Ashe Schow has a roundup of each candidate’s features and failures.
I have to say that I find the (mostly male) criticism of Fiorina’s “sternness” and failure to smile silly. And maybe even sexist. In her deep knowledge of the issues, willingness to do her homework, and articulation, she is the anti-Trump.
[Afternoon update]
More debate observations from Andrew McCarthy.
[Update a while later]
According to the overnights, it was Carly’s night, and The Donald is starting to hemorrhage support from women:
A Fiorina surge would be more dangerous to the rest of the field than a Carson surge because there’s no reason to think she won’t continue to have excellent substantive debates. Carson tends to disappear at these things and his policy proposals seem like afterthoughts vis-a-vis his persona. If you’re backing him, it’s because you believe in the man and what he represents as a healer and a political outsider, not because you’re excited about his immigration proposals or whatever. Fiorina knows the issues, she’s unflappable, and she’s better than the boys are at taking Trump down a peg. Her weakness is her record at HP, but she was prepared for that last night and Republican voters have proved themselves willing to nominate a CEO whose business was responsible for many layoffs. Besides, the guy who’s ahead of her in the polls is a billionaire whose catchphrase is “you’re fired.” He’s the last person who’s going to try to Romney-fy Fiorina in the debates. I don’t think she’ll be the nominee, but that feeling owes more to simple tradition — people who haven’t held office before don’t win presidential primaries — than to any reasoned “here’s why Carly can’t win” argument. Of the three outsiders in the field, she’s easily the one the donor class would be most comfortable with as nominee. If people like Walker and Christie and even Jeb start to fall away, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Fiorina pick up some of their money (although most of it will go to Rubio).
As I’ve repeatedly noted, Trump is the “front runner” only in the sense that he has a plurality in a field of over a dozen candidates splitting a majority. Seven out of ten want a non-Trump. Some non-Trump is going to consolidate that vote.
“I have to say that I find the (mostly male) criticism of Fiorina’s “sternness” and failure to smile silly. ”
Yes. She was talking about serious issues and had a serious demeanor. Exactly what we need after the shallow, hollow, unserious Obama era
While you might not see a lot of published criticism of that nature coming from women who watch politics for a living, it’s not a minor consideration when trying to attract the Us Weekly voter.
If the criticism is coming from “liberals” (and by “liberals” I mean of course “tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State fellators”) it’s the usual BS. If Fiorina smiled a lot, she’d be a lightweight or a whacko; if she’s serious, she’s too serious. What they’re really saying is “Go away and let someone more statist–and therefore more to our liking–run for president.” You have to know how to translate.
Actually, it was coming from people like Britt Hume and Charles Krauthammer.
If you’re backing him, it’s because you believe in the man and what he represents as a healer
Well I’m not exactly backing him but anyone who thinks the people who answer poll questions in his favor are doing so because he heals is off his meds.
I thought the technique of asking candidates to respond to what other candidates said was cheap and merely an attempt to generate fights. It got in the way of substantive questions. It wasted time and even though the debate was a long 3 hours, there wasn’t enough time.
I would prefer substantive simple – yet hard – direct questions. The candidates will tell us what we want to know if the right questions are asked.
I thought Trump looked like an amazing goofball with those faces. I think he had a bad night. I think Finoria gutted and filleted him. I think his response was creepy.
Rubio did himself some good. Kasich was sweating hard (literally and figuratively) and sounded like a perfect ass when he said “Let’s wait and see if the deal works. If not we’ll re-apply the sanctions”
Jeb got into too many catfights with Trump and, as a consequence, didn’t look presidential.
Walker just can’t seem to gain traction although I think he’s the best qualified person on the stage.
Huck was genial and nice to have around but will never be Prez.
Carson always seems to be just this side of catatonic.
Nor do I think he understands Iranian Perfidy. Nice guy.
Rand Paul had a few good lines, and while he didn’t hurt himself, he didn’t help much either.
“As I’ve repeatedly noted, Trump is the “front runner” only in the sense that he has a plurality in a field of over a dozen candidates splitting a majority.”
I’ve also wondered if the Dems aren’t using the Limbaugh technique of posing as GOP and flooding the polls with pro-Trump votes to skew the results.
Don’t know that that is happening.