![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bedsitter23I owe an update, but I will take a break to spend some time on last night's debate. Probably no real insight from me here that you couldn't find elsewhere, but here goes.
After last night, I can say I get Newt Gingrich. Newt has run a terrible campaign and I can't imagine any sizable group of people getting together to elect him; but I get it. I get why he can pull 8-105 of the vote. He is clearly the candidate on the stage who is the most intellectual. He is the smartest of the bunch, very well-spoken, and there's something to be said for that.
Of course it was the 'Willard and Richard show'. I have heard about (and seen bits of) Perry's previous debates. He obviously wanted to changed that by coming out fighting. The story of the debate is the story of the interaction of the two. Romney clearly is the most skilled at debating (I think Perry has only slightly more debate experience than me), and if you have to name a 'winner' of the debate, it's Romney.
Romney appears the most likely person to give a State of the Union address,(and maybe it's because he's done it before) but he acts like he belongs there.
I hesitate to say Herman Cain gained or lost ground. His 9-9-9 plan took a beating (of course), but Cain still possessed a lot of charisma in giving his answers, and that's what got him to where he is. That the campaign was about Romney and Perry is probably not a good thing, as it never seemed like Cain was the presumptive nominees.
I can't say anything bad about Santorum's performance. He has done a good job taking the Pawlenty role of trying to position himself as the 'thinking man's candidate who isn't Romney'. I don't know if we will see big changes in his numbers (it's still all about Mitt and Rick), but I also wouldn't be surprised to see a bump.
Michele Bachmann is in the unenviable role of being the 'person we used to like'. Her attacks on Obama used to be a strength for her, but she came off as a fringe candidate. It also doesn't help that she dressed from the House of Quadaffi fashion line. Bahcmann's legacy from last night will be her trying to get Anderson Cooper's attention (which seems pretty metaphorical for her campaign circa October 2011).
Ron Paul similarly felt like a fringe candidate. He appears to be more 'grumpy old man' as Cain is sapping some of that 'I'm an outsider" lightning. Like Bachmann, Paul's choice of outfit wasn't the best foot to step out in (I shouldn't talk. Similarly, if I was invited to a televised debate, it's likely I would wear the suitcoat in my closet that I have since outgrown).
Anyway, that's the way I see it, and I could be wrong, but others called it pretty similarly. Kathie Obradovich called Obama the winner and Newt invoked Reagan's 11th Republican Amendment (Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican). I won't go that far, but I don't think it really moved the needle any, and it is hard to picture anyone else being nominated but Mitt.
After last night, I can say I get Newt Gingrich. Newt has run a terrible campaign and I can't imagine any sizable group of people getting together to elect him; but I get it. I get why he can pull 8-105 of the vote. He is clearly the candidate on the stage who is the most intellectual. He is the smartest of the bunch, very well-spoken, and there's something to be said for that.
Of course it was the 'Willard and Richard show'. I have heard about (and seen bits of) Perry's previous debates. He obviously wanted to changed that by coming out fighting. The story of the debate is the story of the interaction of the two. Romney clearly is the most skilled at debating (I think Perry has only slightly more debate experience than me), and if you have to name a 'winner' of the debate, it's Romney.
Romney appears the most likely person to give a State of the Union address,(and maybe it's because he's done it before) but he acts like he belongs there.
I hesitate to say Herman Cain gained or lost ground. His 9-9-9 plan took a beating (of course), but Cain still possessed a lot of charisma in giving his answers, and that's what got him to where he is. That the campaign was about Romney and Perry is probably not a good thing, as it never seemed like Cain was the presumptive nominees.
I can't say anything bad about Santorum's performance. He has done a good job taking the Pawlenty role of trying to position himself as the 'thinking man's candidate who isn't Romney'. I don't know if we will see big changes in his numbers (it's still all about Mitt and Rick), but I also wouldn't be surprised to see a bump.
Michele Bachmann is in the unenviable role of being the 'person we used to like'. Her attacks on Obama used to be a strength for her, but she came off as a fringe candidate. It also doesn't help that she dressed from the House of Quadaffi fashion line. Bahcmann's legacy from last night will be her trying to get Anderson Cooper's attention (which seems pretty metaphorical for her campaign circa October 2011).
Ron Paul similarly felt like a fringe candidate. He appears to be more 'grumpy old man' as Cain is sapping some of that 'I'm an outsider" lightning. Like Bachmann, Paul's choice of outfit wasn't the best foot to step out in (I shouldn't talk. Similarly, if I was invited to a televised debate, it's likely I would wear the suitcoat in my closet that I have since outgrown).
Anyway, that's the way I see it, and I could be wrong, but others called it pretty similarly. Kathie Obradovich called Obama the winner and Newt invoked Reagan's 11th Republican Amendment (Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican). I won't go that far, but I don't think it really moved the needle any, and it is hard to picture anyone else being nominated but Mitt.
