Finally, a decent GOP debate

[mjvcaj]

Thanks Fox Business News. Here are my thoughts:

1) Christie and Jindal should be on the stage over some of the others

• Carson - back to his bumbling, nonsensical ways... he hasn't a clue about Foreign Policy or Finance and Economics
• Cruz - strong speaker, but riddled with errors (Q3 2008 was not when the Fed was tightening; inflation was higher under the Gold Standard than recently, thinks a "Lender of Last Resort" is different than a bailout)
• Trump - unimpressive, but didn't hurt himself too badly; just didn't do much either way
• Kasich - incredibly weak performance, he had to get more aggressive, but came off incredibly desperate and torpedoed any chance he'd ever have
• Rubio - sharp as usual and forming himself into the frontrunner IMO; just a good speaker and debater, says the right things
• Bush - just awful... stick a fork in his horrendous candidacy
• Paul - why even discuss this lunatic? His father was a whack job and so is he
• Fiorina - needs to get more succinct with her answers and more detailed with examples... was average tonight

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Fascinating debate. For once, the moderators outshone the candidates. Fox Business did a great job.

Bush did better than I expected, but that's not saying much.
Rubio started very strong, but trailed off. BIG opportunity missed.
Fiorina never really caught on.
Paul deserves more respect. He's nuts, but he made some great points.
Cruz scares the hell out of me.
Carson is a joke.
Trump is a different kind of joke.
Kasich was aggressive but never really got untracked.

Overall, I thought it was a poor performance by all. Probably the worse GOP debate so far. I don't think much changed, except I think this was the beginning of the end of the Trump/Carson fascination. I think it's Rubio/Cruz/Kasich from here on out, most Rubio/Kasich.

 

[mjvcaj]

Fascinating debate. For once, the moderators outshone the candidates. Fox Business did a great job.

Bush did better than I expected, but that's not saying much.
Rubio started very strong, but trailed off. BIG opportunity missed.
Fiorina never really caught on.
Paul deserves more respect. He's nuts, but he made some great points.
Cruz scares the hell out of me.
Carson is a joke.
Trump is a different kind of joke.
Kasich was aggressive but never really got untracked.

Overall, I thought it was a poor performance by all. Probably the worse GOP debate so far. I don't think much changed, except I think this was the beginning of the end of the Trump/Carson fascination. I think it's Rubio/Cruz/Kasich from here on out, most Rubio/Kasich.

You were watching with your liberal bias. Kasich was literally booed by the audience.

None had a good response for banking regulation... Then again, why should they? Regulators can't even understand it.

 

[twenty02]

I liked the debate....the moderators put out general discussion points and let them all run with it. Was the best moderated debate and wasn't even close.

Carson is a disaster, has to be one of the worst candidates I've ever seen. I think the IU college debate team could best him with their worst debators. The only thing good for him was the others talked so much he could just stand silently. Literally think it went about 45 mins where he didn't speak, and I think he was happy about that.

Trump...was basically the same repetitive thing we've heard forever. Zero New.

Carly and Rubio, in my opinion are the two really strong contenders. One of those two will be on a ticket, in some form. Carly has hurdles to get over the hump herself, but looks a very likely VP candidate to me.

Jeb I believe would be the best president, but I can't see him emerging at this point.

 

[deshapir]

P

Fascinating debate. For once, the moderators outshone the candidates. Fox Business did a great job.

Bush did better than I expected, but that's not saying much.
Rubio started very strong, but trailed off. BIG opportunity missed.
Fiorina never really caught on.
Paul deserves more respect. He's nuts, but he made some great points.
Cruz scares the hell out of me.
Carson is a joke.
Trump is a different kind of joke.
Kasich was aggressive but never really got untracked.

Overall, I thought it was a poor performance by all. Probably the worse GOP debate so far. I don't think much changed, except I think this was the beginning of the end of the Trump/Carson fascination. I think it's Rubio/Cruz/Kasich from here on out, most Rubio/Kasich.

Paul goes a little to extreme for my liking but I thought he was the clear winner if you believe in fundamental conservative views. The best exchange of the night was him and Rubio over rubios plan to increase military spending by 1 trillion and I thought Paul won the exchange

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You were watching with your liberal bias. Kasich was literally booed by the audience.

None had a good response for banking regulation... Then again, why should they? Regulators can't even understand it.

Yes, I was, but I was trying to ignore that in my description. We'll see.

 

[Univee2]

Thanks Fox Business News. Here are my thoughts:

1) Christie and Jindal should be on the stage over some of the others

• Carson - back to his bumbling, nonsensical ways... he hasn't a clue about Foreign Policy or Finance and Economics
• Cruz - strong speaker, but riddled with errors (Q3 2008 was not when the Fed was tightening; inflation was higher under the Gold Standard than recently, thinks a "Lender of Last Resort" is different than a bailout)
• Trump - unimpressive, but didn't hurt himself too badly; just didn't do much either way
• Kasich - incredibly weak performance, he had to get more aggressive, but came off incredibly desperate and torpedoed any chance he'd ever have
• Rubio - sharp as usual and forming himself into the frontrunner IMO; just a good speaker and debater, says the right things
• Bush - just awful... stick a fork in his horrendous candidacy
• Paul - why even discuss this lunatic? His father was a whack job and so is he
• Fiorina - needs to get more succinct with her answers and more detailed with examples... was average tonight

Bank it, Rubio will be the nominee. While I'd prefer Carly as the VP, to help pull Ohio from purple to red I think Kasich would be the pragmatic pick. Overall, however, Kasich's performance made me cringe. He was trying way too hard to be the hey-look-at-me-I'm-the-middle-of-the-road-moderate-candidate-who-will-appeal-to-everybody trying-too-hard guy in the back.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I think Bush did better, but he had set the floor pretty low. I believe tonight was the first debate he looked like a candidate who wanted to win. The other debates he looked like he was trying out for the part of Admiral Stockdale.

I agree with deshapir above, I think that discussion on military was good and I think Paul won. Paul's chief problem is when he goes tin foil hat on economics. Well, that and I suspect Rubio got the better sound bite even if I think Paul won the war. I also think Paul had a great point about China not being part of TPP. But he blew that opportunity in my view, he could have carried home an attack on Trump for not realizing China wasn't part of TPP much better.

Nate Silver said a poll last year showed 75% or so of GOP voters do not believe mass deportations are possible. I think there are candidates who realize Trump is weak on that, and Cruz as well.

Trump did not seem the same to me. I almost wonder if he used focus groups before last night. He seemed more timid in what he said about the others (the Fiorina interruption comment notwithstanding).

Carson should have wished they stayed on his personal life. Last night he seemed to shrink toward the background.

Kasich is out of it. I think he would be one tough candidate to beat in a general though.

Fiorina, was she there? She never seemed to get on track to me. I think mjvcaj had it right with her needing to be more succinct.

I hate in speeches, and now debates, when our candidates personalize every answer with the "and I met on the campaign trail Mr and Mrs Smith who ... ". That seemed to be last night's go to answer. The presidency should not be about who you have met that you can help. It should be about helping all Americans. I know those stupid stories are tested and score well, so I must be the only one that detests them.

I don't think last night changed many minds. But it was a great wasted opportunity for some (Bush for example). So in that regard, it just solidified the existing status quo in my book. That being Rubio and Cruz will be the two left in the end.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Thanks Fox Business News. Here are my thoughts:

1) Christie and Jindal should be on the stage over some of the others

• Carson - back to his bumbling, nonsensical ways... he hasn't a clue about Foreign Policy or Finance and Economics
• Cruz - strong speaker, but riddled with errors (Q3 2008 was not when the Fed was tightening; inflation was higher under the Gold Standard than recently, thinks a "Lender of Last Resort" is different than a bailout)
• Trump - unimpressive, but didn't hurt himself too badly; just didn't do much either way
• Kasich - incredibly weak performance, he had to get more aggressive, but came off incredibly desperate and torpedoed any chance he'd ever have
• Rubio - sharp as usual and forming himself into the frontrunner IMO; just a good speaker and debater, says the right things
• Bush - just awful... stick a fork in his horrendous candidacy
• Paul - why even discuss this lunatic? His father was a whack job and so is he
• Fiorina - needs to get more succinct with her answers and more detailed with examples... was average tonight

Thoughts:

The best "idea" I heard actually came from Rick Santorum - allowing Vets to use non-VA health care facilities, and having the VA develop "special" expertise in health care issues unique to Vets (PTSD, prosthetics as examples).

On paper, Kasich is the best qualified, but he does not communicate well in the debate format. He seems to start an answer well, then stumbles over a few words, then loses patience and usually ends up looking and sounding irritated and never really making his full point well. His attempt to oppose Cruz over letting a Bank of America-size bank fail was a signature moment. Saying "you can't just let people lose their life savings" was when he should have just shut up. Instead he stumbled into "figure out who can afford to lose and who can't" (i.e. "let the government pick the winners and losers?") and got booed - BOOED. He's probably done unless the Convention gets gridlocked and he become a compromise candidate.

Several other candidates have "communication" styles/problems that make them seem less-than-Presidential. Jindal - too rapid fire, full of buzz words, almost repeating memorized lines. Tells everyone the numbers of his budget cuts/spending cuts, but doesn't ever explain WHY or HOW or IF that helped anything. Santorum - desparation combined with a slight, edgy "I can't believe I'm losing to these guys" cynicism. Chrisitie - like a happy puppy willing to do anything to get that treat and please that master, and overly-handled on the "I'll insult Hillary" message. Fiorina is too smug - her answers seem to begin with "I know you don't know this, so I'll tell you...". She seems more like a robot than a person.Carson seems to be off thinking deep thoughts, and comes across like "I didn't hear that, so I'll just say this" or "I don't know, so I'll just say this." He'll make a great Surgeon General, but acting calm is not enough. And Cruz just exudes smarm and arrogance. He is EXTREMELY intelligent. The wonkers wonk. Of all the candidates, his message seems to get the most succinctly made but most lost in delivery. I feel like I'm hearing a sermon, not an answer, and I stop hearing the wortds and start waiting for the hand to point skyward.

I like how Rand Paul is (mostly) respectful, calm, and usually makes his point very quickly and very clearly. He answers the question that is asked. But his willingness to be isolationist in an era where most folks want ISIS attacked daily is a policy fatal to his candidacy. His willingness to ACTUALLY balance a budget and stand for fiscal principle is admirable, but in the end, nobody else cares. IMO, he is most likely to run a thrid party campaign.

Bush is just ineffective, and I'm shocked by it. Going in, I'd have bet on him as the favorite. I think he loses himself between what the question calls for and what the talking points are that his handlers told him to use. So neither his answers or his tzlking poinyts ever get made well.

Rubio is clearly the most-well polished. He can take ANY question and re-shape it into a way to deliver his message without seeming offensive. It may be unfair, and I may just be a "get off my lawn" ageist, but I constantly think "he's too young." I'm convinced he can hammer a fastball, but I'm not sure he can hit the curve - and a President gets lots of curves. But if the primary was today, I'd vote for him.

Trump is ..... well, I want to say "buffoon", but "buffoon" and "billionaire" don't go well together. "I'm gonna be great" is not a policy. I want a wall too, but I will not support rounding up illegal immigrants. If the y get caught breaking the law and are discivered to be here illegally, deport them. If they want citizenship, fine them and make them go through the legal processes. Send out the paddy wagons? Hell no. And I worry that as a Commander-in Chief, he may tell folks about preserving precious bodily fluids.

Overall, I'm gobsmack shocked that Carson and Trump are the leaders. For the first time, I feel COMPLETLY out of touch with the "electorate." Here, in our most recent election, the polsters missed it by FIFTEEN points.Maybe the pollsters have it wrong.

My evil side wants NOBODY to get the delegates and for the Pubs to have an open convention. Now THAT would some old timey politics.

 

[Univee2]

Thoughts:

The best "idea" I heard actually came from Rick Santorum - allowing Vets to use non-VA health care facilities, and having the VA develop "special" expertise in health care issues unique to Vets (PTSD, prosthetics as examples).

On paper, Kasich is the best qualified, but he does not communicate well in the debate format. He seems to start an answer well, then stumbles over a few words, then loses patience and usually ends up looking and sounding irritated and never really making his full point well. His attempt to oppose Cruz over letting a Bank of America-size bank fail was a signature moment. Saying "you can't just let people lose their life savings" was when he should have just shut up. Instead he stumbled into "figure out who can afford to lose and who can't" (i.e. "let the government pick the winners and losers?") and got booed - BOOED. He's probably done unless the Convention gets gridlocked and he become a compromise candidate.

Several other candidates have "communication" styles/problems that make them seem less-than-Presidential. Jindal - too rapid fire, full of buzz words, almost repeating memorized lines. Tells everyone the numbers of his budget cuts/spending cuts, but doesn't ever explain WHY or HOW or IF that helped anything. Santorum - desparation combined with a slight, edgy "I can't believe I'm losing to these guys" cynicism. Chrisitie - like a happy puppy willing to do anything to get that treat and please that master, and overly-handled on the "I'll insult Hillary" message. Fiorina is too smug - her answers seem to begin with "I know you don't know this, so I'll tell you...". She seems more like a robot than a person.Carson seems to be off thinking deep thoughts, and comes across like "I didn't hear that, so I'll just say this" or "I don't know, so I'll just say this." He'll make a great Surgeon General, but acting calm is not enough. And Cruz just exudes smarm and arrogance. He is EXTREMELY intelligent. The wonkers wonk. Of all the candidates, his message seems to get the most succinctly made but most lost in delivery. I feel like I'm hearing a sermon, not an answer, and I stop hearing the wortds and start waiting for the hand to point skyward.

I like how Rand Paul is (mostly) respectful, calm, and usually makes his point very quickly and very clearly. He answers the question that is asked. But his willingness to be isolationist in an era where most folks want ISIS attacked daily is a policy fatal to his candidacy. His willingness to ACTUALLY balance a budget and stand for fiscal principle is admirable, but in the end, nobody else cares. IMO, he is most likely to run a thrid party campaign.

Bush is just ineffective, and I'm shocked by it. Going in, I'd have bet on him as the favorite. I think he loses himself between what the question calls for and what the talking points are that his handlers told him to use. So neither his answers or his tzlking poinyts ever get made well.

Rubio is clearly the most-well polished. He can take ANY question and re-shape it into a way to deliver his message without seeming offensive. It may be unfair, and I may just be a "get off my lawn" ageist, but I constantly think "he's too young." I'm convinced he can hammer a fastball, but I'm not sure he can hit the curve - and a President gets lots of curves. But if the primary was today, I'd vote for him.

Trump is ..... well, I want to say "buffoon", but "buffoon" and "billionaire" don't go well together. "I'm gonna be great" is not a policy. I want a wall too, but I will not support rounding up illegal immigrants. If the y get caught breaking the law and are discivered to be here illegally, deport them. If they want citizenship, fine them and make them go through the legal processes. Send out the paddy wagons? Hell no. And I worry that as a Commander-in Chief, he may tell folks about preserving precious bodily fluids.

Overall, I'm gobsmack shocked that Carson and Trump are the leaders. For the first time, I feel COMPLETLY out of touch with the "electorate." Here, in our most recent election, the polsters missed it by FIFTEEN points.Maybe the pollsters have it wrong.

My evil side wants NOBODY to get the delegates and for the Pubs to have an open convention. Now THAT would some old timey politics.

I like the idea of an open convention. That would be a raucous caucus ....

 

[iubud]

Thanks Fox Business News. Here are my thoughts:

1) Christie and Jindal should be on the stage over some of the others

• Carson - back to his bumbling, nonsensical ways... he hasn't a clue about Foreign Policy or Finance and Economics
• Cruz - strong speaker, but riddled with errors (Q3 2008 was not when the Fed was tightening; inflation was higher under the Gold Standard than recently, thinks a "Lender of Last Resort" is different than a bailout)
• Trump - unimpressive, but didn't hurt himself too badly; just didn't do much either way
• Kasich - incredibly weak performance, he had to get more aggressive, but came off incredibly desperate and torpedoed any chance he'd ever have
• Rubio - sharp as usual and forming himself into the frontrunner IMO; just a good speaker and debater, says the right things
• Bush - just awful... stick a fork in his horrendous candidacy
• Paul - why even discuss this lunatic? His father was a whack job and so is he
• Fiorina - needs to get more succinct with her answers and more detailed with examples... was average tonight

I liked Rubio's comment about trade schools and reforming higher education. The comment that we need more welders than philosophers was good.

I had expected early in the process for Bush and Rubio to rise to the top. Rubio seems to be the one that will survive. I just can't see that someone would choose Trump or Carson when they are alone in the voting booth. Trump will poll well, but he won't win the nomination. Fiorina would be ruthless against Hillary.

Paul, Kasich, and Bush are done. I would have had Christie on the stage instead of Paul or Kasich. Everyone in the undercard debate is done. Jindal and Christie could be VP candidates.

My prediction is a Rubio/Kasich ticket.

 

[mjvcaj]

Saying "you can't just let people lose their life savings" was when he should have just shut up. Instead he stumbled into "figure out who can afford to lose and who can't" (i.e. "let the government pick the winners and losers?") and got booed - BOOED.

Agreed. This was his major downfall. I agree with most of your sentiment.

 

[mjvcaj]

I liked Rubio's comment about trade schools and reforming higher education. The comment that we need more welders than philosophers was good.

I had expected early in the process for Bush and Rubio to rise to the top. Rubio seems to be the one that will survive. I just can't see that someone would choose Trump or Carson when they are alone in the voting booth. Trump will poll well, but he won't win the nomination. Fiorina would be ruthless against Hillary.

Paul, Kasich, and Bush are done. I would have had Christie on the stage instead of Paul or Kasich. Everyone in the undercard debate is done. Jindal and Christie could be VP candidates.

My prediction is a Rubio/Kasich ticket.

That would be a very strong ticket. I'm just not sure Kasich would get selected by Rubio or any other candidate on that stage.

 

[mjvcaj]

Fiorina, was she there? She never seemed to get on track to me. I think mjvcaj had it right with her needing to be more succinct.

I think she has decent ideas at times, but she just rambles way too much and goes on tangents. If she could be focused and succinct, it would resonate much better and certainly improve her poll positions.

 

[iubud]

I think she has decent ideas at times, but she just rambles way too much and goes on tangents. If she could be focused and succinct, it would resonate much better and certainly improve her poll positions.

Right! She delivered strong comments, but felt the need to explain too much. I suppose she was worried about someone twisting her answer.

Mark Cuban made a point about her lack of political experience. He said she has boardroom political experience. I don't think that is enough.

 

[IU1]

Thanks Fox Business News. Here are my thoughts:

1) Christie and Jindal should be on the stage over some of the others

• Carson - back to his bumbling, nonsensical ways... he hasn't a clue about Foreign Policy or Finance and Economics
• Cruz - strong speaker, but riddled with errors (Q3 2008 was not when the Fed was tightening; inflation was higher under the Gold Standard than recently, thinks a "Lender of Last Resort" is different than a bailout)
• Trump - unimpressive, but didn't hurt himself too badly; just didn't do much either way
• Kasich - incredibly weak performance, he had to get more aggressive, but came off incredibly desperate and torpedoed any chance he'd ever have
• Rubio - sharp as usual and forming himself into the frontrunner IMO; just a good speaker and debater, says the right things
• Bush - just awful... stick a fork in his horrendous candidacy
• Paul - why even discuss this lunatic? His father was a whack job and so is he
• Fiorina - needs to get more succinct with her answers and more detailed with examples... was average tonight

John Kasich was in the wrong debate, he needs to join the next Democrat debate because his views on economics mirror those of the Democrats. Business failure is a part of free market capitalism and if one or all of the big banks failed it would be the natural market correction that drives people toward small community banks and credit unions and breaks up the government/banking monopoly. He simply wants more of the same and totally lost the audience to the point of getting booed. A terrible performance but atleast we got to know his real views.

I thought Ben Carson, Trump, and Rubio were sharp and seemed to represent Republican views. Cruz hit a home run as usual and is the candor and leadership that has been lacking from professional establishment politicians. It is refreshing to hear an immigrant candidate go back to the core values this country was founded upon.

Jeb Bush did nothing for me and I can't see him going the distance (or much further). I thought Rand Paul was better than he's been but probably not electable.

Fox business news and the moderators were outstanding and we finally got away from TMZ type of moderation and back to substance. Cavuto was great as usual. All in all it was an enjoyable evening with the candidates and their policy positions the star of the show.

 

[IU1]

Thoughts:

The best "idea" I heard actually came from Rick Santorum - allowing Vets to use non-VA health care facilities, and having the VA develop "special" expertise in health care issues unique to Vets (PTSD, prosthetics as examples).

On paper, Kasich is the best qualified, but he does not communicate well in the debate format. He seems to start an answer well, then stumbles over a few words, then loses patience and usually ends up looking and sounding irritated and never really making his full point well. His attempt to oppose Cruz over letting a Bank of America-size bank fail was a signature moment. Saying "you can't just let people lose their life savings" was when he should have just shut up. Instead he stumbled into "figure out who can afford to lose and who can't" (i.e. "let the government pick the winners and losers?") and got booed - BOOED. He's probably done unless the Convention gets gridlocked and he become a compromise candidate.

Several other candidates have "communication" styles/problems that make them seem less-than-Presidential. Jindal - too rapid fire, full of buzz words, almost repeating memorized lines. Tells everyone the numbers of his budget cuts/spending cuts, but doesn't ever explain WHY or HOW or IF that helped anything. Santorum - desparation combined with a slight, edgy "I can't believe I'm losing to these guys" cynicism. Chrisitie - like a happy puppy willing to do anything to get that treat and please that master, and overly-handled on the "I'll insult Hillary" message. Fiorina is too smug - her answers seem to begin with "I know you don't know this, so I'll tell you...". She seems more like a robot than a person.Carson seems to be off thinking deep thoughts, and comes across like "I didn't hear that, so I'll just say this" or "I don't know, so I'll just say this." He'll make a great Surgeon General, but acting calm is not enough. And Cruz just exudes smarm and arrogance. He is EXTREMELY intelligent. The wonkers wonk. Of all the candidates, his message seems to get the most succinctly made but most lost in delivery. I feel like I'm hearing a sermon, not an answer, and I stop hearing the wortds and start waiting for the hand to point skyward.

I like how Rand Paul is (mostly) respectful, calm, and usually makes his point very quickly and very clearly. He answers the question that is asked. But his willingness to be isolationist in an era where most folks want ISIS attacked daily is a policy fatal to his candidacy. His willingness to ACTUALLY balance a budget and stand for fiscal principle is admirable, but in the end, nobody else cares. IMO, he is most likely to run a thrid party campaign.

Bush is just ineffective, and I'm shocked by it. Going in, I'd have bet on him as the favorite. I think he loses himself between what the question calls for and what the talking points are that his handlers told him to use. So neither his answers or his tzlking poinyts ever get made well.

Rubio is clearly the most-well polished. He can take ANY question and re-shape it into a way to deliver his message without seeming offensive. It may be unfair, and I may just be a "get off my lawn" ageist, but I constantly think "he's too young." I'm convinced he can hammer a fastball, but I'm not sure he can hit the curve - and a President gets lots of curves. But if the primary was today, I'd vote for him.

Trump is ..... well, I want to say "buffoon", but "buffoon" and "billionaire" don't go well together. "I'm gonna be great" is not a policy. I want a wall too, but I will not support rounding up illegal immigrants. If the y get caught breaking the law and are discivered to be here illegally, deport them. If they want citizenship, fine them and make them go through the legal processes. Send out the paddy wagons? Hell no. And I worry that as a Commander-in Chief, he may tell folks about preserving precious bodily fluids.

Overall, I'm gobsmack shocked that Carson and Trump are the leaders. For the first time, I feel COMPLETLY out of touch with the "electorate." Here, in our most recent election, the polsters missed it by FIFTEEN points.Maybe the pollsters have it wrong.

My evil side wants NOBODY to get the delegates and for the Pubs to have an open convention. Now THAT would some old timey politics.

Thoughts:

The best "idea" I heard actually came from Rick Santorum - allowing Vets to use non-VA health care facilities, and having the VA develop "special" expertise in health care issues unique to Vets (PTSD, prosthetics as examples).

On paper, Kasich is the best qualified, but he does not communicate well in the debate format. He seems to start an answer well, then stumbles over a few words, then loses patience and usually ends up looking and sounding irritated and never really making his full point well. His attempt to oppose Cruz over letting a Bank of America-size bank fail was a signature moment. Saying "you can't just let people lose their life savings" was when he should have just shut up. Instead he stumbled into "figure out who can afford to lose and who can't" (i.e. "let the government pick the winners and losers?") and got booed - BOOED. He's probably done unless the Convention gets gridlocked and he become a compromise candidate.

Several other candidates have "communication" styles/problems that make them seem less-than-Presidential. Jindal - too rapid fire, full of buzz words, almost repeating memorized lines. Tells everyone the numbers of his budget cuts/spending cuts, but doesn't ever explain WHY or HOW or IF that helped anything. Santorum - desparation combined with a slight, edgy "I can't believe I'm losing to these guys" cynicism. Chrisitie - like a happy puppy willing to do anything to get that treat and please that master, and overly-handled on the "I'll insult Hillary" message. Fiorina is too smug - her answers seem to begin with "I know you don't know this, so I'll tell you...". She seems more like a robot than a person.Carson seems to be off thinking deep thoughts, and comes across like "I didn't hear that, so I'll just say this" or "I don't know, so I'll just say this." He'll make a great Surgeon General, but acting calm is not enough. And Cruz just exudes smarm and arrogance. He is EXTREMELY intelligent. The wonkers wonk. Of all the candidates, his message seems to get the most succinctly made but most lost in delivery. I feel like I'm hearing a sermon, not an answer, and I stop hearing the wortds and start waiting for the hand to point skyward.

I like how Rand Paul is (mostly) respectful, calm, and usually makes his point very quickly and very clearly. He answers the question that is asked. But his willingness to be isolationist in an era where most folks want ISIS attacked daily is a policy fatal to his candidacy. His willingness to ACTUALLY balance a budget and stand for fiscal principle is admirable, but in the end, nobody else cares. IMO, he is most likely to run a thrid party campaign.

Bush is just ineffective, and I'm shocked by it. Going in, I'd have bet on him as the favorite. I think he loses himself between what the question calls for and what the talking points are that his handlers told him to use. So neither his answers or his tzlking poinyts ever get made well.

Rubio is clearly the most-well polished. He can take ANY question and re-shape it into a way to deliver his message without seeming offensive. It may be unfair, and I may just be a "get off my lawn" ageist, but I constantly think "he's too young." I'm convinced he can hammer a fastball, but I'm not sure he can hit the curve - and a President gets lots of curves. But if the primary was today, I'd vote for him.

Trump is ..... well, I want to say "buffoon", but "buffoon" and "billionaire" don't go well together. "I'm gonna be great" is not a policy. I want a wall too, but I will not support rounding up illegal immigrants. If the y get caught breaking the law and are discivered to be here illegally, deport them. If they want citizenship, fine them and make them go through the legal processes. Send out the paddy wagons? Hell no. And I worry that as a Commander-in Chief, he may tell folks about preserving precious bodily fluids.

Overall, I'm gobsmack shocked that Carson and Trump are the leaders. For the first time, I feel COMPLETLY out of touch with the "electorate." Here, in our most recent election, the polsters missed it by FIFTEEN points.Maybe the pollsters have it wrong.

My evil side wants NOBODY to get the delegates and for the Pubs to have an open convention. Now THAT would some old timey politics.

Agree with most of this but especially your comments on Kasich. He buried himself last nite and should have shut up. But like a typical politician he kept talking hoping to get the big government democrats liking him. Bed time for Kasich.

 

[mjvcaj]

John Kasich was in the wrong debate, he needs to join the next Democrat debate because his views on economics mirror those of the Democrats. Business failure is a part of free market capitalism and if one or all of the big banks failed it would be the natural market correction that drives people toward small community banks and credit unions and breaks up the government/banking monopoly. He simply wants more of the same and totally lost the audience to the point of getting booed. A terrible performance but atleast we got to know his real views.

What are you watching? I suggest you go back and replay the clip. He said he wanted to protect the depositors. He got booed because he then said he would base repayment of deposits (AKA everyone's money on here but your's) on need.

And if you are so free market, why do you have monopolistic protections in place? If JP Morgan wanted to buy every other bank, why wouldn't it be allowed to? Isn't that free market?

 

[mjvcaj]

I thought Ben Carson, Trump, and Rubio were sharp and seemed to represent Republican views. Cruz hit a home run as usual and is the candor and leadership that has been lacking from professional establishment politicians. It is refreshing to hear an immigrant candidate go back to the core values this country was founded upon.

Your definition of sharp is quite wide-ranging. Carson is a bumbling clown. Trump was ok and Rubio is excellent at speaking.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Thanks Fox Business News. Here are my thoughts:

1) Christie and Jindal should be on the stage over some of the others

• Carson - back to his bumbling, nonsensical ways... he hasn't a clue about Foreign Policy or Finance and Economics
• Cruz - strong speaker, but riddled with errors (Q3 2008 was not when the Fed was tightening; inflation was higher under the Gold Standard than recently, thinks a "Lender of Last Resort" is different than a bailout)
• Trump - unimpressive, but didn't hurt himself too badly; just didn't do much either way
• Kasich - incredibly weak performance, he had to get more aggressive, but came off incredibly desperate and torpedoed any chance he'd ever have
• Rubio - sharp as usual and forming himself into the frontrunner IMO; just a good speaker and debater, says the right things
• Bush - just awful... stick a fork in his horrendous candidacy
• Paul - why even discuss this lunatic? His father was a whack job and so is he
• Fiorina - needs to get more succinct with her answers and more detailed with examples... was average tonight

Who is more of a lunatic, Paul for saying the below message, or people who think what he's saying means what he thinks it means?

"I think we ought to look where income inequality seems to be the worst. It seems to be worst in cities run by democrats, governors of states run by democrats, and countries currently run by democrats. So the thing is, let's look for root causes."

 

[mjvcaj]

Who is more of a lunatic, Paul for saying the below message, or people who think what he's saying means what he thinks it means?

"I think we ought to look where income inequality seems to be the worst. It seems to be worst in cities run by democrats, governors of states run by democrats, and countries currently run by democrats. So the thing is, let's look for root causes."

I don't follow.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I liked Rubio's comment about trade schools and reforming higher education. The comment that we need more welders than philosophers was good.

I had expected early in the process for Bush and Rubio to rise to the top. Rubio seems to be the one that will survive. I just can't see that someone would choose Trump or Carson when they are alone in the voting booth. Trump will poll well, but he won't win the nomination. Fiorina would be ruthless against Hillary.

Paul, Kasich, and Bush are done. I would have had Christie on the stage instead of Paul or Kasich. Everyone in the undercard debate is done. Jindal and Christie could be VP candidates.

My prediction is a Rubio/Kasich ticket.

Of course the comment about philosophy majors may not be right. Read 538's piece on them. They have a higher unemployment rate than many other majors. But they make more than other majors. And they do better at LSAT and GMAT. Oh, and that was Fiorina's degree. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/philosophers-dont-get-much-respect-but-their-earnings-dont-suck/

 

[iubud]

Of course the comment about philosophy majors may not be right. Read 538's piece on them. They have a higher unemployment rate than many other majors. But they make more than other majors. And they do better at LSAT and GMAT. Oh, and that was Fiorina's degree. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/philosophers-dont-get-much-respect-but-their-earnings-dont-suck/

I would expect he meant it how I took it that there is a market for welders and skilled tradesmen. I am not sure what you would do with a Philosophy degree besides teach. There probably isn't a huge market for Philosophy teachers. Without a market, they would have to settle for a job outside their field.

We are all proud of our degrees and the work it took to get them. People forget a plumber, electrician, or welder also have skills they have worked hard to learn. Think about that the next time the power goes out or a water main breaks.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I would expect he meant it how I took it that there is a market for welders and skilled tradesmen. I am not sure what you would do with a Philosophy degree besides teach. There probably isn't a huge market for Philosophy teachers. Without a market, they would have to settle for a job outside their field.

We are all proud of our degrees and the work it took to get them. People forget a plumber, electrician, or welder also have skills they have worked hard to learn. Think about that the next time the power goes out or a water main breaks.

Sure, I want people to enter those fields and have success. Be in a welder, or a gardner, or whatever. But for whatever reason it has become trendy to make fun of the old school degrees (was it Adams or Jefferson who had a philosophy degree as I am pretty sure one did). It seems we overvalue business degrees, the idea that that the purpose of the degree is to be solely beneficial to one's future corporate overlord.

The old idea that a degree like philosophy is to expose one to many competing ideas and to train one to think is something that is scoffed at, and I'm not sure why. It isn't for everyone, any more than a business degree should be. But if our corporatocracy can't figure out what to do with well-rounded thinkers, that's the fault of corporate America. Those sort of degrees served us very well for a very long time. It is the traditional concept of being a gentleman. I don't know if they still do, but West Point used to require things like dance.

I've heard lawyers here, and I believe one was CO who is hardly a radical leftists, discuss how law school changed the way they think. I'm not sure that isn't the purpose of a degree like philosophy, which usually under arts and sciences, require language, literature, science, math, history, politics, etc. As opposed to more narrow degrees like business where one never has to stray. Or to go back to what I like to use, Jobs always credits a class on typography for his success. Yet today too many Americans would consider such a class a waste.