in his back pocket. They and his PAC will keep him afloat for a while. He's not going to spend much on ads. He is "first call" for CNN whenever the subject of Iraq or Isis or Iran comes up. That is where he will make his case on being the preeminent hawk.
Lindsay actually is a pretty smart guy; he is just wrong on all the issues. I actually went to a fund raiser for him years ago in Charleston. Afterwards they took me to get some of those ethereal hot pralines on N Market Street. mmmOk, this isn't about your personal preferences to win, or whether they can actually beat Hills, but about whether you can really envision them in the White House.
So even if you disagree with them on some or most of the issues, do they pass the presidential smell test? Lol
Group One (no doubt I can see them as president)
Bush
Kasich
Walker
Rubio
Christie
Paul
Group Two (maybe, need more info, but no for now)
Carson
Fiorina
Pataki
Jindal
Graham
Group Three (no way, no how)
Trump
Huckabee
Perry
Santorum
Cruz
Who would you move and to which group?
Electable:
John Kasich
Unelectable:
The rest
Donald Trump still is polling high in the top tier. He might win the nomination. I am old enough to have say said "no way, no how" about Ronald Reagan. I also have heard "you've got to be crazy to vote for Trump". Well that is my point: a lot of crazy folk vote and a lot of intelligent folk don't. 
Walker never due to no exceptions for rape or life of mother on abortion.
Jeb, now named the tortoise by his brother George W will probably get the nomination in the end.
-- Modified on 8/8/2015 2:30:52 AM
If there were any real losers in the debate, I think Rand took himself out of the race completely and Walker didn't do himself any favors either. I wanted to like Walker because of the way he took on the unions, but I don't think I could hold my nose tight enough to vote for him as I start to learn more and more about what a religious nut and social conservative he is.
aul, Pataki, Jindal, Graham move to group 3, Walker and Cruz to group
Paul and Christie need to go to group three, Kasich to group two.
I don't have as much issue with your group two, except to move Graham to group three, even he knows he has no chance.
Once upon a time I would agree with Trump as group three, but I think I would have to put both him and Cruz at least up to group two. Both of them hit a chord with many voters that could keep them both viable for some time to come. For every voter that was "shocked" by Cruz calling out McConnell for being a liar there are two more who are glad he did it. Count me as one of the ones who was glad he did it. It was long overdue. As for the rest of that group, if there was a way to create a category of even less than "no way, no how" I would definitely put Huckabee, Perry and Santorum into that group. I am actually relieved Santorum is doing so badly, that whack job actually had a chance in '12. I would DEFINITELY vote for Hillary against him.
had 6 million viewers. Can any of the kiddie debate candidates –even Carly – overcome that much free advertising for the other presidential candidates?
I say “no” and it is already over them except maybe Carly.
Fox has interfered with the election process through strictly a corporate decision to go with a poll average, which obviously grossly favors candidates with name recognition. As much as I would like to see Gov Perry "go down," I didn't want Fox to screw him. (on the other hand, the clueless Fox moderators asked Perry about how Trump was affecting his candidacy, and NOT how could he run for president while facing criminal felony trial ...aaagh).
We need to amend the Communications Act to reinstate the Equal Time Rule and the Fairness Doctrine so as to apply it strictly to presidential debates. Giving candidates free air time when 6 milion are watching is NOT equal time or fair when 34 million watch at 9
And have since at least 2007 when I posted this commentary:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=48112&boardID=39&page=#48112
We need to amend the Communications Act to reinstate the Equal Time Rule and the Fairness Doctrine so as to apply it strictly to presidential debates. Giving candidates free air time when 6 milion are watching is NOT equal time or fair when 34 million watch at 9.
-- Modified on 8/8/2015 12:08:43 PM
Glad to see your return.
Thank goodness Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine with one of his Executive Post It Notes. No Executive Order just a private meeting with his appointees at the FCC. Look at how Reagan fundamentally changed America with just that one small move. For decades we'd had essentially a one party legislative system, thanks to the lack of any real conservative media competition. The good people of the American electorate did see this fact in enough numbers to have the good sense to elect, (in true GaGambler philosophy) enough Republican Presidents (Ike, Nixon and Reagan) along the way to keep the likes of Sam Rayburn, Tip O'Neill, et al.) somewhat in check.
But not for the Democrats to worry. Just think how great things will be for them after President Obama's secret Executive Post It Notes come into full force moving forward, fulfilling his promise to fundamentally change America, once again.
... especially when the disagreement is NOT about political spin, but merely different opinions on how to solve a problem.
Obviously, you still believe Reagan made the correct decision. I still believe the end of Fairness Doctrine and Equal time led to the country's current state of polarization due to the overwhelming influence of Clear Channel Media.
But I also recognize that in this toxic political climate, the re-instatement of FD & ET (not the alien) is very unlikely.
Mores the pity
Clear Channel near monopoly in many if not most markets is a totally different issue and I agree is not good. Not sure who all controls that but maybe instead of the FCC, the SEC should be involved, although cronyism has made the SEC pretty much feckless.
Remember, polarization requires at least two sides and even change for the good is usually not without some pain
Its definitely the FCC...
but do you know who is the actual owner of Clear Channel?
Bain Capital, LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners through a leveraged buyout in 2008.
That's Bain, as in Mitt Romney.
Now there's a sticky wicket.
Remember, polarization requires at least two sides and even change for the good is usually not without some pain.
I was suggesting someone other than the FCC get involved.
-- Modified on 8/9/2015 12:55:36 AM
Seed 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 in one debate and other seeds in another debate BUT I would have them on back to back nights or have one at 7 pm and then 9pm on the same night.
I agree, 5pm was ridic.
with Bush and Kasich in group one. The rest in group 3. Walker reminds me too much of Nixon, with his Howdy Doody puppet look (the wood-head, incongruent smile) along with the sweating. Can't see him coming off any other debates as being presidential. I don't think he's anyone someone would want to have a beer with. I have to admit, I would have had a beer with GW. Rubio is a nice shiny penny, but the Republican party picks those who have paid their dues. I can't see where Rubio has done so. That's why I'm, frankly surprised, that Romney didn't run again, because I think the Republican establishment would have back him in doing so. He has definitely paid his dues. Appearance matters, and anyone who has had to interview for a job knows that, and Christie fails. He doesn't look like he can stand up to the rigors of the White House, and his performance as governor seems to bear that out. I kind of like Paul, but he's flip-flopped so much that it's just too much of a liability at this point in time. Oops, I change my mind. I will have a group two, and I place Graham in it by himself. I place him there because of two reasons. The first is name recognition; you're always seeing him on the Sunday morning TV magazines, and other media. And two, he has paid his dues in supporting the Republican parties organize, and it's message.
Romney was proly the best prepared and most ready for the presidency I think I have ever seen. Private sector experience, governor of a blue state, success handling the Olympics, good person, no scandals, good dad and husband.
Without those conservative voters though, he couldn't get over the top and he knew that, and just the sheer devotion, exhaustion and putting your family through hell AGAIN by running were all the reasons Mitt needed to decline.
Bush or Kasich could very well suffer the same fate. If I had my druthers, I'd pick Kasich over Bush. I distrust dynasties. Particularly when one member was the head of the CIA, and there being a line of Skull and Crossbones members.
If I was advising him, I would run a total positive campaign. Inspirational, hopeful, visionary. Don't lower yourself to the competition with personal attacks. If he wins the nomination, the PACs and his VP choice can be the attack dogs.
Politics isn't only about people voting FOR you. It's also getting some people to stay home. In other words, there are some in the center and on the moderate left who may not vote normally but would come out in droves to vote against a Trump type. Those are the types that Kasich would keep home or maybe even have some vote for him.
Your point about Bush is dead on. Even if he manages to really distance himself from GW, will he ever be fully to do so? I doubt it. Hills has the same problem but to a lesser extent as Bill is generally regarded as a better prez than GW.
Still too early, but I have had my eye on Kasich for quite some time. He impresses me more with each viewing, which is odd as I usually dislike someone the more I hear from them.
I would pair him with NM governor Susana Martinez as VP, a well liked former Dem, Hispanic, with no Palin baggage i.e. she is smart and very affable.
Of course, Rubio and Fiorina would also be a good match too.
Yes, I've been following him also, since his name first start being bandied about. His tweet regarding the whole Trump vs. Megan Kelly stands out from the rest: http://twitter.com/JohnKasich/status/630044235832528896/photo/1
And if you noticed in the debate, he didn't trash Trump, but also let his views known that are different from his to separate himself from Trump.
His tweet that you point to was a positive, take Kelly's back approach, rather than just rip Trump and get into a Twitter war. Whoever is handling his PR, they are quite good at it. Kasich's demeanor helps as well as he seems to really respect those that disagree with him.
Thanks for pointing that out Matt.
His tweet that you point to was a positive, take Kelly's back approach, rather than just rip Trump and get into a Twitter war. Whoever is handling his PR, they are quite good at it. Kasich's demeanor helps as well as he seems to really respect those that disagree with him.
Thanks for pointing that out Matt.
One of the reporters assigned to follow him, can't remember who at the moment, said he is very aware of that.
Bill Clinton had a bad temper and managed to contain it when necessary. He was caught on tape several times ripping one of his aides a new ahole for saying/doing something in public that embarrassed him.
We'll find out. Someone will hit him with an unfair question or something false or just catch him at a bad time and we'll see how he reacts.
His temperment at the debate was excellent, but that was in front of a home audience in Ohio.
-- Modified on 8/8/2015 12:37:43 PM
Back from the Dead yet again despite the best efforts of the house pets and insolvent little pricks... here's my early prediction based on current status:
Group One - The Final Debate Participants
Bush
Rubio
Group Two - Potential VPOTUS candidate
Walker
Fiorina
Pataki
Kasich
or possibly a VPOTUS to be named later
Group Three - Cabinet posts or ambassadorships
Christie
Trump
Jindal
Graham
Carson
Group 4 - Clown Car Supporting Cast
Paul - lost any footing he had vs Christie - and has none of the class of his father who I COULD have supported.
Huckabee - Praise the Lord and pass the holy roller baloney
Perry - oops, I'm going to be a convicted felon representing the GOP - NOT A CHANCE
Santorum - Praise the Lord this idjit has no chance
Cruz - Machine gun bacon - 'nuff said
----------------------
Most likely ticket
Bush/Kasich
or Bush/Fiorina
Fiorina has an outside chance despite her baggage because they need to combat the Hillary machine. and she did impress at the happy hour debate.
Biggest winner = Donald Trump - his brand will be burnished in entertainment and business regardless of what happens. Remember - in Hollywood, there is no such thing as bad publicity. And the media is doing as good a job keeping Trumps name in the headlines as his own staff are at keeping his name robust on Twitter.
Biggest loser = The American people, regardless of who wins the General Election
Biggest assholes = Bullshit Mountain for manipulating the exposure of candidates in order to affect the election.
am.
Maybe it is just as well that 34 million viewers didn’t hear Gov Perry mangle the Gipper’s name.
Will my prediction last August prove true? Perry will be the first candidate out?
Only bc of his own incompetence rather than the indictment?
Right but for the wrong reason? Do I still get credit for that?
Gov Perry is going down
in his back pocket. They and his PAC will keep him afloat for a while. He's not going to spend much on ads. He is "first call" for CNN whenever the subject of Iraq or Isis or Iran comes up. That is where he will make his case on being the preeminent hawk.
Lindsay actually is a pretty smart guy; he is just wrong on all the issues. I actually went to a fund raiser for him years ago in Charleston. Afterwards they took me to get some of those ethereal hot pralines on N Market Street. mmm