The Official Fox News/Google Debate Discussion Thread

[angus]

Perry bombed, BIGTIME!

At one point, he tried to go after Romney for flip flopping and sounded like a stoner trying to do calculus. Just stumbling all over his tongue.

Let's see, first you were, um, before social security before you were, um, before social security...


cringe. 

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

When are any of these guys going to stop showing up at debates?

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Paul is Paul. His debate performance is exactly how you would expect it go. Same points, same temperament. He has to be the most remarkably consistent debater I've ever seen. You've seen him once you've seen them all.

That's why I see no way Paul ever gets above 15% in the Republican primary. He has his loyal set of fans but will fail at attracting a much wider audience. If you are at all familiar with him you can practically predict his answer to ever question.

It also screams hackishness when people actually vote for Paul for the "who benefited from this debate" or say their opinion of Paul improved after a debate because if you've haven't figured his views out by now, you're not paying attention. Anyone who votes that way is likely just doing so because they are a Paul supporter and not because watching a debate changed their mind.

The word for someone who changes their mind every time a debate question comes up is "flip-flopper".

Performance and articulation make all the difference. Paul's performance in the last debate wasn't winning because it wasn't put well and he tripped up on foreign policy. Paul in this debate, despite being given less time than sideshows like Santorum, articulated his points extremely well, didn't ramble about his pet issues (Federal Reserve, etc), and generally did fine.

But of course, for some people, Ron Paul would be considered to have a "bad performance" regardless of what he says or how much support he gains.

[Averroës Nix]

For some people, Ron Paul would be considered to have a "bad performance" regardless of what he says or how much support he gains.

Well, he has a tendency to seem like he's ranting: he goes on tangents that seem off-topic, he gets visibly over-excited when he talks about his favorite issues, and he refers to concepts and arguments that most debate viewers probably have no familiarity with. And his esoteric positions are bound to cause him trouble, no matter how well he can explain himself. Regardless of the merits of his positions, he sounds loopy to the uninitiated.

Paul is also really poorly endowed with regard to almost all of the superficial qualities that have been shown to influence voters (poor posture, waves his arms wildly when he talks, wispy stature, high pitched voice that frequently cracks, talks really fast). He'd perform better if he didn't suffer from these disadvantages.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

For some people, Ron Paul would be considered to have a "bad performance" regardless of what he says or how much support he gains.

Well, he has a tendency to seem like he's ranting: he goes on tangents that seem off-topic, he gets visibly over-excited when he talks about his favorite issues, and he refers to concepts and arguments that most debate viewers probably have no familiarity with. And his esoteric positions are bound to cause him trouble, no matter how well he can explain himself. Regardless of the merits of his positions, he sounds loopy to the uninitiated.

Paul is also really poorly endowed with regard to almost all of the superficial qualities that have been shown to influence voters (poor posture, waves his arms wildly when he talks, wispy stature, high pitched voice that frequently cracks, talks really fast). He'd perform better if he didn't suffer from these disadvantages.

But that's exactly why he did better at this debate compared to the others!

Usually he has a way of going on a long winded rant when asked a question. This time, his first question was answered very briefly and concisely, which he was then invited to expand on. He laid out the most important points and he said them clearly rather than endlessly extrapolate until reaching "The Federal Reserve is the problem!".

[Averroës Nix]

But that's exactly why he did better at this debate compared to the others!

Usually he has a way of going on a long winded rant when asked a question. This time, his first question was answered very briefly and concisely, which he was then invited to expand on. He laid out the most important points and he said them clearly rather than endlessly extrapolate until reaching "The Federal Reserve is the problem!".

I forgot to indicate my agreement with you on this point in my previous post. In my opinion, this was Paul's best debate performance yet. He lacked any really great moments (I guess he should have plagiarized a joke or told a personal story that totally misrepresented actual policy if he wanted one), but he looked polished and professional and managed to answer every question succinctly and directly.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

But that's exactly why he did better at this debate compared to the others!

Usually he has a way of going on a long winded rant when asked a question. This time, his first question was answered very briefly and concisely, which he was then invited to expand on. He laid out the most important points and he said them clearly rather than endlessly extrapolate until reaching "The Federal Reserve is the problem!".

I forgot to indicate my agreement with you on this point in my previous post. In my opinion, this was Paul's best debate performance yet. He lacked any really great moments (I guess he should have plagiarized a joke or told a personal story that totally misrepresented actual policy if he wanted one), but he looked polished and professional and managed to answer every question succinctly and directly.

Understandable that he had no great moments, though. He received the second least time to speak, behind Johnson, with five questions, 4 minutes thirty seconds of speaking time, and no questions that he might have turned into a great moment (foreign policy). It was probably the most obviously biased debate yet (When Ron was brought up in the pre-debate, the response was "Lets not talk about him"), which makes it surprising that he did well.

Anyway, he was aiming less for "Ron Paul sticks it to the man again!" and more trying to present himself in a way that doesn't alienate Republican voters. Considering the only negativity I have heard about his performance was along the lines of "Well, Ron Paul doesn't count for anything because he can't win because I say so", making it a good sign.

[Averroës Nix]

Anyway, he was aiming less for "Ron Paul sticks it to the man again!" and more trying to present himself in a way that doesn't alienate Republican voters. Considering the only negativity I have heard about his performance was along the lines of "Well, Ron Paul doesn't count for anything because he can't win because I say so", making it a good sign.

His campaign definitely seems to have adopted a different tone, and this was the first debate in which his performance reflected this change. But there's still plenty of daylight between Paul and most primary voters on foreign policy and social issues, his spirited and effective defense of his pro-life credentials aside.

Imagine Perry imploding and Ron Paul suddenly surging to 25% in polls. Can you imagine how Paul would stand up to the kind of volleys that Romney, Santorum, and Bachmann would undoubtedly send his way both in and out of the debates? (Admittedly, it'd be difficult to perform worse than Perry in the debates, at least.) Think about endorsements, too: How many Republican senators and governors would be willing to publicly support Paul?

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Anyway, he was aiming less for "Ron Paul sticks it to the man again!" and more trying to present himself in a way that doesn't alienate Republican voters. Considering the only negativity I have heard about his performance was along the lines of "Well, Ron Paul doesn't count for anything because he can't win because I say so", making it a good sign.

His campaign definitely seems to have adopted a different tone, and this was the first debate in which his performance reflected this change. But there's still plenty of daylight between Paul and most primary voters on foreign policy and social issues, his spirited and effective defense of his pro-life credentials aside.

Imagine Perry imploding and Ron Paul suddenly surging to 25% in polls. Can you imagine how Paul would stand up to the kind of volleys that Romney, Santorum, and Bachmann would undoubtedly send his way both in and out of the debates? (Admittedly, it'd be difficult to perform worse than Perry in the debates, at least.) Think about endorsements, too: How many Republican senators and governors would be willing to publicly support Paul?

Paul's debate style is kind of the opposite of Perry's; when pressed on an issue, he becomes more articulate, clearer, and far more interesting to watch (whereas Perry flails wildly and falls apart). So long as he doesn't screw up his wording (like he did last time by quoting Bin Laden), he would happily argue with the entire Republican field.

Anyway, they would have a much harder time attacking Paul. Most of them are basically copy-pasting his old policies wholesale and remarketing them, and he could call them out on their respective deficiencies without much trouble. Romney, for example is an extremely vulnerable candidate, but Perry has been wasting his time attacking Romneycare from the exact direction that Romney wants him to attack ("Its like Obamacare!"). Perry came close to really damaging Romney when he suddenly went on a rant, but he blew it by sounding like he was a drunk. The rest it really varies, but Gingrich doesn't like attacks, Huntsman has very few areas where he could convincingly shoot at Paul, Bachmann has yet to say a bad thing about him (she in particular loves to take his ideas and repackage them, so no surprise there), Santorum attacking Paul will almost always result in Paul getting the better end of it unless Paul shoots himself in the foot, and Cain has no grounds to attack. I can think of maybe three issues that Paul couldn't turn into successful claims with ease.

[Mr. Morden]

With regard to the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants living in Texas question, here's an interesting clip from a Reagan vs. Bush primary debate in 1980:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixi9_cciy8w&feature=player_embedded

I can only imagine how CARLHAYDEN would have reacted if he'd been watching that debate.

[Sbane]

With regard to the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants living in Texas question, here's an interesting clip from a Reagan vs. Bush primary debate in 1980:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixi9_cciy8w&feature=player_embedded

I can only imagine how CARLHAYDEN would have reacted if he'd been watching that debate.

Wow. Every Republican should watch this. How the times have changed.

[King]

With regard to the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants living in Texas question, here's an interesting clip from a Reagan vs. Bush primary debate in 1980:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixi9_cciy8w&feature=player_embedded

I can only imagine how CARLHAYDEN would have reacted if he'd been watching that debate.

This is also a good response clip whenever J.J. and lesser Republicans around here comment about how Reagan was not considered Presidential material in 1979 and comparing Bachmann/Perry/whatever to them.  Reagan may or may not have been considered Presidential in 1979, but he could complete a sentence without tearing up basic grammar or dropping an attack ad soundbite in 1979.  That's more than two-thirds of the 2012 GOP field's capabilities.

[Mr. Morden]

With regard to the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants living in Texas question, here's an interesting clip from a Reagan vs. Bush primary debate in 1980:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixi9_cciy8w&feature=player_embedded

I can only imagine how CARLHAYDEN would have reacted if he'd been watching that debate.

This is also a good response clip whenever J.J. and lesser Republicans around here comment about how Reagan was not considered Presidential material in 1979 and comparing Bachmann/Perry/whatever to them.  Reagan may or may not have been considered Presidential in 1979, but he could complete a sentence without tearing up basic grammar or dropping an attack ad soundbite in 1979.  That's more than two-thirds of the 2012 GOP field's capabilities.

The standards for "presidential material" have sunk much farther in the past 30 years.  The level of policy detail covered in these debates used to be much greater.  Here's another clip from that same Bush vs. Reagan debate, on taxes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edchtf9MS7g

The Reagan from that era would have destroyed any of the current 2012 Republican candidates in a debate.

[Averroës Nix]

The Reagan from that era would have destroyed any of the current 2012 Republican candidates in a debate.

Any idea what the factors are behind this change in candidate quality?

[King]

With regard to the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants living in Texas question, here's an interesting clip from a Reagan vs. Bush primary debate in 1980:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixi9_cciy8w&feature=player_embedded

I can only imagine how CARLHAYDEN would have reacted if he'd been watching that debate.

This is also a good response clip whenever J.J. and lesser Republicans around here comment about how Reagan was not considered Presidential material in 1979 and comparing Bachmann/Perry/whatever to them.  Reagan may or may not have been considered Presidential in 1979, but he could complete a sentence without tearing up basic grammar or dropping an attack ad soundbite in 1979.  That's more than two-thirds of the 2012 GOP field's capabilities.

The standards for "presidential material" have sunk much farther in the past 30 years.  The level of policy detail covered in these debates used to be much greater.  Here's another clip from that same Bush vs. Reagan debate, on taxes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edchtf9MS7g

The Reagan from that era would have destroyed any of the current 2012 Republican candidates in a debate.

Teabaggers heads would be spinning if two Republican candidates went into detailed discussions on taxes like this.  And then they'd boo at the end.

[Sbane]

With regard to the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants living in Texas question, here's an interesting clip from a Reagan vs. Bush primary debate in 1980:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixi9_cciy8w&feature=player_embedded

I can only imagine how CARLHAYDEN would have reacted if he'd been watching that debate.

This is also a good response clip whenever J.J. and lesser Republicans around here comment about how Reagan was not considered Presidential material in 1979 and comparing Bachmann/Perry/whatever to them.  Reagan may or may not have been considered Presidential in 1979, but he could complete a sentence without tearing up basic grammar or dropping an attack ad soundbite in 1979.  That's more than two-thirds of the 2012 GOP field's capabilities.

That's the other thing I noticed. Reagan might have been considered far-right, but he was pretty damn articulate. I understand why he was so popular. Perry on the other hand....And JJ compared Perry to Reagan. More proof JJ is a joke.

[Smash255]

With regard to the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants living in Texas question, here's an interesting clip from a Reagan vs. Bush primary debate in 1980:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixi9_cciy8w&feature=player_embedded

I can only imagine how CARLHAYDEN would have reacted if he'd been watching that debate.

This is also a good response clip whenever J.J. and lesser Republicans around here comment about how Reagan was not considered Presidential material in 1979 and comparing Bachmann/Perry/whatever to them.  Reagan may or may not have been considered Presidential in 1979, but he could complete a sentence without tearing up basic grammar or dropping an attack ad soundbite in 1979.  That's more than two-thirds of the 2012 GOP field's capabilities.

The standards for "presidential material" have sunk much farther in the past 30 years.  The level of policy detail covered in these debates used to be much greater.  Here's another clip from that same Bush vs. Reagan debate, on taxes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edchtf9MS7g

The Reagan from that era would have destroyed any of the current 2012 Republican candidates in a debate.

In reality he would have, but in tea party la la land Reagan would have be some evil liberal pinko commie.  It really shows how insane the GOP has become when the actual Reagan (and not tea party fake Reagan) wouldn't be allowed in the party.