction

[SHOCKvalue]

Or perhaps at this point split in to two debates, one with 1-3-5-7-9 and one with 2-4-6-8-10, etc. It's still way too early to relegate some of these guys to JV, aside from what you may personally believe about them.

They should separate them out by outsider versus career politician. Save all of us a lot of time, if you know what I mean.