Fox has sent Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee to the kiddee debate, and they have cut Pataki and Graham out of the debates altogether.  

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...ebate.html

 

My take: The Republican establishment is scared of Carson or Trump winning the nomination, so they asked Fox to concentrate the debates with fewer candidates so the ones with political experience have more of a chance to stand out.   When you have 10 candidates on the stage, none of them have much of a chance to spell out their policies, which is to the advantage of Trump or Carson, who are very light on specifics and not used to answering tough questions.   The Republican establishment wants more of an insider with political experience to win the nomination.   So they called up their people at Fox and asked them to cut some of the lesser candidates, so the remaining candidates that they like have more of a chance to talk.   

 

Personally, I approve of this move, because there were way too many people up there in the main debate.   

---

It has nothing to do with the establishment. You couldnt stay at 10 for long its just not workable. If it was the establishment then they would have dropped fiorina or paul and kept christie (theyre all polling about the same).


As for light on specifics, trump has released a tax plan an immigration plan written two books etc. And these forums favor those with stronger personalities and charisma. If you think that donald trump will self implode because he has 3 more minutes of air time i think thats being overly optomistic.

---

It has nothing to do with the establishment. You couldnt stay at 10 for long its just not workable. If it was the establishment then they would have dropped fiorina or paul and kept christie (theyre all polling about the same).


As for light on specifics, trump has released a tax plan an immigration plan written two books etc. And these forums favor those with stronger personalities and charisma. If you think that donald trump will self implode because he has 3 more minutes of air time i think thats being overly optomistic.

 

Trump only needs 10 seconds to say something that will lose him the election, but the plan doesn't call for that until he's debating Hillary! next year.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Lol

---

Lol

 

At some point don't we realize that the only way Democrats can win is if Republicans put up someone who can't? And that just keeps happening somehow, must be coincidence or something.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Speak more about that.

---

At some point don't we realize that the only way Democrats can win is if Republicans put up someone who can't? And that just keeps happening somehow, must be coincidence or something.

Romney was the most reasonable candidate last go around. He'd win this election, IMO.

---

It has nothing to do with the establishment. You couldnt stay at 10 for long its just not workable. If it was the establishment then they would have dropped fiorina or paul and kept christie (theyre all polling about the same).

I agree with this completely. The main stage debate should have been shrunken before that CNBC fiasco...if you really want to call that a "debate". The Democratic debate showed that with fewer candidates onstage, you can get into more detailed answers than you can with ten candidates onstage who have little time to do more than list talking points.

 

I was a little surprised to see Paul, Kasich and Fiorina all survive, actually. If nothing else, the JV debate should be a lot more fun to watch, as I expect a significant amount of griping from Christie about being demoted. Huckabee will probably do all his crying behind the scenes to his Fox News sponsors/overlords.

 

Trump only needs 10 seconds to say something that will lose him the election, but the plan doesn't call for that until he's debating Hillary! next year.

It's not like he hasn't been trying to lose anyway, but I do sometimes wonder and laugh at the possibility that the Clintons convinced him that running for President as a parody of a new-age Republican would be fun.

 

At some point don't we realize that the only way Democrats can win is if Republicans put up someone who can't? And that just keeps happening somehow, must be coincidence or something.

I think you're oversimplifying things a bit here. I mean, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that 48% of US voters are Democrats and 39% are Republicans, right? Maybe if the Republican Party would quit pandering to the far religious right and put a stop to that silly little tea party of theirs, alienated Republicans and centrists would start voting for the R again.

 

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a...filiation/

 

Romney was the most reasonable candidate last go around. He'd win this election, IMO.

I'd vote for him over anyone else in the Republican field except Kasich and Paul. I'd certainly vote for him over Hillary.

---

I think you're oversimplifying things a bit here. I mean, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that 48% of US voters are Democrats and 39% are Republicans, right? Maybe if the Republican Party would quit pandering to the far religious right and put a stop to that silly little tea party of theirs, alienated Republicans and centrists would start voting for the R again.

 

You have this exactly backwards, the Republican party is no longer the party of its own base. They are Demos Light and most conservatives want nothing to do with them. The Tea Party movement was the last chance for the conservatives to retake the party, now that they failed the Republicans will go the way of the Whigs.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You have this exactly backwards, the Republican party is no longer the party of its own base. They are Demos Light and most conservatives want nothing to do with them. The Tea Party movement was the last chance for the conservatives to retake the party, now that they failed the Republicans will go the way of the Whigs.

I think you are dismissing the impact the southern strategy had in shaping the present version of the party. You can be a conservative party without being drowned in demagoguery. That would probably be much more accepted don't you think?

---

I agree with this completely. The main stage debate should have been shrunken before that CNBC fiasco...if you really want to call that a "debate". The Democratic debate showed that with fewer candidates onstage, you can get into more detailed answers than you can with ten candidates onstage who have little time to do more than list talking points.

 

I was a little surprised to see Paul, Kasich and Fiorina all survive, actually. If nothing else, the JV debate should be a lot more fun to watch, as I expect a significant amount of griping from Christie about being demoted. Huckabee will probably do all his crying behind the scenes to his Fox News sponsors/overlords.

 

It's not like he hasn't been trying to lose anyway, but I do sometimes wonder and laugh at the possibility that the Clintons convinced him that running for President as a parody of a new-age Republican would be fun.

 

I think you're oversimplifying things a bit here. I mean, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that 48% of US voters are Democrats and 39% are Republicans, right? Maybe if the Republican Party would quit pandering to the far religious right and put a stop to that silly little tea party of theirs, alienated Republicans and centrists would start voting for the R again.

 

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a...filiation/

 

I'd vote for him over anyone else in the Republican field except Kasich and Paul. I'd certainly vote for him over Hillary.

Same here.

---

I think you are dismissing the impact the southern strategy had in shaping the present version of the party. You can be a conservative party without being drowned in demagoguery. That would probably be much more accepted don't you think?

 

I'm of the opinion that both parties want the same thing and neither one do I, or many other Americans like me, agree with.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm of the opinion that both parties want the same thing and neither one do I, or many other Americans like me, agree with.

Sure both parties want to win. 

---

Sure both parties want to win. 

 

It's more than that, it's the vision they have for the America of the future. One they map out and control, centrally plan if you will.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

What is evident to me at this point is as follows.

 

Hillary is going to be the anointed nominee of the Democrat party.  Bernie Sanders is just there to appease the far left.

 

Jeb Bush was supposed to be the opposite or counter for the Republicans, but the establishment is running into problems with him getting real support.  Conservatives are tired of the "politics as usual" happenings in Washington, thus you have 3 candidates in the top 8 that have never held a political office.  The left is in full attack mode to try and discredit all of these 3, and the right doesn't really back them up much.

 

You also have the "anti-establishment" candidates in Rand Paul and Ted Cruz there.  By far Ted Cruz wins this because of his proven record and "not crazy" ideas as opposed to Rand Paul.

 

Finally, you have John Kasich and Marco Rubio, both "establishment" politicians.  Of the two, Rubio has the clear advantage.  He is the only one that is talking about the future, and in my mind is the only one that truly appreciates what this country is all about.  Throw in the fact that he is a better speaker and is much younger, I see him gaining support from not only the right, but the moderates as well.

 

Eventually I see the Republican nomination coming down to Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz or possibly one of the 3 non-career politicians in the race.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

What is evident to me at this point is as follows.

 

Hillary is going to be the anointed nominee of the Democrat party.  Bernie Sanders is just there to appease the far left.

 

Jeb Bush was supposed to be the opposite or counter for the Republicans, but the establishment is running into problems with him getting real support.  Conservatives are tired of the "politics as usual" happenings in Washington, thus you have 3 candidates in the top 8 that have never held a political office.  The left is in full attack mode to try and discredit all of these 3, and the right doesn't really back them up much.

 

You also have the "anti-establishment" candidates in Rand Paul and Ted Cruz there.  By far Ted Cruz wins this because of his proven record and "not crazy" ideas as opposed to Rand Paul.

 

Finally, you have John Kasich and Marco Rubio, both "establishment" politicians.  Of the two, Rubio has the clear advantage.  He is the only one that is talking about the future, and in my mind is the only one that truly appreciates what this country is all about.  Throw in the fact that he is a better speaker and is much younger, I see him gaining support from not only the right, but the moderates as well.

 

Eventually I see the Republican nomination coming down to Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz or possibly one of the 3 non-career politicians in the race.

1. The media is dying for Hillary to win. The polls I've seen lately indicate that the people feel otherwise.

 

2. Jeb is done. Fiorina might as well be. Trump and Carson are the "never held an office" candidates to watch, and either one of them would be pasted in the general election. Carson in particular has a ton of far right support, but he's about as well liked as a root canal amongst moderates and Democrats.

 

3. If you consider Paul to be crazy and Cruz not, we need to send you in for a brain warranty replacement. Yours might be severely malfunctioning.

 

4. Rubio might be the Republican Party's only real hope. Unfortunately, the rest of the Republican field knows that, and they'll be targeting his attendance records, his failed finances, corruption within his fundraising, etc. He's got time to rebound, but he needs a few other candidates out of the race now to get the heat off.

 

5. I think that Cruz is just laughably far to the right, so much so that he has no real chance of winning the nomination. It will, imo, end up a race between Trump, Carson and Rubio.

---

1. The media is dying for Hillary to win. The polls I've seen lately indicate that the people feel otherwise.

 

2. Jeb is done. Fiorina might as well be. Trump and Carson are the "never held an office" candidates to watch, and either one of them would be pasted in the general election. Carson in particular has a ton of far right support, but he's about as well liked as a root canal amongst moderates and Democrats.

 

3. If you consider Paul to be crazy and Cruz not, we need to send you in for a brain warranty replacement. Yours might be severely malfunctioning.

 

4. Rubio might be the Republican Party's only real hope. Unfortunately, the rest of the Republican field knows that, and they'll be targeting his attendance records, his failed finances, corruption within his fundraising, etc. He's got time to rebound, but he needs a few other candidates out of the race now to get the heat off.

 

5. I think that Cruz is just laughably far to the right, so much so that he has no real chance of winning the nomination. It will, imo, end up a race between Trump, Carson and Rubio.

I agree with everything here other than Trump. I don't think he would fair nearly as bad in the general and would actually have a decent shot of winning, IMO. He's not completely out there and he says a lot of things that liberals like and conservatives hate just as much as he says things that cons love and liberals hate. He's the closest thing to a centrist in this election and I think that appeals to a lot of people. 

 

I think Carson is a fluke that will fade out soon-ish once the non-nutty ultra right start looking towards the general election but Trump looks to have staying power. 

---

Romney was the most reasonable candidate last go around. He'd win this election, IMO.

Nooooope Romney was the watered down version of Obama. Romney lost because there was litterally no reason for anyone that disagreed with Obamas policies to vote for Romney. Same story with McCain. If republicans want to win they have to establish a different direction and be specific how to get there.

---

Nooooope Romney was the watered down version of Obama. Romney lost because there was litterally no reason for anyone that disagreed with Obamas policies to vote for Romney. Same story with McCain. If republicans want to win they have to establish a different direction and be specific how to get there.

Reasonable amongst the right wing candidates. I know that's not what you want but that's what he was.

---

Reasonable amongst the right wing candidates. I know that's not what you want but that's what he was.

 

Romney was for big government, that's not a winning issue when you're running against a guy that openly supports big government. If I want big government I'll vote for the guy that does it big and bold. If I don't want big government, I have no one to vote for, thus the biggest government guy wins.

 

Republicans will never win when they try and do big government better than Democrats. 

---