So, Who won THIS debate

self | jimjohn

[RobertClark]

1.) Newt

2.) Cain

3.) Oh, is there someone else running?!?!

[Revolting cat!]

My half-brother, who’s into the DaVinci Code conspiracies and the like, thinks that the Perry slip-up was intentional to draw sympathy votes. He could be right.

[BagCamAddict]

Gingrich (always)

Cain

The rest are second-tier.

[Mouton]

For me, the trifecta was Newt, Romney and Paul.

Perry broke down at the top of the stretch and his campaign had to euthanize him.

Cain is tenacious but could not hold the lead. Backman ran an even race. Santorum, no rally from the back of the pack. Huntsman, looked good but failed to fire.

[matthew fuller]

"But that only reinforces my point: Cain has no governmental experience; and look what the nation got with Hoover. Would be the perfect Democratic attack line."

Now I'm confused about what exactly was your point- Eisenhower, was a great General, and a good to great president (Eisenhower is often ranked as one of the top ten U.S. Presidents). The US had a long period of stability and economic growth for most of his term. So I really see no downside to a politically unexperienced person going straight to the presidency, if he/she has comparable experience to an Eisenhower. That's a great big if, by the way. There ain't many five star generals.

[LibsRJerks]

Newt and Cain, and then Paul — for different reasons.

And that is not to entirely dismiss the performance of the others — they all have their strong points. But Newt and Cain just come off as knowledgeable, TOUGH, on point, and direct. I believe they are the best communicators of the problems we face and the solutions to those problems. The rest just seem to do a lot of rambling.

[elpadre]

I believe that to be true.And I don't think congressional experience alone is sufficient. I think being a successful governor is the best lead in, also heading large successful corporations gives them what they need to be president. Using that criteria would narrow the field down to three - Romney, Perry and Cain.

[BagCamAddict]

Regarding Kudlow’s statement that Cain “blew him away”... My only thought on that is that it had to be Kudlow’s first time every really listening to Cain. Because I've seen Cain better. I've seen him worse. He was pretty good tonight, but not his best performance by any stretch. And I didn't think it was worthy of the “blew him away” comment unless you've never heard Cain speak before.

When Cain said the other two things wrong with Dodd and Frank, are Dodd, and Frank, the entire audience laughed — again, indicating they've never heard him say that before. Cain says that every time Dodd/Frank comes up. So this shows me there continue to be millions of people who know absolutely nothing about Herman Cain.

[outinyellowdogcountry]

I heard a clip of Newt today that highlights why I still don’t trust his judgement. Historian, statesman, but aside from his personal poor judgement, he has a linear view of anything but the constitution. When he was talking about the commercial he did with Pelosi, he acknowledged the mistake but went on to sound like an apologist for global warming. Which makes him sound open to bad policies that go along with global warming wackos.

[El Cid]

You are thinking like a conservative, not an independent voter. The Obama people and the MSM would destroy any candidate for POTUS who had never held any elective office.

I disagree.
In years past you could make a strong case for this argument, but now it is an advantage to have minimal ties to Washington D.C.
The candidate Cain would just have to point to what these career politicians have done to our Country. It is ingrained in their heads that they can't cut the size of Government. 'Bigger Government is better'.
Their solution to getting out of debt is to increase the debt.
The clear message is that we need someone in charge who has executive experience (Governor of a fiscally stable State would be nice, but CEO of a successful company, and turn-around expertise, will suffice), and no ties to Washington D.C. and their 'business as usual' attitude.
I believe this message would resonate with Independents and Conservatives.
Which is why the MSM, Dems, and RINOs are running on all cylinders to take down Mr. Cain (as they did with Mrs. Palin).

[dagogo redux]

Cain & Gingrich tied for first. Bachman a very distant third.

Mitt looked weak, tired, nervous, but kudos for honorably refusing to attack Cain.

Perry’s toast.

The rest might as well have stayed home, especially Huntsman: none of them have ever looked the least bit presidential.

[littlesorrel]

I like Cain.One must connect with people and be able to Campaign. As far as debating Cain took on Clinton on Health Care and won which no one in the field could do.

[CynicalBear]

>> Which makes him sound open to bad policies that go along with global warming wackos.<<

I’ve heard him speak on that also. What I hear is that he simply agrees that we need to keep working on clean fuels. Not so sure he believes the global warming thing. Bottom line for me is that I see Newt having grown a lot since he left congress, “got religion” and spent some time outside the beltway. He had been there too long and was starting to think like them. I don’t see that any more and I have watched Newt for a lot of years now.

[Grunthor]

“The question now is where will his support go.”

Probably split between Cain and Newt. Mostly to Newt as Perrys’ support is more establishment than TEA Party.

[astratt7]

Newty Patootie Won!

That is my official cute name for him now:)

[ArrogantBustard]

Who "won" this debate?

Same person who has "won" every previous entry in this endless stream of idiotic debates.

That person is none other than:

Barack Hussein Soetoro Odinga 0bama

These debates serve only to put Republicans at each others' throats.

[parksstp]

1. Newt wins again. But again, I must warn you when he gains traction, the “baggage” is going to come up again. And if you think he’s going to tear Obama to shreds, check out how he handled John Kerry on Climate Change debate. It did not go like we had hoped:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265073,00.html

2. Cain. The difference between Herman and Michele is Herman can get away with repeating 9-9-9 over again because it’s substance and not just talking points. I think he had the line of the night with “Dodd/Frank” and I actually loved the “Princess Nancy” remark.

3. Romney - Figures they gave him more time than the other canidates.

4. Paul (WTF?) I don’t like economic-only debates that make this moron look smart. Imagine if he had gotten a question about what to do about Iran’s nukes.

5. Bachmann - I placed Paul above Michele for one reason. I wanted her to take the Bait and go over Romney when Maria gave her the chance, but she did not. I have to admit, I am incredibly frustrated she won’t ever throw a punch at Mitt in the hopes of being his VP, which is never going to happen.

6. Santorum - Sounded like a whiner. “I did it first, look at me!” “I I I, me me, me” got old real fast.

7. Huntsman - God I hate this guy. Why the hell is he on stage again? He just looks like the kind of guy you want to take around the corner and beat the crap out of for being a pr**k.

8. Perry - We cannot send this guy to debate either Obama or the Totus. This would be a disaster of epic proportions.

[varina davis]

Ok. Perry won in a big way. He is the one with his photo at the top of Drudge Report late tonight and he is the one getting all the post-debate publicity.

Sometimes appearing human and being able to laugh at yourself appeals to the electorate.

[duckln]

Cain, Newt, Bachmann, Paul

[Rudder]

My half-brother, who’s into the DaVinci Code conspiracies and the like, thinks that the Perry slip-up was intentional to draw sympathy votes. He could be right.

Demote him to 1/4 brother and make sure he takes his meds.