Posted on 08/07/2015 8:43:58 AM PDT by Mozilla
Donald Trump’s first presidential debate was a disaster. That’s the assessment of Republican insiders in this week’s POLITICO Caucus, our weekly bipartisan survey of the top strategists, activists and operatives in Iowa and New Hampshire. They offered their reactions immediately after watching Thursday’s 9 p.m. prime-time debate in Cleveland. Story Continued Below Forty-four percent called the controversial real estate mogul the biggest loser of the evening, critiquing everything from his refusal to rule out a third party run, to perceived misogynistic comments to his acceptance of single-payer health care in other countries. ---- While Rubio and Bush were both perceived as winners, there was a big gap in perceptions about their respective performances. Those who characterized Rubio as the winner tended to offer glowing assessments; those who picked Bush thought he won simply by not losing.
“Donald Trump’s first presidential debate was a disaster. That’s the assessment of Republican insiders ... —— While Rubio and Bush were both perceived as winners”
Yep, and we’ll runaway with stalwarts like Bob Dole, Gerald Ford, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.
These Republican “insiders” really know how to analyze these things.
Politico is lost at sea....across the board!!! Ignore them...they carry no real weight whatsoever. Politico reminds me of the ego-maniac that declares: “I am a legend in my own time...only to be told by a wise & smart elder....the only legend you are is in your own mind”!!!
They probably wrote this article before the debate even took place.
Reminds me of Imperial Russia circa 1905 - 1906. There was a chance at that time Russia's rule could have become more parliamentarian and less of an autocracy, but laziness coupled with inertia and hubris caused the failure that led to the Bolsheviks.
We are headed in the same direction. Revolution.
When are people going to wake up to polls, they are always corrupt. One says Cruz won, one says Bush won, one says Rubio won...
The press will be on steroids now to get Dauphin or Hillary into the WH. That is their marching orders from the Bilderbergs, Agenda 21 bunch, and Bohemian Grove.
I stopped reading at “GOP Insiders”. That’s all I need to know.
They kept being wrong in predicting Trump would lose support before over his Mccain comments and his Mexican comments. They just don’t understand the voters. They want Trump out at any and all cost.
Well not according to the numbers in the Drudge Poll out this am.
Trump #1, Boosh #9 ( just in front of Christie). And here we have “the press” this morning saying that Trump would only win 2% of the vote in the national election.
Politico, huh?
Yeah, I’m sure the GOP-e and Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with this piece, right?
How much you think the Chamber paid for this?
More GOPe cry babies....
The Republican ‘insiders’ can’t lose. If Bush or an ‘establishment’ GOP’er wins, they are in the halls of power with all influence and money that brings. If a Dim wins, say Hillary, the ‘insiders’ are still around raising ‘anti Hillary’ money and blaming all of the nation’s woes on that particular leader. It’s a win/win for them. For the nation, not so much.
“1. Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush were the winners”
Serious? What a coincidence that the two GOP insiders are also considered the winners.
here’s the most liked comment on Politico:
“You know the establishment thinks we’re a bunch of idiots when they’re trying to convince us Jeb! had a great debate performance.”
From a debate standpoint, there was virtually no debate. The Fox crew were on some sort of mission, if not an outright ego trip. They hogged much of the airtime, by directing often long queries against carefully isolated two-somes; obviously with greater hostility towards some candidates than others.
From the standpoint of oratorical techniques--I am a lifelong student of oratorical techniques--Rubio & Huckabee used their time rather well; so to a slightly lesser degree did Cruz & Carson. But none of the candidates had sufficient opportunity to show their rhetorical abilities, because of the ego or mission trip of the "moderators."
Also, for reasons of the same constraints, none of the candidates had much of an opportunity to develop any points with meaningful clarity--None!
Now, my personal bias from the start was in favor of Cruz and Trump, so I certainly appreciate Donald's ire at the way he was handled. But he needs to master two arts, which have served successful candidates throughout American history.
He needs to know when to use ire as an effective weapon & when to hold back an open display and effectively understate his displeasure with the choice of words that show he also has grace. (This can often be a very effective way to actually transfer the ire that you feel to a listener or supporter, who will feel the anger that you are suppressing by the understatement. Hollywood uses this concept endlessly to create emotional impact in movie dramas.)
Secondly, Donald needs to get a bit of Celtic lilt into his remarks, coupled with a Reaganesque smile. Again, this is a technique for stroking emotions. It is important, because ultimately most politics is driven by emotion.
Donald is completely right that there is no time to be "politically correct"; but for the same reason, it is essential to be as effective in reaching a multi-faceted, mnulti-emotion driven, audience, as possible.
Once elected, however, because the GOP leadership is not conservative, new conservative members must compromise -- and for some new members abandon -- their conservative principles to be a recognized part of the caucus.
My point is that conservatives who vote Republican in order to advance conservative principles and governance rarely achieve what they voted for (as demonstrated clearly in elections over the past two decades).
Until there are enough new conservative members who are not just conservative but also committed to conservative principles to vote out the GOPE/RINO leaders, the Republican Party is lost to conservatives ... the Republican Party will continue to function very much like the Socialist Democrat Party.
“Donald Trump’s first presidential debate was a disaster”
If Politico says it, it’s malicious falsehood.
Money, big money, is involved here. I would be fearful of my life if I were Trump.
The attack on him last night was a warning shot.
My guy is Cruz and they hate him too. If he were to become the candidate he would need to be fearful of them as well.
Cruz has already exposed a great deal of the corruption in his book and in his Senate speech.
Bush could run with no fear from any quarter. He would maintain the status quo. (Same with others like Graham, Christie)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.