You know in my last post, I was negative about Jindal-which was based on merit; he doesn't have a record that anyone is bragging about including his own Louisiana Republicans.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/11/bob-jindal-is-one-candidate-who-doesnt.html
I furthermore stated that I found this whole debate pretty forgettable. However, I find it's beginning to grow on me a little now-and that's largely thanks to Bobby Jindal. I'm beginning to think maybe he wins this Kid's Table debate.
Christie's strategy is simple. To every question you know the answer: We need someone to beat Hillary Clinton and I'm the one to do it.
So that's his strategy and he's stuck to it.
"Chris Christie, demoted to the undercard debate for the first time, sought to stand apart from his other low-polling rivals by positioning himself as a serious general election candidate in contrast to Hillary Clinton, not the three other Republican rivals beside him on the stage."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/christie-jindal-huckabee-santorum-republican-debate-215712#ixzz3r8m4Kd8R
That's all very nice. Saying you don't want to fight can but that we're all on the same side can be a clever poise, if not rather disingenuous. After all, this really is zero sum-only one candidate will come out as the nominee.
Bob Jindal came in with a different strategy: he seems to want to differentiate himself from the rest of the field. I like it, and I think it's working. Or more like-I I hope it's working and don't know that it isn't!
"Bobby Jindal, armed with statistics about Christie’s record of expanding food stamps and Medicaid in New Jersey, tried to drag Christie into a debate over who is the truer conservative—but Christie refused to take the bait, opting not to return fire at the Louisiana governor."
"Even after Jindal’s tone turned condescending—“I’ll give you a ribbon for participation and a juice box, but in the real world it’s about results,” Jindal said at the end of a long back and forth—Christie, as he has done with every single answer thus far, focused his fire on the likely Democratic nominee."
“What do you think’s going to happen when Hillary Clinton’s elected president?” Christie responded, warning of a turn towards greater government involvement in people’s lives.
"After the four-candidate undercard opened with substance-heavy takes on economic issues, as the moderators tossed out questions without follow-ups that allowed the contenders to largely stick to their talking points, a feisty Jindal took aim at the rest of the Republican field, asserting that he’s the only GOP candidate with a record of cutting spending."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/christie-jindal-huckabee-santorum-republican-debate-215712#ixzz3r8mhPQLl
We'll see which tactic works better. Christie's 'We're all GOPers and so we're all swell but vote for me' or Jindal's tactic of differentiation
My vote is for Jindal on style-this is a GOP debate so I don't expect to find substance.
But like Keynes stock market, this is also something of a beauty pageant. I'm not one of the judges. We;ll see if the GOP base agrees with me. They have agreed with me on a number of things this cycle funny enough. .
P.S. The debate is actually over but I'm not at the end yet-the wonders of DVR. Santorum framed the argument between Jindal and Christie as between who's the real conservative and who can win the general election.
Santorum cited his win in Pennsylvania as proof he's both. Not bad in terms of framing and the beauty of it is it tars Christie again as a moderate.
UPDATE: Jindal keeps going back to the idea that 'Out of control spending is not just a Democrat problem. We don't need a big government Republican either.'
Clearly knocking Christie again. The clear takeaway is that: Christie is a big government Republican.
UPDATE 2.0. I see that this Politico piece read the Christie-Jindal back and forth like I did.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/live-from-milwaukee/2015/11/republican-debate-chris-christie-bobby-jindal-fight-215721
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/11/bob-jindal-is-one-candidate-who-doesnt.html
I furthermore stated that I found this whole debate pretty forgettable. However, I find it's beginning to grow on me a little now-and that's largely thanks to Bobby Jindal. I'm beginning to think maybe he wins this Kid's Table debate.
Christie's strategy is simple. To every question you know the answer: We need someone to beat Hillary Clinton and I'm the one to do it.
So that's his strategy and he's stuck to it.
"Chris Christie, demoted to the undercard debate for the first time, sought to stand apart from his other low-polling rivals by positioning himself as a serious general election candidate in contrast to Hillary Clinton, not the three other Republican rivals beside him on the stage."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/christie-jindal-huckabee-santorum-republican-debate-215712#ixzz3r8m4Kd8R
That's all very nice. Saying you don't want to fight can but that we're all on the same side can be a clever poise, if not rather disingenuous. After all, this really is zero sum-only one candidate will come out as the nominee.
Bob Jindal came in with a different strategy: he seems to want to differentiate himself from the rest of the field. I like it, and I think it's working. Or more like-I I hope it's working and don't know that it isn't!
"Bobby Jindal, armed with statistics about Christie’s record of expanding food stamps and Medicaid in New Jersey, tried to drag Christie into a debate over who is the truer conservative—but Christie refused to take the bait, opting not to return fire at the Louisiana governor."
"Even after Jindal’s tone turned condescending—“I’ll give you a ribbon for participation and a juice box, but in the real world it’s about results,” Jindal said at the end of a long back and forth—Christie, as he has done with every single answer thus far, focused his fire on the likely Democratic nominee."
“What do you think’s going to happen when Hillary Clinton’s elected president?” Christie responded, warning of a turn towards greater government involvement in people’s lives.
"After the four-candidate undercard opened with substance-heavy takes on economic issues, as the moderators tossed out questions without follow-ups that allowed the contenders to largely stick to their talking points, a feisty Jindal took aim at the rest of the Republican field, asserting that he’s the only GOP candidate with a record of cutting spending."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/christie-jindal-huckabee-santorum-republican-debate-215712#ixzz3r8mhPQLl
We'll see which tactic works better. Christie's 'We're all GOPers and so we're all swell but vote for me' or Jindal's tactic of differentiation
My vote is for Jindal on style-this is a GOP debate so I don't expect to find substance.
But like Keynes stock market, this is also something of a beauty pageant. I'm not one of the judges. We;ll see if the GOP base agrees with me. They have agreed with me on a number of things this cycle funny enough. .
P.S. The debate is actually over but I'm not at the end yet-the wonders of DVR. Santorum framed the argument between Jindal and Christie as between who's the real conservative and who can win the general election.
Santorum cited his win in Pennsylvania as proof he's both. Not bad in terms of framing and the beauty of it is it tars Christie again as a moderate.
UPDATE: Jindal keeps going back to the idea that 'Out of control spending is not just a Democrat problem. We don't need a big government Republican either.'
Clearly knocking Christie again. The clear takeaway is that: Christie is a big government Republican.
UPDATE 2.0. I see that this Politico piece read the Christie-Jindal back and forth like I did.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/live-from-milwaukee/2015/11/republican-debate-chris-christie-bobby-jindal-fight-215721
No comments:
Post a Comment