I argued earlier that Trump won tonight-if for no other reason than that the debate was a usual all about him.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-donald-trump-show.html
As every time you attack Trump he gets a 30 second rebut, attacking him all night as Rubio did has its drawbacks as a strategy as well. It kind of guarantees he will have the most air time.
Some of the media as usual insist on thinking Trump took real blows tonight. There's' no question that the entire stage was after him. He had Rubio and Cruz along with the moderators trying to nail him to the wall.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/republican-debate.html?_r=0
But considering that, I thought he held up pretty well.
Chris Cillizza after eight months of Trump is still getting it wrong.
"Trump totally dominated the debate in terms of speaking time and the broader conversation. There were times where it felt more like an interview with Trump than a debate with three candidates not named Trump on stage. As is usually the case with Trump in a debate setting, the more he talks, the less positive the outcome is for him. He repeatedly came across as juvenile — calling Rubio "Little Marco" and Cruz "Lyin' Ted." Hell, within the first 10 minutes of the debate Trump was insisting that questions about his endowment — not the financial kind — were way off."
"From a more substantive perspective, Trump took real body blows — especially from Cruz — regarding Trump University and the comments he made in an off-the-record session with the New York Times. Trump, as he has in nearly every debate, showed a wafer-thin understanding of policy and, when pressed about that lack of knowledge, reverted to name-calling. Does any of the above matter? It hasn't yet."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/03/winners-and-losers-from-the-11th-republican-presidential-debate/
It hasn't happened yet, he's right. But why doesn't he learn from this the obvious takeaway: this is the GOP 2016 primary and there is no 'more substantive perspective.'
For Rubio to claim Trump doesn't have the knowledge is funny only because Rubio himself has betrayed no ability behind the rote reciting of canned lines. Trump's policies may not be realistic but neither are any of the others. I feel like they are still trying to deceive themselves about this.
Ok, so let's go to Voorhes:
"The Fox News Debate Was Ugly, Rowdy, and Immature. Of Course Trump Won."
"It’s hard to see how Thursday night will change a status quo that has proved so favorable to Trump. He was battered by attacks throughout the night—from his rivals and from the moderators—and faced questions about Trump University and what he told the New York Times’ editorial board off the record about his willingness to soften his hard-line immigration stance. But similar attacks failed to derail him in the past 10 debates, so it’s unclear why these ones would—especially coming from the same men and moderators who have tried, and failed, to take him down before."
"Trump survived the night much how he has before—by playing fast and loose with facts while embracing what would be considered weaknesses in other candidates. When Marco Rubio attacked him for dodging policy questions by lobbing personal attacks, Trump responded with more personal attacks. (At one point, after Trump dismissively called Rubio “little Marco,” Rubio responded by calling him “big Donald,” a nickname that Marco appeared to regret before it even came out of his mouth.) When Cruz suggested that Trump’s history of donating to Democrats and Republicans alike made him part of Washington’s problems, Trump spun that criticism into proof that he knows how to play the game. And when Fox News’ fact checkers put his past words on screen to prove he’d flipped and flopped, Trump responded with his usual combination of rambling and bluster. It was the same thing we’ve seen before, and it’s the same thing we can expect to see again. "
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/03/the_fox_new_debate_in_detroit_was_ugly_and_immature_of_course_trump_won.html
Yes: Little Marco and Big Donald. Sure, Rubio is Presidential material. Clearly those rare specimens in the GOP primary who want a serious candidate will find one in Marco Rubio.
And he and Ted Cruz clearly aren't serious about math:
"Thursday’s debate, meanwhile, was the first since Super Tuesday and the first since the GOP establishment has begun to consolidate behind a contested convention strategy that relies on voters not consolidating behind any candidate. Mitt Romney made it clear earlier in the day that Hail Mary is the only play left in the Republican Party’s playbook. Rubio’s been hyping the brokered convention route for weeks, but Cruz also jumped on board publicly on Thursday. “If you are one of the 65 percent to 70 percent of Republicans who recognize that nominating Donald would be a disaster, then I ask you to come join us,” the Texan said, before combining his four state wins with Rubio’s one. “We welcome you to our team because we've demonstrated not once, not twice, not three times, but five separate times we have beat Donald and if you don't want him to be the nominee, then I ask you to stand with us as a broad coalition of people who believe in the Constitution, believe in freedom, and want to turn this country around.”
As Trump says, if 65 to 70 percent of GOPers don't want him supposedly, how many desire Rubio?
I can't wait for March 15 when:
1. Hillary will make it even clearer Bernie has no path to victory. That may be when he will have to concede the inevitable.
2. Rubio loses Florida.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-donald-trump-show.html
As every time you attack Trump he gets a 30 second rebut, attacking him all night as Rubio did has its drawbacks as a strategy as well. It kind of guarantees he will have the most air time.
Some of the media as usual insist on thinking Trump took real blows tonight. There's' no question that the entire stage was after him. He had Rubio and Cruz along with the moderators trying to nail him to the wall.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/republican-debate.html?_r=0
But considering that, I thought he held up pretty well.
Chris Cillizza after eight months of Trump is still getting it wrong.
"Trump totally dominated the debate in terms of speaking time and the broader conversation. There were times where it felt more like an interview with Trump than a debate with three candidates not named Trump on stage. As is usually the case with Trump in a debate setting, the more he talks, the less positive the outcome is for him. He repeatedly came across as juvenile — calling Rubio "Little Marco" and Cruz "Lyin' Ted." Hell, within the first 10 minutes of the debate Trump was insisting that questions about his endowment — not the financial kind — were way off."
"From a more substantive perspective, Trump took real body blows — especially from Cruz — regarding Trump University and the comments he made in an off-the-record session with the New York Times. Trump, as he has in nearly every debate, showed a wafer-thin understanding of policy and, when pressed about that lack of knowledge, reverted to name-calling. Does any of the above matter? It hasn't yet."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/03/winners-and-losers-from-the-11th-republican-presidential-debate/
It hasn't happened yet, he's right. But why doesn't he learn from this the obvious takeaway: this is the GOP 2016 primary and there is no 'more substantive perspective.'
For Rubio to claim Trump doesn't have the knowledge is funny only because Rubio himself has betrayed no ability behind the rote reciting of canned lines. Trump's policies may not be realistic but neither are any of the others. I feel like they are still trying to deceive themselves about this.
Ok, so let's go to Voorhes:
"The Fox News Debate Was Ugly, Rowdy, and Immature. Of Course Trump Won."
"It’s hard to see how Thursday night will change a status quo that has proved so favorable to Trump. He was battered by attacks throughout the night—from his rivals and from the moderators—and faced questions about Trump University and what he told the New York Times’ editorial board off the record about his willingness to soften his hard-line immigration stance. But similar attacks failed to derail him in the past 10 debates, so it’s unclear why these ones would—especially coming from the same men and moderators who have tried, and failed, to take him down before."
"Trump survived the night much how he has before—by playing fast and loose with facts while embracing what would be considered weaknesses in other candidates. When Marco Rubio attacked him for dodging policy questions by lobbing personal attacks, Trump responded with more personal attacks. (At one point, after Trump dismissively called Rubio “little Marco,” Rubio responded by calling him “big Donald,” a nickname that Marco appeared to regret before it even came out of his mouth.) When Cruz suggested that Trump’s history of donating to Democrats and Republicans alike made him part of Washington’s problems, Trump spun that criticism into proof that he knows how to play the game. And when Fox News’ fact checkers put his past words on screen to prove he’d flipped and flopped, Trump responded with his usual combination of rambling and bluster. It was the same thing we’ve seen before, and it’s the same thing we can expect to see again. "
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/03/the_fox_new_debate_in_detroit_was_ugly_and_immature_of_course_trump_won.html
Yes: Little Marco and Big Donald. Sure, Rubio is Presidential material. Clearly those rare specimens in the GOP primary who want a serious candidate will find one in Marco Rubio.
And he and Ted Cruz clearly aren't serious about math:
"Thursday’s debate, meanwhile, was the first since Super Tuesday and the first since the GOP establishment has begun to consolidate behind a contested convention strategy that relies on voters not consolidating behind any candidate. Mitt Romney made it clear earlier in the day that Hail Mary is the only play left in the Republican Party’s playbook. Rubio’s been hyping the brokered convention route for weeks, but Cruz also jumped on board publicly on Thursday. “If you are one of the 65 percent to 70 percent of Republicans who recognize that nominating Donald would be a disaster, then I ask you to come join us,” the Texan said, before combining his four state wins with Rubio’s one. “We welcome you to our team because we've demonstrated not once, not twice, not three times, but five separate times we have beat Donald and if you don't want him to be the nominee, then I ask you to stand with us as a broad coalition of people who believe in the Constitution, believe in freedom, and want to turn this country around.”
As Trump says, if 65 to 70 percent of GOPers don't want him supposedly, how many desire Rubio?
I can't wait for March 15 when:
1. Hillary will make it even clearer Bernie has no path to victory. That may be when he will have to concede the inevitable.
2. Rubio loses Florida.
Mike, I didn't see the debate, but when I saw this CNN opening line... I did a double take because I thought it might be an Onion article:
ReplyDelete"Donald Trump opened the GOP debate here by boasting about the size of his genitals."
Hahahaha!... I just listened to the video.
Mike, I didn't know who "Jason Voorhes" was, so imagine my surprise when I find this.
ReplyDeleteTwo problems there:
1) It's Josh, not Jason
2) It's Voorhees not Voorhes