KarvokaQueen
Queen of the Coffee Cups
- Location
- City of Coffee, Upside-down land
Yes, albiet highly unlikely.
MakeAmericaSaneAgain. A 2016 political campaign.
- Thread starter KarvokaQueen
- Start date
- Original
Generally speaking, as long as we keep getting these results, Pataki is at worst going to get mad at us for a while and possibly start a downward spiral as coordination breaks down and he starts going off script. It's not smart to switch his campaign manager casually like that though, and he's been on the rodeo before.
KarvokaQueen
Queen of the Coffee Cups
- Location
- City of Coffee, Upside-down land
So, having done some checking, the Analysis is absolutely huge (Nate's alone is over 3k words) so I'm going to be posting them as seperate to the turn itself. So don't worry, turn is still coming! It'll just take a bit longer.
- Location
- Wall Gazing
Take your time, I only found this quest a few days ago and I already love it.
Nate's take on the first debate
KarvokaQueen
Queen of the Coffee Cups
- Location
- City of Coffee, Upside-down land
"I mean, analysing how the debate went is actually deceptively simple, if you pay attention." Of course it is simple to Nate. smug bastard. He checks his cards, checking, as you flip the next card. It's a king of hearts. You get a huge grin across your face, and the second Nate sees it, you see the smug smile on his smarmy balding face vanish. He knows what's just happened, and so do you.
"Alright, boys. And Jeanie, show 'em." Jeanie goes first, a pair of queens, not a bad hand, but nowhere near as good as yours. Harry is up next, sighing as he shows he has no pairs, his highest car is an eight of clubs. Nate has three of a kind, all aces. Ordinarily he'd be confident, because that's a damn good hand normally, but he knows what you have, and you know what you have.
You show your cards, and Harry shrugs. He knew he'd lose this hand, so he just knocks back a drink, Jeanie rolls her eyes, lights up a cigarette, and then goes back to sipping her martini. Nate sighs, pulling out his folder, and chucking it onto the pile of chips that you are raking in. God it is good to be from Nevada!
Peter, if you are reading this, you cleaned me out again and I hate you. Enjoy this analysis of the race, you snide, chain smoking bastard. And get ready to lose your goddamn paycheck next week.
GEORGE PATAKI
Highlights: Beating on Trump, Walker and Huckabee were all great crowd-pleasing headline makers.
Lowlights: Fighting with Rand. That was Rand's only dunk of the night, but boy was it one hell of a dunk.
Analysis: So, this is the one you are interested in. I'll try and keep this detailed and not waffle too much. In short? You needed a rock-solid performance to avoid Ted Cruz beating you down, and you needed to angle for stealing Jeb and Christie's thunder without directly attacking them. Christie at least, I doubt Jeb would've done much.
You got that performance, and then some. WHile I think a lot of the commentariat are way off the mark, talking about Pataki as 'the new Nelson Rockefeller' or, and I'm quoting the Atlantic here, 'The Revenge of Rockefeller', I do think you did well.. Not quite third place well (That goes to Christie in my book) but still, the fact you managed to survive a debate despite having a candidate who has openly called himself pro-choice is giving me Mitt Romney vibes.
However, just because you had a good night, is no reason to rest on your laurels. Rand Paul provided a window through which the other candidates can safely snipe at Pataki with absoluutely no risk to themselves. While ordinarily attacks are a risk due to dragging the attack down with them (Exceptions being Christie's demolition of Rand) attacking over fairly fundamental party planks such as the right to life are…..well, let's just say that while I forsee Rand taking a polling hit, I don't think that hit will come from his abortion attacks.
SCOTT WALKER
Highlights: None. He didn't show up, so any potential positives he could have salvaged are gone.
Lowlights: He didn't show up to the debate, he's in deep, deep trouble politically, and while I personally believe calls for Walker to be impeached/stand down are overblown, his odds of surviving another election are incredibly slim. Unless, of course, he is exonerated by external evidence.
Analysis: Walker is finished in this race, and while the (often wrong) commentariat, especially the liberal commentariat, have pronounced Walker to be completely finished politically, I wouldn't read much into that. This same commentariat said the same thing in 2012 and 2014. That said, Scott Walker is finished in 2016. There is no way for him to salvage this campaign, and it is likely his donors will jump ship.
However I would strongly advise against trying to court any endorsers from Wisconsin until Walker has dropped out. This goes for Wisconsin donors as well. Walker is the Wisconsin equivalent to John Kasich. He rules the Wisconsin GOP, and his word carries significant weight there. If you want the support of in-state endorsers, I would wait for Walker to officially withdraw.
As for a timetable for Withdrawal? I give it about two-three weeks. The sheer shock of WEDCgate caught everyone (myself included) by surprise, and that shock will mean it may take up to a week for his polls to bottom out. After another week of no improvement, and donor/endorser flight, I would say he will drop out. He may stick it out for another week after, but I find it unlikely he goes further than that.
JEB! BUSH
Highlights: He gave a fairly spirited defense of his time as governor, which was a tiny, tiny ray of light in team Bush's horrible night.
Lowlights: Everything that wasn't the one ray of hope, when Jeb had to defend himself from Trump on his record as governor.
Analysis: Poor Jeb. He needed this debate to put some fire and enthusiasm back into a campaign that was rapidly losing steam, and instead he absolutely shit himself. That really is the easiest way to describe what happened up there. Jeb got torn apart by Donald Trump, and was totally unable to defend himself during the immigration question, something that might actually cripple him, long term.
I knew Jeb wasn't the best debater, but what I saw up there implies one of two things. Either he was too arrogant to properly prepare, or he doesn't really want to win this thing. There was no fire in him on that stage. Even at his best he was kind of flat. I'd expect him to take a big polling hit post debate. The question, of course, is where those establishment voters go.
DONALD J. TRUMP
Highlights: Ripping Jeb! Apart on his 'act of love' comment.
Lowlights: Twitter. Both his ill-advised tangling with Pataki, and his post-debate twitter shitfight with Cruz.
Analysis: Trump didn't really need to do anything but show up to the debate to steal the show. Even so, he put in a tolerable performance, absolutely eviscerating front-runner Jeb Bush in the opening half-hour of the debate. He couldn't really follow through, after that, and I can't think of a single notable thing he said afterwards.
Ultimately, I'd watch out for Trump in future debates, because despite no visible preperation, and a tendency to waffle and become incoherent, he still ranks highly in most estimations, and was certainly very talked about right after the debate. Mr. "Always win" will certainly not lose his front-runner status after the debate.
RAND PAUL
Highlights: Attacking Pataki over 2nd Amendment. Otherwise, none.
Lowlights: Everything else. Esp. trying to fight Chris Christie and Ted Cruz.
Analysis: Rand had a lot to prove on August 6th, and he's almost entirely squandered that opportunity. I'll give him points for figuring out Pataki's biggest weak points and attempting to hit on them before everyone else did, but beyond that, this was not a good night for Paul.
His biggest misstep was probably attempting to fight Chris Christie. Christie is a seasoned debater, and say what you will about his own corruption and governing style, or about his tanking approval in New Jersey, the man knows how to debate. He ran table on Paul pretty much the second Paul tried to hit him, luring Paul into a trap vis a vis his Obama "embrace" and promptly turning the crowd on him and crushing him utterly.
Paul is going to be much more desperate for air come next debate, his campaign is already under serious pressure and that isn't going to let up, and if he is smart, and he is, he will absolutely start to push harder on Pataki's abortion and gun control stances. He will attempt to position himself as a potential 'anyone but Pataki' candidate. Whether there is a market for that or not, I can't say at this stage.
CHRIS CHRISTIE
Highlights: Crushing Rand Paul. That was easily the most talked about moment Christie Caused in the debate
PAUL: I don't trust President Obama with our records. I know you gave him a big hug, and if you want to give him a big hug again, go right ahead.
(APPLAUSE)
KELLY: Go ahead, governor.
CHRISTIE: Well, if you weren't constantly talking about the need to cut crisis relief to the people who need it maybe I wouldn't have had to. You said, and I quote 'They're precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending, and their 'Gimme, gimme, gimme—give me all my Sandy money now'
(RAND PAUL IS BOOED)
PAUL: Now th-You've taken that statement way out of context Chris.
(BOOS GROW LOUDER)
CHRISTIE: No I haven't, Rand. You said that on national television. I'm sorry if you think people who lost their homes, livelihoods and their loved ones are being selfish. We lost 43 New Jerseyites because of Hurricane Sandy. We had thousands hospitalised. I don't like Obama. Nobody up here does. He's a weak, weak president, who's presided over the sharpest decline in American power in modern history, but he, unlike you actually stood by New Jersey, and provided the relief we needed after one of the worst disasters on record. He stood with us while you stood to the side and called us Selfish.
(RAND IS BOOED FURTHER, CHRISTIE GAINS APPLAUSE.)
RAND: Can we...move on to the next question?
(RAND COUGHS AWKWARDLY, YET MORE BOOING)
Lowlights: I don't know if Christie got overconfident after demolishing Rand, but he shouldn't have tangled with Cruz. Christie has a lot of practice, and is a very forceful debater, but Cruz was a lawyer and a damn good one, he's not someone you want to tangle with. I'd argue his bruising tangle with Cruz is what cost him a placing in the Top 3.
Analysis: Christie needed a good, solid performance on the stage to try and divert mounting pressure brought on by his tanking New Jersey approval rating. He doesn't have Pataki's advantage of being out of office for an extended period, he's in office now. As such, his low approval rating is a much greater drag.
He got his good performance, and while I personally would rank him in third, instead of Pataki, it was practically a tie between them regardless. This performance will be a huge boost to him, as he was already starting to flounder a bit on the back of the Fort Lee lane closure scandal (No, I'm not calling it Bridgegate. Fight me.), but this performance will distract heavily from that. I wouldn't move Christie into the top shelf of candidates at this stage, as the investigation vis a vis Fort Lee are ongoing, and will be a constant drag on his campaign, but in the immediate future?
Christie is back!
MARCO RUBIO
Highlights: The backstory. Rubio has a good solid background, and he was playing that to the hilt at the debate.
Lowlights: None stand out. The worst he got was a slightly creepy smile when Chris Wallace asked him to respond to Trump's long-winded talk about Mexico.
Analysis: Rubio had a lot to prove on August 6th, and he delivered. A strong, background focused story to keep people focused away from his past
BEN CARSON
Highlights: Another background sitter. Didn't do much, but as an advantage of that, left little to attack.
Lowlights: Leaving little of anything means that you aren't exactly motivating the base.
Analysis: Ben pretty much slept through the debate. He did almost nothing worth note, aside from a few jabs at Obama. He got the least speaking time and it showed. I doubt Carson had a proper plan for the debate, and unlike Trump (who clearly didn't) he lacks the personal Charisma to pull something like that off.
That said, he's got a killer team surrounding him, and if he can last until the other Christian right candidates collapse (Santorum and Jindal are already finished) he will be able to rapidly consolidate support. It is also worth noting that, as far as I'm aware, he has no major skeletons in his closet, which will be a huge boon when compared to everyone else, who has at least something that can be used as a beatstick.
MIKE HUCKABEE
Highlights: None. Huckabee was more a part of the background than anything else.
Lowlights: His misfire with the military. That was a painful moment to watch.
Analysis: Mike Huckabee needed to steal Trump's thunder to actually have a viable campaign this cycle. He didn't. Trump didn't have a great debate, but Huckabee did much worse. Much worse.
I wouldn't rule Huckabee out long-term, but this was a bad night for him, and unless he pulls the lead out of his campaign, and redraw everything. The next debate isn't until september, and if he hasn't improved until then, don't expect him to last beyond Iowa
TED CRUZ
Highlights: Almost all of the debate had Cruz in charge. Especially on immigration, where he stole most of Trump's thunder.
Lowlights: Being the guy who took the bullet for Walker. Someone had to, but Cruz should have let Jeb or Rubio do it.
Analysis: Ted Cruz had a very solid debate, and put his storied debating skills to the test, having turned his biggest weakness (Everyone hates him) into a good strength. His jabs at McConnell got a huge wave of applause, as did his attacks on Rubio's "friendship" with that most evil of liberals, Chuck Schumer.
However, in a truly rare instance of agreement with the mainstream commentariat, I would place him second, like they do, but for different reasons. While for most of the debate I find it fairly inarguable that Cruz outperformed Rubio, his defence of Scott Walker can't be overlooked. I've been racking my brain for reasons why he'd risk his anti-establishment reputation for Walker of all people, and despite figuring it out, I think it was enough of a black mark to drag him down to a narrow second.
The thing I think everyone is missing with Cruz and Walker, is that Cruz has made a play for Walker's support base in the most clever, underhanded way possible. As the only person not to spend time trashing walker for political points, he's set himself up for a potential endorsement from the doomed frontrunner.
This is more important than people realise. Walker is Wisconsin's Kasich. His control of the Wisconsin GOP is absolute. His endorsement might hurt Cruz in the short order, but in the long term? Cruz will have an unbeatable ground game in Wisconsin, millions in donations from the Wisconsin Club for Growth, and the endorsement of popular state senator Ron Johnson. It'd effectively give him 36 delegates for no cost to himself but a minor hit to his reputation. That, combined with the cashed up CfG shifting to helping Cruz could give him a huge leg up long term.
JOHN KASICH
Highlights: His introduction, and even just being in the debate.
Lowlights: Saying nothing of note/interest throughout.
Analysis: John Kasich was not someone I expected to see on the undercard debate stage, due to his prideful and abrasive nature, I don't think he could bring himself to show up if he'd been pushed down to the undercard. As it stands? It doedsn't matter to his supporters that he didn't stand out during the prime-time debate. The next prime-time has tweleve candidates instead of ten, and just appearing has, effectively, legitimised his candidacy in their eyes.
Just showing up has likely netted Kasich the boost he wanted/needed, and avoiding catastrophe was his only goal. If he'd managed to give a really solid performance, more the better, but otherwise?
It wouldn't matter. However, just because he's legitimised himself in the eyes of the voters, doesn't mean he is invulnerable. He's still very vulnerable regarding Obamacare, and his aggressive, abrasive nature means that he shouldn't be hard to trip up.
MINNOW TIER (Also-rans)
RICK PERRY
Highlights: AHAHAHAHAHA, no.
Lowlights: He made his three departments gaffe. Again. TWICE.
Analysis: He's done. There is just no saving a campaign this poorly run. Like Graham, he was one of the most talked about candidates in the undercard. Unlike Graham, it wasn't because of his good natured humor, or his 'good ol' boy' demeanour.
It was because he made the same gaffe he made in 2012. Twice. Within fifteen minutes of each other.
Forget being out by Iowa. I expect he'll be out before December.
BOBBY JINDAL
Highlights: Nothing Jindal said stood out. It was a slightly better 2009
Lowlights: The fact the nicest thing I can say is 'it went better than the 2009 state of union' speaks volumes.
Analysis: Oh Bobby. You were one of the brightest stars of the Republican party before you fucked up in 2009, and now look at you, stuck in the undercard debate, losing your train of thought and attempting to attack your rivals and falling on your face.
Jindal is doomed, and I don't expect his candidacy to last the year. There is just nothing there for him to latch on to. He's raising no money, he's so unpopular in Louisiana it's almost impossible for him to win the primary there, and even if he did win, it isn't until Super Tuesday. It wouldn't matter if he won or not. Jindal is finished, and it's only a matter of time until he realises it.
CARLY FIORINA
Highlights: Fiorina delivered a very strong closer, almost at odds with everything else. That closer could be a harbinger of the future.
Lowlights: Most of her performance was middling at best, aside from the strong closer and occasionally getting points for slamming Clinton.
Analysis: Fiorina has raised little hard cash, and is struggling to really establish herself at present. Her middling performance on August 6th will absolutely not help on any of the fronts she is struggling. However, if she is able to hone her attacks against clinton, she might be able to mount a surprise in September. She's the only woman in the GOP primary race, and that could help her more than people realise.
LINDSEY GRAHAM
Highlights: He was a funny guy, and his humor provided some much needed levity, when sandwiched between the overly grim Gilmore, and the flat and uninteresting Jindal. His comments got the hosts laughing, his fellow candidates laughing, and even people in my office laughing.
Lowlights: None, really. It was all around very strong performance from Graham.
Analysis: Graham needed a real kick up the ass to get back in this race, he needed it bad. His campaign has been failing mostly due to the fact nobody knows who he is, and after this stellar performance, he's been the most talked about thing from the undercard debate, and while that usually isn't worth much, he's been far more talked about than even some of the main debaters. (Huckabee, Paul, Kasich and Carson).
I doubt he will be able to move into the big leagues on any sort of long-term basis, and while I hesitate to rule anyone out of contention, he is very unlikely to be a serious challenger for the nomination. However, this debate performance combined with his extremely popular post debate interview has made him almost a certain shoe-in to be SC's favourite son, if he can keep this momentum going.
JIM GILMORE
Highlights: Nothing stands out. He didn't really do much aside from be present.
Lowlights: Same as above.
Analysis: Gilmore was utterly unimpressive. If he'd appeared in primetime, maybe taht would've been acceptable, but this wasn't prime time. It was the undercard debate. He needed a good show, and all he did was put people to sleep.
"Alright, boys. And Jeanie, show 'em." Jeanie goes first, a pair of queens, not a bad hand, but nowhere near as good as yours. Harry is up next, sighing as he shows he has no pairs, his highest car is an eight of clubs. Nate has three of a kind, all aces. Ordinarily he'd be confident, because that's a damn good hand normally, but he knows what you have, and you know what you have.
You show your cards, and Harry shrugs. He knew he'd lose this hand, so he just knocks back a drink, Jeanie rolls her eyes, lights up a cigarette, and then goes back to sipping her martini. Nate sighs, pulling out his folder, and chucking it onto the pile of chips that you are raking in. God it is good to be from Nevada!
Peter, if you are reading this, you cleaned me out again and I hate you. Enjoy this analysis of the race, you snide, chain smoking bastard. And get ready to lose your goddamn paycheck next week.
GEORGE PATAKI
Highlights: Beating on Trump, Walker and Huckabee were all great crowd-pleasing headline makers.
Lowlights: Fighting with Rand. That was Rand's only dunk of the night, but boy was it one hell of a dunk.
Analysis: So, this is the one you are interested in. I'll try and keep this detailed and not waffle too much. In short? You needed a rock-solid performance to avoid Ted Cruz beating you down, and you needed to angle for stealing Jeb and Christie's thunder without directly attacking them. Christie at least, I doubt Jeb would've done much.
You got that performance, and then some. WHile I think a lot of the commentariat are way off the mark, talking about Pataki as 'the new Nelson Rockefeller' or, and I'm quoting the Atlantic here, 'The Revenge of Rockefeller', I do think you did well.. Not quite third place well (That goes to Christie in my book) but still, the fact you managed to survive a debate despite having a candidate who has openly called himself pro-choice is giving me Mitt Romney vibes.
However, just because you had a good night, is no reason to rest on your laurels. Rand Paul provided a window through which the other candidates can safely snipe at Pataki with absoluutely no risk to themselves. While ordinarily attacks are a risk due to dragging the attack down with them (Exceptions being Christie's demolition of Rand) attacking over fairly fundamental party planks such as the right to life are…..well, let's just say that while I forsee Rand taking a polling hit, I don't think that hit will come from his abortion attacks.
SCOTT WALKER
Highlights: None. He didn't show up, so any potential positives he could have salvaged are gone.
Lowlights: He didn't show up to the debate, he's in deep, deep trouble politically, and while I personally believe calls for Walker to be impeached/stand down are overblown, his odds of surviving another election are incredibly slim. Unless, of course, he is exonerated by external evidence.
Analysis: Walker is finished in this race, and while the (often wrong) commentariat, especially the liberal commentariat, have pronounced Walker to be completely finished politically, I wouldn't read much into that. This same commentariat said the same thing in 2012 and 2014. That said, Scott Walker is finished in 2016. There is no way for him to salvage this campaign, and it is likely his donors will jump ship.
However I would strongly advise against trying to court any endorsers from Wisconsin until Walker has dropped out. This goes for Wisconsin donors as well. Walker is the Wisconsin equivalent to John Kasich. He rules the Wisconsin GOP, and his word carries significant weight there. If you want the support of in-state endorsers, I would wait for Walker to officially withdraw.
As for a timetable for Withdrawal? I give it about two-three weeks. The sheer shock of WEDCgate caught everyone (myself included) by surprise, and that shock will mean it may take up to a week for his polls to bottom out. After another week of no improvement, and donor/endorser flight, I would say he will drop out. He may stick it out for another week after, but I find it unlikely he goes further than that.
JEB! BUSH
Highlights: He gave a fairly spirited defense of his time as governor, which was a tiny, tiny ray of light in team Bush's horrible night.
Lowlights: Everything that wasn't the one ray of hope, when Jeb had to defend himself from Trump on his record as governor.
Analysis: Poor Jeb. He needed this debate to put some fire and enthusiasm back into a campaign that was rapidly losing steam, and instead he absolutely shit himself. That really is the easiest way to describe what happened up there. Jeb got torn apart by Donald Trump, and was totally unable to defend himself during the immigration question, something that might actually cripple him, long term.
I knew Jeb wasn't the best debater, but what I saw up there implies one of two things. Either he was too arrogant to properly prepare, or he doesn't really want to win this thing. There was no fire in him on that stage. Even at his best he was kind of flat. I'd expect him to take a big polling hit post debate. The question, of course, is where those establishment voters go.
DONALD J. TRUMP
Highlights: Ripping Jeb! Apart on his 'act of love' comment.
Lowlights: Twitter. Both his ill-advised tangling with Pataki, and his post-debate twitter shitfight with Cruz.
Analysis: Trump didn't really need to do anything but show up to the debate to steal the show. Even so, he put in a tolerable performance, absolutely eviscerating front-runner Jeb Bush in the opening half-hour of the debate. He couldn't really follow through, after that, and I can't think of a single notable thing he said afterwards.
Ultimately, I'd watch out for Trump in future debates, because despite no visible preperation, and a tendency to waffle and become incoherent, he still ranks highly in most estimations, and was certainly very talked about right after the debate. Mr. "Always win" will certainly not lose his front-runner status after the debate.
RAND PAUL
Highlights: Attacking Pataki over 2nd Amendment. Otherwise, none.
Lowlights: Everything else. Esp. trying to fight Chris Christie and Ted Cruz.
Analysis: Rand had a lot to prove on August 6th, and he's almost entirely squandered that opportunity. I'll give him points for figuring out Pataki's biggest weak points and attempting to hit on them before everyone else did, but beyond that, this was not a good night for Paul.
His biggest misstep was probably attempting to fight Chris Christie. Christie is a seasoned debater, and say what you will about his own corruption and governing style, or about his tanking approval in New Jersey, the man knows how to debate. He ran table on Paul pretty much the second Paul tried to hit him, luring Paul into a trap vis a vis his Obama "embrace" and promptly turning the crowd on him and crushing him utterly.
Paul is going to be much more desperate for air come next debate, his campaign is already under serious pressure and that isn't going to let up, and if he is smart, and he is, he will absolutely start to push harder on Pataki's abortion and gun control stances. He will attempt to position himself as a potential 'anyone but Pataki' candidate. Whether there is a market for that or not, I can't say at this stage.
CHRIS CHRISTIE
Highlights: Crushing Rand Paul. That was easily the most talked about moment Christie Caused in the debate
PAUL: I don't trust President Obama with our records. I know you gave him a big hug, and if you want to give him a big hug again, go right ahead.
(APPLAUSE)
KELLY: Go ahead, governor.
CHRISTIE: Well, if you weren't constantly talking about the need to cut crisis relief to the people who need it maybe I wouldn't have had to. You said, and I quote 'They're precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut the spending, and their 'Gimme, gimme, gimme—give me all my Sandy money now'
(RAND PAUL IS BOOED)
PAUL: Now th-You've taken that statement way out of context Chris.
(BOOS GROW LOUDER)
CHRISTIE: No I haven't, Rand. You said that on national television. I'm sorry if you think people who lost their homes, livelihoods and their loved ones are being selfish. We lost 43 New Jerseyites because of Hurricane Sandy. We had thousands hospitalised. I don't like Obama. Nobody up here does. He's a weak, weak president, who's presided over the sharpest decline in American power in modern history, but he, unlike you actually stood by New Jersey, and provided the relief we needed after one of the worst disasters on record. He stood with us while you stood to the side and called us Selfish.
(RAND IS BOOED FURTHER, CHRISTIE GAINS APPLAUSE.)
RAND: Can we...move on to the next question?
(RAND COUGHS AWKWARDLY, YET MORE BOOING)
Lowlights: I don't know if Christie got overconfident after demolishing Rand, but he shouldn't have tangled with Cruz. Christie has a lot of practice, and is a very forceful debater, but Cruz was a lawyer and a damn good one, he's not someone you want to tangle with. I'd argue his bruising tangle with Cruz is what cost him a placing in the Top 3.
Analysis: Christie needed a good, solid performance on the stage to try and divert mounting pressure brought on by his tanking New Jersey approval rating. He doesn't have Pataki's advantage of being out of office for an extended period, he's in office now. As such, his low approval rating is a much greater drag.
He got his good performance, and while I personally would rank him in third, instead of Pataki, it was practically a tie between them regardless. This performance will be a huge boost to him, as he was already starting to flounder a bit on the back of the Fort Lee lane closure scandal (No, I'm not calling it Bridgegate. Fight me.), but this performance will distract heavily from that. I wouldn't move Christie into the top shelf of candidates at this stage, as the investigation vis a vis Fort Lee are ongoing, and will be a constant drag on his campaign, but in the immediate future?
Christie is back!
MARCO RUBIO
Highlights: The backstory. Rubio has a good solid background, and he was playing that to the hilt at the debate.
Lowlights: None stand out. The worst he got was a slightly creepy smile when Chris Wallace asked him to respond to Trump's long-winded talk about Mexico.
Analysis: Rubio had a lot to prove on August 6th, and he delivered. A strong, background focused story to keep people focused away from his past
BEN CARSON
Highlights: Another background sitter. Didn't do much, but as an advantage of that, left little to attack.
Lowlights: Leaving little of anything means that you aren't exactly motivating the base.
Analysis: Ben pretty much slept through the debate. He did almost nothing worth note, aside from a few jabs at Obama. He got the least speaking time and it showed. I doubt Carson had a proper plan for the debate, and unlike Trump (who clearly didn't) he lacks the personal Charisma to pull something like that off.
That said, he's got a killer team surrounding him, and if he can last until the other Christian right candidates collapse (Santorum and Jindal are already finished) he will be able to rapidly consolidate support. It is also worth noting that, as far as I'm aware, he has no major skeletons in his closet, which will be a huge boon when compared to everyone else, who has at least something that can be used as a beatstick.
MIKE HUCKABEE
Highlights: None. Huckabee was more a part of the background than anything else.
Lowlights: His misfire with the military. That was a painful moment to watch.
Analysis: Mike Huckabee needed to steal Trump's thunder to actually have a viable campaign this cycle. He didn't. Trump didn't have a great debate, but Huckabee did much worse. Much worse.
I wouldn't rule Huckabee out long-term, but this was a bad night for him, and unless he pulls the lead out of his campaign, and redraw everything. The next debate isn't until september, and if he hasn't improved until then, don't expect him to last beyond Iowa
TED CRUZ
Highlights: Almost all of the debate had Cruz in charge. Especially on immigration, where he stole most of Trump's thunder.
Lowlights: Being the guy who took the bullet for Walker. Someone had to, but Cruz should have let Jeb or Rubio do it.
Analysis: Ted Cruz had a very solid debate, and put his storied debating skills to the test, having turned his biggest weakness (Everyone hates him) into a good strength. His jabs at McConnell got a huge wave of applause, as did his attacks on Rubio's "friendship" with that most evil of liberals, Chuck Schumer.
However, in a truly rare instance of agreement with the mainstream commentariat, I would place him second, like they do, but for different reasons. While for most of the debate I find it fairly inarguable that Cruz outperformed Rubio, his defence of Scott Walker can't be overlooked. I've been racking my brain for reasons why he'd risk his anti-establishment reputation for Walker of all people, and despite figuring it out, I think it was enough of a black mark to drag him down to a narrow second.
The thing I think everyone is missing with Cruz and Walker, is that Cruz has made a play for Walker's support base in the most clever, underhanded way possible. As the only person not to spend time trashing walker for political points, he's set himself up for a potential endorsement from the doomed frontrunner.
This is more important than people realise. Walker is Wisconsin's Kasich. His control of the Wisconsin GOP is absolute. His endorsement might hurt Cruz in the short order, but in the long term? Cruz will have an unbeatable ground game in Wisconsin, millions in donations from the Wisconsin Club for Growth, and the endorsement of popular state senator Ron Johnson. It'd effectively give him 36 delegates for no cost to himself but a minor hit to his reputation. That, combined with the cashed up CfG shifting to helping Cruz could give him a huge leg up long term.
JOHN KASICH
Highlights: His introduction, and even just being in the debate.
Lowlights: Saying nothing of note/interest throughout.
Analysis: John Kasich was not someone I expected to see on the undercard debate stage, due to his prideful and abrasive nature, I don't think he could bring himself to show up if he'd been pushed down to the undercard. As it stands? It doedsn't matter to his supporters that he didn't stand out during the prime-time debate. The next prime-time has tweleve candidates instead of ten, and just appearing has, effectively, legitimised his candidacy in their eyes.
Just showing up has likely netted Kasich the boost he wanted/needed, and avoiding catastrophe was his only goal. If he'd managed to give a really solid performance, more the better, but otherwise?
It wouldn't matter. However, just because he's legitimised himself in the eyes of the voters, doesn't mean he is invulnerable. He's still very vulnerable regarding Obamacare, and his aggressive, abrasive nature means that he shouldn't be hard to trip up.
MINNOW TIER (Also-rans)
RICK PERRY
Highlights: AHAHAHAHAHA, no.
Lowlights: He made his three departments gaffe. Again. TWICE.
Analysis: He's done. There is just no saving a campaign this poorly run. Like Graham, he was one of the most talked about candidates in the undercard. Unlike Graham, it wasn't because of his good natured humor, or his 'good ol' boy' demeanour.
It was because he made the same gaffe he made in 2012. Twice. Within fifteen minutes of each other.
Forget being out by Iowa. I expect he'll be out before December.
BOBBY JINDAL
Highlights: Nothing Jindal said stood out. It was a slightly better 2009
Lowlights: The fact the nicest thing I can say is 'it went better than the 2009 state of union' speaks volumes.
Analysis: Oh Bobby. You were one of the brightest stars of the Republican party before you fucked up in 2009, and now look at you, stuck in the undercard debate, losing your train of thought and attempting to attack your rivals and falling on your face.
Jindal is doomed, and I don't expect his candidacy to last the year. There is just nothing there for him to latch on to. He's raising no money, he's so unpopular in Louisiana it's almost impossible for him to win the primary there, and even if he did win, it isn't until Super Tuesday. It wouldn't matter if he won or not. Jindal is finished, and it's only a matter of time until he realises it.
CARLY FIORINA
Highlights: Fiorina delivered a very strong closer, almost at odds with everything else. That closer could be a harbinger of the future.
Lowlights: Most of her performance was middling at best, aside from the strong closer and occasionally getting points for slamming Clinton.
Analysis: Fiorina has raised little hard cash, and is struggling to really establish herself at present. Her middling performance on August 6th will absolutely not help on any of the fronts she is struggling. However, if she is able to hone her attacks against clinton, she might be able to mount a surprise in September. She's the only woman in the GOP primary race, and that could help her more than people realise.
LINDSEY GRAHAM
Highlights: He was a funny guy, and his humor provided some much needed levity, when sandwiched between the overly grim Gilmore, and the flat and uninteresting Jindal. His comments got the hosts laughing, his fellow candidates laughing, and even people in my office laughing.
Lowlights: None, really. It was all around very strong performance from Graham.
Analysis: Graham needed a real kick up the ass to get back in this race, he needed it bad. His campaign has been failing mostly due to the fact nobody knows who he is, and after this stellar performance, he's been the most talked about thing from the undercard debate, and while that usually isn't worth much, he's been far more talked about than even some of the main debaters. (Huckabee, Paul, Kasich and Carson).
I doubt he will be able to move into the big leagues on any sort of long-term basis, and while I hesitate to rule anyone out of contention, he is very unlikely to be a serious challenger for the nomination. However, this debate performance combined with his extremely popular post debate interview has made him almost a certain shoe-in to be SC's favourite son, if he can keep this momentum going.
JIM GILMORE
Highlights: Nothing stands out. He didn't really do much aside from be present.
Lowlights: Same as above.
Analysis: Gilmore was utterly unimpressive. If he'd appeared in primetime, maybe taht would've been acceptable, but this wasn't prime time. It was the undercard debate. He needed a good show, and all he did was put people to sleep.
You could point to the fact that Roe vs Wade was under a supreme court that was considered conservative. The caveat being that abortion simply wasn't the thing it is today, which says something about Americans today given how they're frequently more extremist than the Pope.
7734
Trust and verify.
- Location
- Philmont
To be fair, we now have an amazingly liberal pope. I mean, how many other significant religious figures now or ever have admitted to being bouncers at a nightclub?
- Location
- Central Standard Time
7734
Trust and verify.
- Location
- Philmont
Yep. Worked as a bouncer in Buenos Ares when he was younger, and initially went into petrochemical engineering and got a job at whatever the Argentinian version of Dow was until he went into religion as a side-thing, after which he got hooked and then had the BAM moment, went into the priesthood, and rose through the ranks like a shot. Went from Bishop of Buenos Ares to Cardnial in record time, and then spent a good chunk of time cleaning house before he even looked at Rome. After some of the, ah, shall we say in-house issues? Jan Pawel II had, his South American buddies and a good chink of the North Americans threw his name in the hat. After that, I figure God happened to be looking in on the little room in the Vatican when they were making the decision and nudged the vote the right way after they got through with the mandatory Spaniard, German, and Itallian nominees.
And the rest is history in the making for the Papacy. I have the distinct feeling he's going to be as big or bigger than Vatican II, and that set of decisions was a major shake-up for the conduct of Masses and got us a new translation of the Bible that restored some of the archaic language to where it was needed and cleared up other overly-complex bits.
Yes, the Roman Catholic Church does in fact re-translate the Bible every so often, which is why I laugh at the idiots who hold onto their King James V versions. It might have been the first major translation of the entire Bible into a secular language, but it certainly suffered the folly of human hands at more than a few sections, mostly in the Old Testament. Remember the "Suffer not a witch to live" line? Yeah, that's the big one. The modern version is "Suffer not the poisoner to live." Huge difference.
KarvokaQueen
Queen of the Coffee Cups
- Location
- City of Coffee, Upside-down land
Not particularly high. Peter went to college in Vegas. He's from Reno.
Gambling is in his blood.
Prince Ire
Section XIII
- Location
- the Universe
I'm not really sure why that would relevant. "Abortion wasn't as big an issue back in the day as it is now" isn't exactly much of a defense.
- Location
- Vicksburg, MS
Exodus 22:18 in my NIV Bible reads "Do not allow a sorceress to live," which does not differ extraordinarily from the KJV's actual line of "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." I'm not very familiar with what Catholics presently use, but when I looked up the one that the United States Conference of Catholics Bishops has online I saw that it stated "You shall not let a woman who practices sorcery live." The only really different thing that stuck out to me there was that the Catholic one had that as Exodus 22:17 instead of Exodus 22:18 because the NIV Exodus 22:1 is for some reason moved back into a continuation of Exodus 21 as Exodus 21:37, while in the NIV and most versions that I can find Exodus 21 ends at Exodus 21:36. That all has nothing to do with the actual contents of text, though, which falls in line with the rest.
I fed that "suffer not the poisoner to live" line into Google, and I found a lot of folks correcting others with it but not any citing which versions they got it from. From pulling up a glimpse on Bible Hub of Exodus 22:18, out of 22 Bible versions in English present there the only version to not say 'witch' or 'sorceress' in that line was the Catholic Douay-Rheims version which instead stated "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live." What is the modern version that you're using?
Last edited:
Stealthy
Reverently Irreverent
- Location
- Roaming
Yeah we've done what we can with our abortion. We've taken a hardline moderate-ish stance on the issue as a paper shield. From there on we gotta just keep focus not on that issue.
As I've been saying, we're more vulnerable on gun control and we need a better response to it that'll slap Rand in the face.
As I've been saying, we're more vulnerable on gun control and we need a better response to it that'll slap Rand in the face.
KarvokaQueen
Queen of the Coffee Cups
- Location
- City of Coffee, Upside-down land
So, just before I have to stop working on the update, can I get people's thoughts on Nate's take?
ebolasos
Hiiii please be my friend!
- Location
- Down under
Liked it, was informative and interesting to read.
- Location
- Central Standard Time
I liked it.
One after every debate would be a treat.
Of course, that means we have to take that option. However, given how much I liked it (both as an analysis and personally), I'll probably go for that option.
Valkur
The True Valkyria, Valkur!
- Location
- Fólkvangr
In this quest I never felt the PC or anyone was omnipotent so having a second opinion is always nice. I liked how Nate also gave actual details on some canidates about how's and why's. Also his opinion on Ted Cruz is particularly interesting.
Also do you mean what Nate had to say or what The Karvoka Man had to write about?
Malaquez
[MUFFLED EUROBEAT]
- Location
- Singapore
It was great! I hope to have one after every debate. It's a great way to sum up the debate and analyse each candidate's performance.
Still, I wanna see Harry's one too.
I am wondering if the way to protect QuestPataki against attacks on abortion and guns isn't to go on an all-out assault on a heavily pro-life or pro-gun candidate. I'm thinking Cruz could be a high risk/high reward target.
Picking a big fight could pull media attention away from more dangerous attacks and could let us pick the framing of the argument.
Basically, hammer the target candidate for distracting people from the important economic issues with their exaggerated posturing and dismiss attacks on guns and abortion as further attempts to distract the voter.
fasquardon
Picking a big fight could pull media attention away from more dangerous attacks and could let us pick the framing of the argument.
Basically, hammer the target candidate for distracting people from the important economic issues with their exaggerated posturing and dismiss attacks on guns and abortion as further attempts to distract the voter.
fasquardon
Malaquez
[MUFFLED EUROBEAT]
- Location
- Singapore
A good angle of attack, I suppose. But this will probably alienate voters who care about abortion and gun control, and those two topics are very heavily contested and discussed in the USA, IIRC. They're also big sore points. So not a good idea to just outright dismiss them, but I like the targeting Cruz part.
I feel that if we don't go on the attack, those voters will be alienated for us by others attacking Pataki. Also, a vociferous attack involving Republican sacred cows would be vital to actually give Pataki real anti-establishment cred - remember the oxygen Donald Trump got when he said that actually the Iraq war was a bad idea - a sacred cow was slaughtered and people paid attention to him. At the moment, QuestPataki is only anti establishment because of some old-style liberal Republican beliefs and because he is endorsed by Wrestlers and Rappers.
(Though I note, attacking overly aggressive pro-life and pro-gun flim-flam is MUCH more dangerous that slamming an already unpopular war - but we have to do something about guns and abortion because Pataki is our candidate.)
If the Republican contest comes down to Trump versus a QuestPataki that doesn't have considerably more anti-establishment cred, Trump will eat QuestPataki alive.
Also, note that I am not advocating that Pataki attack pro-life and pro-gun positions - only a candidate which we can frame as using those positions to distract the voter. That allows us to frame Pataki's positions on these issues as the sorts of pro-life and pro-gun opinion that Pataki can express because he isn't trying to distract the voters from how they're about to be fleeced.
fasquardon
Malaquez
[MUFFLED EUROBEAT]
- Location
- Singapore
When put that way, I can roll with it. Now to wait until the next vote so Publicola/etc. can put it down in vote format I can understand.
