Governing through Reason
Republican Presidential Debate, June 13, 2011
The first major Republican Presidential campaign debate for 2012 to include front-runner and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will be televised tonight from St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, at 8 pm EDT/5 pm PDT.
This post is “live” two hours before the debate begins, so if you see it before the start time, come here to post up your predictions, make side bets, or taunt (gently!) the opposition. As the debate unfolds, pop in here to make snarky comments, tell us who you’re really liking, or taunt (gently!) the opposition.
One controversial aspect is that Sen. Ron Johnson, Audio Consultant, was dis-invited to participate. He and both his supporters are really angry.
Former Gov. and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman has declined to participate.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will try to put a brave face on after returning from a Greek cruise with increasingly expensive wife Callista only to find his campaign staff decamped.
Participants will include Romney, former Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Rep. Ron Paul, Herman Cain, former Sen. Rick Santorum, Rep. Michele Bachmann and Gingrich. The debate is sponsored by CNN, WMUR and the Manchester (New Hampshire) Union Leader. CNN political correspondent John King will moderate. His wife, Dana Bash, will not likely ask questions about Weiners.
Related articles
- New Hampshire GOP Field Set for Monday’s Debate (538refugees.wordpress.com)
- What They Must Do: Analyzing The Coming GOP Presidential Debate | Dick Morris (jamespatrick1.wordpress.com)
- GOP Field Anything But Steady as N.H. Debate Nears (foxnews.com)
- CNN New Hampshire GOP Debate: Join in now (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
- Republican presidential candidates to debate in New Hampshire (pennlive.com)
-
Mac… the audience meter was so interesting. Best of all was having you post it in real-time so we now have it on record. I’ll be going back to look carefully at all your meter posts… it was hard to pay attention and parse them in the rush of questions but I recall being surprised by some of the reactions you reported. Can’t wait to have another look at them.
-
-
#104 written by mclever 1 year ago
@filistro
I agree about Santorum. He didn’t look like he believed he belonged on the stage. The rest of them all were clearly more comfortable in the glare of the spotlights. Not sure if that’s a good thing, considering how delusional some of them must be if they actually think they have a chance to be President, but looking like you think you deserve the role is certainly important if you want people to believe in you enough to cast their votes for you.
-
#105 written by mclever 1 year ago
I’ll need to go back and look at those audience meter results myself. I was usually so busy trying to get the numbers typed before the next answer that I didn’t really think about what they meant in terms of what the Indies and Republicans were saying they liked.
I did get the impression, based on how quickly the red Republican line leaped upwards, that there were definitely certain candidates they were just looking for an excuse to love. I saw a pattern with Bachmann’s approval ratings, for example. Whenever she started to speak, usually the red line jumped up first, then the yellow followed a little slower. Sometimes the two lines would reach the same level or even cross, but that red line almost always jumped first for her. With Romney, Cain, and Pawlenty, on the other hand, there would be a second or two lag while the Republicans in the audience actually listened first before judging their approval. When their lines started to move, they usually moved together. Independents tended to leap up for Ron Paul and sometimes for Herman Cain. No one seemed eager to register approval for Santorum or Gingrich.
-
#106 written by Mainer 1 year ago
-
#107 written by mclever 1 year ago
It looks like my “two tiers” post disappeared, so I’ll attempt to restate my thoughts:
I couldn’t see the post-debate punditry reactions, but I generally agree that there was no clear winner. However, it did seem to me that there were two definite tiers:
Top Tier:
– Romney’s performance was solid but not spectacular, as you’d expect from a front-runner.
– Herman Cain’s performance style played well to the sound-byte format, and he probably had the best quips. Strong performance, but not clearly better than Romney.
– Bachmann’s performance was also consistently strong with Republicans (judging by audience reaction), but not as strong with Independents. The flip-side of Romney.Bottom Tier:
– Pawlenty’s performance was hit-n-miss. He had a chance to knock a few middle-of-the-plate softballs out of the park, and he blew it. He failed to show that he deserves the job more than Romney.
– Ron Paul got good audience reactions, but it seemed like everyone was in on the joke that he even has a chance to win the nomination.
– Gingrich doesn’t do well when he has to limit answers to 30 seconds or less, so he struggled in this format. And people don’t like him.
– Santorum disappeared on stage with the rest of them, and disappearing next to Pawlenty is some trick! Maybe he should pursue a career as a magician! -
#109 written by Mainer 1 year ago
Well all of you that thought this was in any way serious then you must have loved the gong show. If I was a serious ass Republican money donor then tonight convinced me to buy that second yacht and to finalize my move to the islands where I already have all my money stashed.
This pathetic group couldn’t lead some one out of a burning phone booth unless and until a Luntz told them what to say.
Think about it gang, you have a Ron Paul that has been reduced to a noun a verb and the Federal reserve.
You have a Bachmann that continues to show she may not even have a firm grasp on the time of day.
You have a mitt the BUSINESS person that knows the way out of our jobs situation when his business experience is of gutting companies and out sourcing jobs.
Hell Herman Cain is starting to lok presidential compared to the rest of this lot and he does not have a freaking clue.
You can analyse this until the cows come home but it is still going to be what it is.….…WILL THE REAL REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE PLEASE STAND UP.….…for it sure as hell can not be any of these bozos.
-
TPM picks the five most interesting moments of the debate. I think we were pretty much in agreement:
1.) Pawlenty wusses out instead of attacking Romney
2.) Bachmann makes her big announcement
3.) Herman Cain bashes Muslims
4.) Newt bashes Ryan again
5.) Pawlenty floats his own Medicare plan
Interesting that Mitt didn’t feature in any of the interesting moments. I think that’s his game plan. He’s not out to win this nomination, he’s just going to hold fast and try not to lose it. As Mainer points out, when you think about the clown car in the sober light of morning, that really shouldn’t be too hard.
-
Carefully reviewing Mac’s audience meter, I’m surprised how closely “I” and “R” track together, and for which issues (and people.) Indies seemed particularly approving of Bachmann, for instance… when her stated polices should be absolute anathema to that group.
It makes me wonder if we’re going to see the same thing in polling that we see a lot of the time now, where many self-professed “Independents” are actually just Republicans who are ashamed to call themselves that any more. They tend to skew the polls because it makes Republicans think they truly have the vast swing vote on their side, when all they really have is their same old bunch… and the REAL Independents are under-polled and unpredictable.
-
This is my new favorite political blog, after Logarchism:
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/
Their pre– and post-debate analyses were top-notch, I think.
-
Carefully reviewing Mac’s audience meter, I’m surprised how closely “I” and “R” track together, and for which issues (and people.) Indies seemed particularly approving of Bachmann, for instance… when her stated polices should be absolute anathema to that group.
It makes me wonder if we’re going to see the same thing in polling that we see a lot of the time now, where many self-professed “Independents” are actually just Republicans who are ashamed to call themselves that any more. They tend to skew the polls because it makes Republicans think they truly have the vast swing vote on their side, when all they really have is their same old bunch… and the REAL Independents are under-polled and unpredictable.
I wondered this also during the 2008 debates. I saw self-identified “independents” tracking with the Republicans.
I strongly suspect, but cannot prove, that many (most? a plurality of?) “independents” are actually Tea Party advocates who refuse to affiliate with the Republican Party. That would also explain the Bachmann responses.
It’s like the old test for male homosexuality where you look at physiological responses to stimuli. If you are aroused looking at pictures of naked men, then you are homosexual, whether you self-identify as such or not. If you are aroused listening to Michele Bachmann, then you are a Teaper, whether you self-identify as such or not.
-
-
Roger Simon, who I don’t often agree with, hit the nail on the head in his debate analysis:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56903.html
-
#116 written by mclever 1 year ago
@filistro
I’m not too surprised to see the “Independents” in the audience tracking closely to the Republicans, because these were obviously Independents who were interested in seeing the Republican debate, and therefore were more likely to have at least some conservative leanings. I doubt many Green Party members or Kos Kids were there as Independents, for example. You and DC may be right that a fair number of these are Republican Tea Party types in Independent clothing, especially in the crowd attending a Republican debate.
If I were a political analyst, I’d be leery of reading too much into the Independent audience meter, as I would assume that’s more a measure of how conservative-leaning Independents think and not how the more moderate swing-voters are thinking.
-
@ Treme’s politico link..
LOL… Roger Simon skewers Newt with a deadly rapier thrust… I will admit that when John King asked him to choose between “American Idol” and “Dancing with the Stars,” Newt chose “American Idol” quickly and decisively. But that is probably because “Dancing with the Stars” turned him down.
-
#118 written by mclever 1 year ago
@Monotreme
Thanks for sharing that link on the debate analysis. I see things similarly, except for the placement of two people:
First, the utter down-grading of Cain for his (utterly despicable) anti-Muslim comments. Yes, that’s a downgrade with many folks, but those comments scored well with the Republicans in the audience. Aside from those remarks, he looked poised and comfortable under pressure, which is sure to have scored well with most observers. The analyst ranked Cain last, but I thought he clearly out-performed Pawlenty, Santorum, and Gingrich.
Second, the over-estimation of Santorum’s performance. Yawn, Santorum who? His answers were mostly fine, if one was awake enough to listen to them. The audience response was tepid, and he made no remarks that jumped out to distinguish himself. (Unlike Bachmann, who definitely made her presence felt.) Snooze-torum was a faint echo of Romney or Pawlenty at his best.
– Romney = Winner. I can agree with that. All he had to do was not fall on his face. He also did best with the “Independents,” which gives him “electability” bona fides.
– Bachmann = Second. Sure. Made the biggest impact for those who didn’t know her. No major flubs. Came across strong and confident.
– Palin = Third. Funny.
– Then, I’d put Cain next. The Muslim comments were his only really bad answer. At a meta-level, he comported himself very well otherwise.
– Then, Ron Paul. He performs well on stage, but he’s become a punchline.
– Then, Pawlenty. Woulda coulda shoulda. Needed to show he’s better than Romney, and instead looked like he wants to play second fiddle to Romney’s concert master.
– Santorum & Gingrich = Tie for last. Neither made an impact. Gingrich needed to save his campaign, and Santorum needed to make a big splash. I’m not sure the pool even rippled. -
I’ve spent some time wading through all the Freeper’s “Obama Totally Sux” crap to get to their general consenus on the debate.
They seem to have picked Pawlenty as the winner.… he appears more than anybody else in comments like these:
Pawlenty — other than his failure to directly attack Rombot, he was firstest with the mostest — Right to Work, Abortion, defense of marriage, etc.; needed to be a little more dynamic, but issue wise, I believe he was the winner because he was the leader on some of the critical issue questions.
This surprised me until I realized they REALLY want to beat Obama, and while they love Cain and Bachmann, they know the chance of either of them being president is totally nil. And they hate, hate, HATE Mitt Romney. So it appears they’re taking Reagans’ advice and going with the most conservative candidate who can actually win.
I find this so interesting. If Teepee can survive the primaries AND draw in the insane fringe plus Teapers, he really can win this thing. Fascinating, no?
-
#121 written by Mainer 1 year ago
Fili please tell me your reference to teepaw being able to win this thing was in reference to him getting the party nod not the general. For the teapers to think teepaw won is very informational.……delusional but informational. All he needed was to come on stage with a broom stick up his butt and he could have run as a blandcicle. No taste, cold and if left in the sun or actually listened to all wet.
That Bachmann is considered to have come in well should simply be depressing to any number of folks with IQ’s above their shoe size. Now number one would be Sarah for to consider her to have come in third by not showing up is absurd. She is being eclipsed and the repressed tighty righties are most likely replacing their now dog eared and stained posters of her with the new PCIO.…..you know political candidate induced orgasm.……oh and all of this 28 kids bullshit. While kids have to have a place to live and I applaud foster parents we are not talking the typical couple that take a few kids in we are talking a business and not much else but what should we expect from the party of the bottom line and screw every thing else.
In retrospect I’m not as sure Mitt did do that well. After talking to some actual indies today (you know folks that actually vote either direction depending on the issue or the candidate an indie is not any one that always votes just one party and I would bet a pay check the indie meter last night only measured Republicans in hiding. But back to Mitt. Assuming he is the front runner and assuming he does get the nomination (still a large assumption because after skipping Iowa I’m not convinced he will win NH either and he is dead meat in SC so he has to keep on trucking until the supers and pig pile the rest with organization and money) but as Bobby Riggs proved just being a lob return artist does not mecessarily win things. Or maybe better put political rope a dope can work but only if one is capable of flashes of offense at each bell that leave the judges wondering if they saw what they thought they saw. No one doubts what they saw last night. Dull/bland/no ideas/poster child of snake oil salesmen isn’t brief flashes of offense it is.……hmmmmmm well.….Dull/bland/no ideas/poster child of snake oil salesmen snide I want to smack that smirk off your face you company gutting/job out sourcing piece of political crap.…..well you get the idea.
Santorum is a joke with out a punch line. Why Rick would make the ideal VP for the Perry campaign. Then neither one of them would have any scruples/original ideas or snowballs chance in hell of winning any thing.
Newt.……newt just go home.…..go to some home.…..just not mine. Where is Dandy Don when we need him? Turn out the lights the party is over.
Herman Cain would have been the hands down winner last night except for Republicans that still are capable of independent thought the whole Muslim thing was so mishandled. Oh and the other problem he has is that he is still black. While in the general that should be an asset as one looks to lead all Americans I have this odd feeling that Lucifer will have worn out at least one set of skates before the Republican South gives the nod to a black at the head of the ticket. Right now a man that has earned the right to do just what he is doing (don’t have to agree with him to want to boot his dreams or his right to do that which he is doing) is at best window dressing that most likely will soon be changed out.
In retrospect there were no winners here only losers.…..very sad losers that are paying press clipping services to find good words about themselves. The crowd stands for nothing. They would sell their mothers for a vote. Republicans.……ditch the whole crowd and actually find some one that could lead.
-
@Mainer… Fili please tell me your reference to teepaw being able to win this thing was in reference to him getting the party nod not the general.
LOL… yes dear, you can relax. I’m a big TeePee booster all the way up to and including the point where he gets the nomination. Then I will heartlessly abandon him to his fate.… and putting Pawlenty in the ring with Obama will be akin to putting a fuzzy widdle bunny wabbit in a cage with a sleek Bengal tiger.
After last night I’m more than ever convinced it WILL be Pawlenty. The media is doing their damndest to make this a horse race… “Any horse! Just give us a horse!”… but there is really no contest here. People who don’t spend a lot of time among the fringes of the right-wing in America just don’t know how much Romney is disliked by his own party. The establishment is cool to him, and the wingers hate him, and the Teapers LOATHE him. So where is all his support? Just the media, as far as I can see.
He will run in front on the impetus from the media for a while, until he starts taking solid hits from the rest of the field… and then he will fold and TeePee will be the last man standing.
-
#123 written by Mainer 1 year ago
-
@Mainer… who in this crowd of jackels is going to deliver a solid hit on any thing?
Ah, but Mitt is such a target-rich environment, even these doofuses can hit him. There’s everything from Romneycare to mandates to downsizing to abortion flip-flops to gay marriage to the dog on the roof.… and the magic underwear.
It’s going to get ugly when the field dwindles down to a precious few, and they start to turn on each other.
Good times
-
Monday’s Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire — full of historical error, economic obfuscation, avoidance of hard truths and even outright bigotry — was a feast for connoisseurs of political dysfunction. Desperate to avoid being outflanked on the right, the seven candidates tried so hard to outdo each other in finding fault with President Obama that they seemed to forget that they are competing for the same party nomination. By evening’s end, they had melted into an indistinguishable mass of privatizing, tax-cutting opponents of Shariah law. — New York Times editorial
-
#126 written by Armchair Warlord 1 year ago
-
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Comment Feed for this Post
@Mac… No one liked Santorum. He disappeared on stage with the rest of them, and disappearing next to Pawlenty is some trick!
Santorum was the only one who had a deer-in-the-headlights look. He was like.. “Look at me! OMG, I’m running for president! Isn’t this just AWESOME? And TERRIFYING?”