The debate on CNN

[Viligant_Warrior]

High debate stakes for trailing GOP candidates

he 2016 Republican candidates are heading into only their second debate, and already the showdowns are starting to reshape the field.

One candidate, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, dropped out after a lackluster performance last month coinciding with a fundraising crunch. Another, Ben Carson, has vaulted into second place since the first face-off, while Jeb Bush and Scott Walker have slipped.

The question is: after tonight's debate, what will tomorrow's field look like?

I doubt that it will happen tomorrow, but the fact is the field is quickly boiling down to a two-man race: Trump and Carson.

Personally, as most of you know, I favor Carson, and I think in the end, he wins the nomination if, indeed, it becomes that two-man race. What Trump supporters are correct about is that GOP voters are fed up with the status quo of same ol' same ol'. What they are wrong about is that Trump is the answer.

Carson is the answer. He's reasonable, intelligent, engaging, powerfully humble. It will be hard for Clinton, Biden, Sanders, or even Elizabeth Warren to overcome his persona. He is a quick learner, and more than capable as an executive.

The final outcome boils down to whether or not the politicians can make inroads against the top two. Carson currently is in a statistical tie in Iowa, has a slight lead in New Hampshire. Trump isn't losing ground, but as I predicted a few weeks ago, he isn't going to gain those abandoning the establishment candidates. He's maxed his support. Carson has an 81% approval rating, only a 6% negative rating, both of which are extremes in the field, by a wide margin.

Carson wins. And if he does, the GOP wins next November..

 

[crossnote]

Jeb is in 3rd, and if he ends up winning I'll swear the elections are fixed

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Jeb is in 3rd, and if he ends up winning I'll swear the elections are fixed

Yeah, at an RCP average of 7.8%, 12.2% behind Ben. You're right, if Jeb wins, it has to be fixed.

 

[T_Laurich]

I love how a 12 year old girl for a class project proved that all the Presidents are related to the same King John of England 1200 AD


[video=youtube;9oYKMJkatzI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oYKMJkatzI&ab_channel=ClintfromNYtoVA[/video]




Edit: I post this to show that they are selected, not elected... The person who votes decides nothing, the person who counts the votes decides everything...
Ron Paul got over 10% votes in every place that hand counted, but when the votes were electronically counted... He lost by a land slide... Weird...

 

[KennethC]

I would not mind Carson but that is a bold claim V.W. since most polls still show Clinton with 22% more votes then all the candidates Republican and Democratic together.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Bah! Americans won't vote for the best person for president. That hasn't happened since George Washington.

 

[kaylagrl]

Bah! Americans won't vote for the best person for president. That hasn't happened since George Washington.

True but it also made me LOL!

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I love how a 12 year old girl for a class project proved that all the Presidents are related to the same King John of England 1200 AD

The best thing about that is that John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, the basis of western political thought on personal and civil rights.

The thing that negates the impressive nature of that is that, after 800 years, the potential for any one individual to be related to any other one individual is reduced to something like two to one. It isn't a surprise in any way, shape, or form.

Edit: I post this to show that they are selected, not elected ...

Certainly you're entitled to that observation, but the reality is somewhat different.

The person who votes decides nothing, the person who counts the votes decides everything ...

Untrue -- no offense.

Ron Paul got over 10% votes in every place that hand counted, but when the votes were electronically counted... He lost by a land slide... Weird...

Not really. Paul couldn't garner more than 10% of the vote in a presidential nominating election no matter how hard he tried. He's not a conservative, he's a libertarian, and the GOP is not a libertarian party.

 

[T_Laurich]

The best thing about that is that John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, the basis of western political thought on personal and civil rights.

The thing that negates the impressive nature of that is that, after 800 years, the potential for any one individual to be related to any other one individual is reduced to something like two to one. It isn't a surprise in any way, shape, or form.

Certainly you're entitled to that observation, but the reality is somewhat different.

Untrue -- no offense.

Not really. Paul couldn't garner more than 10% of the vote in a presidential nominating election no matter how hard he tried. He's not a conservative, he's a libertarian, and the GOP is not a libertarian party.

1.) Not true, I am not related to King John in any way Neither are many other people I know... Surprisingly it's not that hard...

2.) If they are elected then tell me how come Franklin D Roosevelt said himself " Presidents are selected, not elected."

3.) Joseph Stalin "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

4.) please show any evidence that Ron Paul could not obtain 10% instead of just saying he couldn't... I challenge you to prove this: so that your own hand will shown your arrogance.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

1.) Not true, I am not related to King John in any way Neither are many other people I know... Surprisingly it's not that hard...

... to be related to King John, I agree. I am. So is my wife. But we are miles apart from being related to one another.

2.) If they are elected then tell me how come Franklin D Roosevelt said himself " Presidents are selected, not elected."

Couldn't tell you. FDR said a lot of things that weren't true.

3.) Joseph Stalin "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

So you're going to take the word of a communist dictator as gospel? Really?

4.) please show any evidence that Ron Paul could not obtain 10% instead of just saying he couldn't... I challenge you to prove this: so that your own hand will shown your arrogance.

Simple: William F. Buckley once said that the GOP should nominate the most conservative candidate who can win. Mitt Romney beat the unelectable conservatives to his right, George W. Bush beat the waffling conservatives to his left. Rand Paul has the inelegant position of failing both of Buckley's criteria. He isn't a conservative, and he can't win.

 

[Nautilus]

Ron Paul is a pipe dream for people who for some reason or another cling to the falsehood that a third party candidate stands a snowballs chance in hades.

Now as for Ben Carson, if a republican had to win I would say he would be my choice. I just have a feeling that his inexperience may eventually play a bigger factor as the field narrows.

 

[skipp]

I like Carson a lot. Here's hoping he has a chance to shine tonight.

I can't stomach the thought of Bush vs Clinton. Please please no Jeb...(or Clinton, for that matter).

 

[Sirk]

I think Graham is gonna put me to sleep. No fire in the belly.

 

[maxwel]

The best thing about that is that John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, the basis of western political thought on personal and civil rights.

The thing that negates the impressive nature of that is that, after 800 years, the potential for any one individual to be related to any other one individual is reduced to something like two to one. It isn't a surprise in any way, shape, or form.

Certainly you're entitled to that observation, but the reality is somewhat different.

Untrue -- no offense.

Not really. Paul couldn't garner more than 10% of the vote in a presidential nominating election no matter how hard he tried. He's not a conservative, he's a libertarian, and the GOP is not a libertarian party.

Does this mean I'm related to half the people on CC?

Say it isn't so.

 

[Sirk]

I think Graham is gonna put me to sleep. No fire in the belly.

Graham says he wants to get the GOP in a position to "win"....still the same ole same ole.....not a nut to be found amongst these knuckleheads in the GOP.

 

[Sirk]

I think Graham is gonna put me to sleep. No fire in the belly.

Graham says he wants to get the GOP in a position to "win"....still the same ole same ole.....not a nut to be found amongst these knuckleheads in the GOP.

Plus he sounds like he is reading from a prepared speech.

 

[Nautilus]

Ugh Huckabee get over yourself, no one wants you as president. Same with Rubio, Cruz and walker honestly.

 

[Nautilus]

I dont want to be a running commentary but if that answer of fiorinas is any foreshadowing to her skills in this debate i hope she drops tomorrow morning. And Trump is honestly right about Rand Paul. He is more of a nonfactor than his father.

 

[zeroturbulence]

So what do we have left? Trump, Fiorina, Carson, Hillary and that Sanders guy. As much as I hate trump's personality, he actually is a very shrewd and intelligent businessman. He just needs to really learn the concept of tactfulness when speaking in public. He's also not trying to win people over by just telling them what they want to hear, or coddling them to get them to contribute to his campaign. He even turned down contribution money from some big corporations. Maybe its time we had a president who isn't a career politician.

 

[Nautilus]

All in all businessmen are not much more trustworthy than politicians. I mean this whole thing is kinda scary. He does debate like an angry child though. I like Ben Carson's low-key calm demeanor but I think some might take it as weakness.