• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Post-CNN GOP debate poll: Fiorina surges to 2nd place, Furby falls 8% points

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nipo

Member
Then I could see Cruz in the role. In my fantasy world Trump goes third party and runs with Palin screwing the GOP over royally.

I"m still convinced Trump isn't running to be president, he is running to make sure JEB isn't president. Anyone but JEB gets the nomination and he fades away. Bush gets it? he runs independent.
 

rambis

Banned
I think you may be forgetting how Fiorina got mauled by Barbara Boxer in 2010.

The only one attacking Fiorina's business record was Trump, and while he did an OK job and is probably the best one to make the attack, he still did it half heartedly, let her get her talking points in, and was embarrassed by her earlier in the debate.

Fiorina doesn't worry me.

I think Rubio presents a pretty clear contrast between the Democrats and the Republicans. He's youthful and he will rail on that. And he's also got all that feel good stuff about his grandparents he won't STFU about.

I don't think he'll make it out of the primary. Illegal immigration is too important this cycle because of The Donald.

Jeb will be the nominee.



I don't feel HP has ever really recovered. The company sputtered from strategy to strategy and CEO to CEO (and scandal to scandal) over the last 10 years and is about to split into two to slough off its low margin (and legacy) business, which so happens to be the one Fiorina made the priority of the company through her acquisition of Compaq.

Times have certainly changed, but the move never made sense. Who buys low margin growth? I don't get it.
http://www.wsj.com/video/trump-fior...rds/A31B3457-27F5-4FB4-91E9-95F70152A48B.html

I don't agree that he was halfhearted. He said in no uncertain terms that she sucked as CEO for HP, ran her prior companies into the ground and explained how HP is still reeling. He was 'nastier' in that attack than I could ever see coming from someone like Bernie or Hilary and she didn't even flinch. No matter what happened in 2010, she seems to be with the shits this time.

She did destroy him several times but idk what you mean by let her get her talking points off. Its supposed to be a civilized debate between "america's leaders" not a middle school shouting match. Of course she gets a rebuttal.

Im not even saying she will get the nod but I'm just making observations.
 
Listen to GWB's rhetoric form 2000. He spent so much time about building consensus and working across party lines it was insane. As soon as he was elected that all went out the window.

After the Supreme Court ruling that gave Bush the win there was no way the two parties were going to work together.
 
He still could have adopted the moderate policies he campaigned on and eventually people would have come around.

9/11 happened not even 9 months into his presidency. There was no hope that anywhere.
But then again that was the one moment when the 2 parties were in agreement.
 

benjipwns

Banned
He still could have adopted the moderate policies he campaigned on and eventually people would have come around.
He did sign a bunch of lousy bipartisan bills like the Patriot Act, McCain-Feingold, 2001 Tax Cuts, No Child Left Behind, Trade Promotion Authority extension, Medicare expansion, etc.

And that was just his first term. Not a single veto.

Should've been impeached over that.
 
Looking at these polls... I honestly don't know wtf Republicans are looking for in a candidate.

Cultural homogeny. They want a white, English speaking, Christian nation. Everything after that is secondary. Trump is so successful because he comes pretty damn close to campaigning on this very idea.


Edit- in terms of the support for different candidates right now, I think republicans are essentially facing the same question as the democrats: do you support your favorite candidate, or the one you think can get elected?
 

wildfire

Banned
CNN's premeditated agenda of pushing Fiorina clearly paid off. Don't know if this carried over to the other networks because I refuse to watch any of them. (save for the actual debates, of course)


CNN wasn't the only one pushing her. Fox News was doing everything in their power to make her look good during the junior varsity debate and still managed to find a way of including her in the primary debate.

We should all be concerned when CNN and Fox News are in agreement.


His stance on climate change is scary as fuck.


It's not. He's literally between climate deniers and climate changers. He sees climate change as real but doesn't give a shit because he sees all the proposed alternatives as cost inefficient. The people who deny it are scarier. With Cruz all you have to do is sell yourself better, a lot better.
 
I can totally hear Clinton calling out Rubio in the debate.

"Mr Rubio the people of the United States are going to chose between you and me to be the next president of the United States, not between your grandfather and me"
 

Future

Member
Wasn't she found to be lying consistently when people fact checked her debate?

Republicans: yes please my kind of candidate!
 
I like her whole planned parenthood angle hinged on a video where the footage didn't even come from planned parenthood facilities.
 

Revolver

Member
Wait... If a presidential candidate and their VP are from the same state they can't claim that state's electoral votes? I never knew this.

This is why Dick Cheney changed his residence from Texas to Wyoming when he ran with W. I think Jeb's been a resident of Florida too long to change his residence even though he was born in Texas. I may be reading the 12th Amendment wrong but my understanding is that if both candidates are from the same state then that state's electoral votes are constrained and not necessarily out of play. Say Bush/Rubio win Florida then the electors could vote half for Bush/blank and the other half could vote blank/Rubio and in a close election the small number of electoral votes could be enough to push either member of the ticket to victory but not both. It could be an electoral mess but what would a Bush presidential election be without electoral college mischief?
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
http://www.wsj.com/video/trump-fior...rds/A31B3457-27F5-4FB4-91E9-95F70152A48B.html

I don't agree that he was halfhearted. He said in no uncertain terms that she sucked as CEO for HP, ran her prior companies into the ground and explained how HP is still reeling. He was 'nastier' in that attack than I could ever see coming from someone like Bernie or Hilary and she didn't even flinch. No matter what happened in 2010, she seems to be with the shits this time.

She did destroy him several times but idk what you mean by let her get her talking points off. Its supposed to be a civilized debate between "america's leaders" not a middle school shouting match. Of course she gets a rebuttal.

Im not even saying she will get the nod but I'm just making observations.

She got to say she grew revenue, cash flow, and innovation. These are words that have meaning to most people (cash flow maybe less so). He said HP is in terrible shape and mentioned their current layoffs but I don't believe he mentioned the layoffs she did, and he just keeps repeating that the Compaq deal was "terrible" and not why. It's typical Trumpian argumentation. He still can't explain his use of leverage in a simple way, which let her counter. Where's the beef?

He brings up Sonnenfeld, promotes him, and then lets her call him a Clintonite. This is effective?

The point needs to be made about judgment. Carly Fiorina made a bad judgment call. She angled the company towards low margin growth in an area where Apple was redefining consumer electronics and IBM was redefining enterprise. Carly has poor judgment. Why isn't this the claim being made?
 

nacimento

Member
Rubio is the strongest for the main election imo, because he has a chance of getting the religious latinos on his side, who might go "his shit policies for us don't matter, he's one of us". And even the racist republicans will vote for him under great racist pain, because the hate for a Clinton is still stronger.
 
Wasn't she found to be lying consistently when people fact checked her debate?

Republicans: yes please my kind of candidate!

I like how some will say Fiorina had a good debate essentially because she spoke forcefully, didn't back down, but let's forget all the batshit warhawking, and all the bullshit that came out her mouth. Standing your ground, that's what matter.

Trump was terrible, and Carson being in the top 3 is mind-boggling. The GOP really is a shit show.
 

BSsBrolly

Banned
It's not. He's literally between climate deniers and climate changers. He sees climate change as real but doesn't give a shit because he sees all the proposed alternatives as cost inefficient. The people who deny it are scarier. With Cruz all you have to do is sell yourself better, a lot better.

Just because his stance is less terrifying than others running doesn't make his stance any less scary. He stands a much better chance of getting the nomination than Cruz does. I'd argue that alone makes his stance even scarier. Cruz is a joke and will remain as such until he drops out.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Fiorina needs to make Frankenfetus her campaign mascot.

She could borrow the Pelicans' King Cake Baby mascot for joint appearances on the campaign trail..

King-Cake-Baby.jpg
 

benjipwns

Banned
This is why Dick Cheney changed his residence from Texas to Wyoming when he ran with W. I think Jeb's been a resident of Florida too long to change his residence even though he was born in Texas. I may be reading the 12th Amendment wrong but my understanding is that if both candidates are from the same state then that state's electoral votes are constrained and not necessarily out of play. Say Bush/Rubio win Florida then the electors could vote half for Bush/blank and the other half could vote blank/Rubio and in a close election the small number of electoral votes could be enough to push either member of the ticket to victory but not both. It could be an electoral mess but what would a Bush presidential election be without electoral college mischief?
You just have the electors all vote for Bush/whoever they want. If Rubio doesn't get an electoral college majority from the rest of the states, you just elect him through the Senate.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Rand Paul should be at the top
Sorry, he's one of the worst at the debates with his daughter killing pot and Iran support:
Regardless of who you support, which candidate do you think did the best job in Wednesday night’s
debates? (RANDOM ORDER)
Fiorina 52%
Rubio 14%
Trump 11%
Christie 6%
Carson 3%
Cruz 3%
Graham 2%
Bush 2%
Kasich 2%
Paul 2%
Huckabee 1%
Jindal *
Pataki *
Santorum *
Walker *

10. And which of those candidates do you think did the worst job in the debates? (RANDOM ORDER)
Trump 31%
Paul 22%
Bush 9%
Huckabee 7%
Walker 6%
Carson 4%
Christie 3%
Fiorina 2%
Graham 2%
Pataki 2%
Jindal 1%
Kasich 1%
Cruz *
Rubio *
Santorum *
chart1_surveymonkey_0d51bf732fae7380bb3ae46d18042f04.nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg
 

wildfire

Banned
Just because his stance is less terrifying than others running doesn't make his stance any less scary. He stands a much better chance of getting the nomination than Cruz does. I'd argue that alone makes his stance even scarier. Cruz is a joke and will remain as such until he drops out.


*scratches head* You acknowledge and deny it is less terrifying in the same sentence.

The fact of the matter is that his position on climate change makes it easier to approach him in passing policy that helps working against it. Unless you believe he's lying this stance of yours is unreasonable for dealing with any person being honest on their perspective.
 

rambis

Banned
She got to say she grew revenue, cash flow, and innovation. These are words that have meaning to most people (cash flow maybe less so). He said HP is in terrible shape and mentioned their current layoffs but I don't believe he mentioned the layoffs she did, and he just keeps repeating that the Compaq deal was "terrible" and not why. It's typical Trumpian argumentation. He still can't explain his use of leverage in a simple way, which let her counter. Where's the beef?

He brings up Sonnenfeld, promotes him, and then lets her call him a Clintonite. This is effective?

The point needs to be made about judgment. Carly Fiorina made a bad judgment call. She angled the company towards low margin growth in an area where Apple was redefining consumer electronics and IBM was redefining enterprise. Carly has poor judgment. Why isn't this the claim being made?
I don't understand what you mean by "let".

Again, in a debate you generally get a chance to rebut your opponent and she is allowed to say whatever she wants really. Its not a shouting match and anybody who tries to make it one automatically looks like an clown my eyes.

And the moderator had a very short leash on the candidates and their time to speak. There's no point in beating every single point to death, when he gets his own forums all the time. He said the deal was terrible and most people agree it was. Why does he need to elaborate at that particular time when most people don't care about explicit specifics in the first place?
 

BSsBrolly

Banned
*scratches head* You acknowledge and deny it is less terrifying in the same sentence.

The fact of the matter is that his position on climate change makes it easier to approach him in passing policy that helps working against it. Unless you believe he's lying this stance of yours is unreasonable for dealing with any person being honest on their perspective.

My point is that Rubio could actually be the nominee, Cruz will never be. Rubio's stance on climate change is unacceptable, and scary. Who cares what Cruz says about it when he wont come near the White House?
 

Zoned

Actively hates charity
Sorry, he's one of the worst at the debates with his daughter killing pot and Iran support:

chart1_surveymonkey_0d51bf732fae7380bb3ae46d18042f04.nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg
Did you even see the debate? Only guy who was making sense. He was in support of ending war on drugs, communicating to other nations instead of using force and called out Jeb's hypocrisy.
 
gdi

thanks to fiorina's rise all of the kid's table candidates will think they still have a shot of winning this thing and they'll keep on campaigning instead of dropping out.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
I don't understand what you mean by "let".

Again, in a debate you generally get a chance to rebut your opponent and she is allowed to say whatever she wants really. Its not a shouting match and anybody who tries to make it one automatically looks like an clown my eyes.

And the moderator had a very short leash on the candidates and their time to speak. There's no point in beating every single point to death, when he gets his own forums all the time. He said the deal was terrible and most people agree it was. Why does he need to elaborate at that particular time when most people don't care about explicit specifics in the first place?

Its not about being brazen, it's about landing a well placed blow they can't recover from. Trump was brazen but not well disciplined in his attack. Debate strength in the general election isn't measured by the boldest unqualified assertions. In a one on one debate Hillary would be prepped, prepared and given ample time to expose Fioriana in a way Trump never will because Trump just isn't a good debater. And because the audience in the primary isn't looking toward the same places a general election audience will.

As y2 mentioned her judgement will be called into question and she doesn't have much wiggle room to get out of it based on her record. Throw in the outlandish shit she is saying about foreign policy and she will get embarrassed.
 

Square2015

Member
Eventhough I disagree with Rand Paul on some issues, he has the guts to stand there and tell the rest of the other candidates that they are all wrong on Foreign Affairs and all wrong on the International Intervention.

Rand Paul's comments about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the aftermath is something I rarely hear any politician of any party ever say, which was true.
yep Paul was the truth talker that night, and most (even on the left) don't want to hear what he has to say. He won the debate in my eyes.
 

HylianTom

Banned
It's the Romney strategy: lie emphatically, because millions are watching, and chances are many of them won't bother to fact check you. Chances are the amount of utter bullshit you spew might even trip up your opponent.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...romneys-brazenness-at-debate-surprised-obama/

Yup, that debate tactic is known as the "gish gallop," where the countering candidate has zero chances of debunking all of the bullshit spewed at him/her in the timespan of a standard debate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom