Patterico's Pontifications

8/16/2015

Post-Debate Winner Declared, Next Debate Rules Outlined

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:01 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Over at the Washington Post, Phillip Bump declared Ben Carson the winner of the GOP debate two weeks ago:

Fox News released the results of the first major-outlet national poll since the first Republican debate three months two weeks ago. Comparing those results to the Fox poll released immediately before the debate, we can, as objectively as possible, declare a winner: Ben Carson, who saw a five-point jump in the polls — a 71 percent increase over where he was two weeks ago.

Untitled-1

Untitled-22

I wasn’t too impressed with Carson as a contender for the presidency. An absolutely kind and brilliant man with an outstanding resume full of extraordinary accomplishments to be sure, yet his lack of political experience, knowledge, and insight didn’t leave me hoping he would become the next president. Worth noting, however, is that Carson spoke only 6:46 minutes at the debate, about half the time that Trump spoke.

Bump noted another significant change after the debate: Ted Cruz made a big jump of four points. This even though he, as with Carson, spoke only 6:46 minutes. To have jumped four points speaking so little is a good sign for Cruz. Like Trump, he seems to be reaching frustrated voters, but unlike Trump, Cruz offers a very real and wide range of political experience and savvy, a strong conservative voting record, and an immense knowledge of the Constitution and how government is meant to work.

Also good, Carly Fiorina jumped three points, which doubles her previous standing. By the way, Ace of Spades announced that Carly Fiorina will be a guest on this week’s podcast, so be sure to look for it. I think there might actually be some substantive questions asked of the candidate rather than the usual “Did you really mean to call Hillary a liar?” type…

Oh, and who didn’t receive post-debate good news? Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. This is particularly disappointing with regard to Walker. Since his lead one month ago, it has been observed that “Every week since that 22-point high, Walker has shed two or three points of support. The latest Iowa poll has him at just 9 percent.” Definitely not good. Clearly he has his work cut out for him at the next debate.

Speaking of which: the CNN Republican Primary Debate coming from the Reagan Library is scheduled for September 16 and will, of course, air on CNN. The rules they have instituted to position candidates are as follows:

The first 10 candidates – ranked from highest to lowest in polling order from an average of all qualifying polls released between July 16 and September 10 who satisfy the criteria requirements outlined in this document ­­ will be invited to participate in “Segment B” of the September 16, 2015 Republican Presidential Primary Debate. In the event of a tie for 10th place, the tie­breaker will be an average of all qualifying polls released between August 26 and September 10. The second tie­breaker will be an average of all qualifying polling conducted in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada released between July 16 and September 10.

Candidates who satisfy the criteria and achieve an average of at least one percent in three national polls, but are not ranked in the top 10 of polling order will be invited to participate in “Segment A” of the September 16, 2015 Republican Presidential Primary Debate.

Post-script: “Their “Segment B” will be the top-tier candidates, while “Segment A” will be the rest who hit the 1% polling mark. CNN also notes that if the number of candidates who qualify overall for the debate are 14 or less, they will limit Segment B to only eight candidates and the rest will spill over to the second tier Segment A.”

–Dana

55 Responses to “Post-Debate Winner Declared, Next Debate Rules Outlined”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. Fortunately, I expect to be walking the Waterloo battlefield on the debate day.

    Wake me when the convention is due.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  3. I will make an effort to clean the bathrooms before watching this Dick show.
    Cruz/West
    It’s an Act of Love – jebb’s nose dive.

    mg (31009b)

  4. Mike K and mg,

    Do you believe that the debates are counter-productive, a waste of time, or just performance art in desperate search of a vote? Do you believe there is a better way for voters to get to know candidates and their positions? If so, through what means would that information be so widely conveyed and in person?

    Dana (86e864)

  5. 2. The Waterloo in Belguim, not Iowa, I presume. (In thus context it is best to make sure.)

    kishnevi (294553)

  6. Oh, and who didn’t receive post-debate good news? Jeb Bush

    Not good news to him, but good news to me.

    Mark (9abec5)

  7. Too many speakers make it counter-productive. The networks talent make it a waste of time. jebb and rubio personify desperation for anyones vote. With Ted only getting 6 or 7 minutes to speak and the networks talent getting the most air time seems like a farce to me. Besides anytime rinos and the G.O.P. are involved it brings the chamber of commerce along to referee. Pathetic. Individuals need to break away from the networks and do some one on one debates on u tube. Cruz vs. Walker in front of Mnt. Rushmore.
    jebb versus rubio at starbucks.

    mg (31009b)

  8. Time to change the name of this blog? Dana’s Disquisitions? Declamations? Discourses? Deliberations?

    Lenny D (c37915)

  9. Am I the only person who is offended by the idea that an ultra-liberal talking head at the WaPo thinks he’s entitled to “declare a winner” for the GOP debate? Before going to the WaPo, Bump wrote for the Puffington Host, That-Magazine-Named-After-an-Ocean, and the Daily Beastly. I’m about as interested in his opinions as I am those of Ezra Klein, which is to say:

    NOT.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  10. My, I don’t disagree with what you say. But it is amazing to see the jumps of Carson and Cruz, and no jump for Trump, in spite of having the most time to speak. Actually, I think he dropped a percentage point.

    Regardless, I don’t see many candidates wanting to forego national exposure at a debate. They are more than willing to be a part of the show.

    Dana (86e864)

  11. Lenny

    Dana is doing a great job for Pat, and we enjoy her talents, time and participation

    EPWJ (cde2e6)

  12. Lenny.

    No. I am filling in for Patterico while he is on a well-deserved vacation.

    Dana (86e864)

  13. true, but Bump has looked at the numbers more than most navelgazers, ‘you can’t stop the signal’

    narciso (ee1f88)

  14. Beldar, I’m not offended by Bump making an an assesment and declaring a winner. His post caught my eye because he is an ardent liberal and yet he pretty much stuck to numbers and didn’t take any swipes at the candidates.

    Dana (86e864)

  15. #10 should be mg, not my. My apologies, mg.

    Dana (86e864)

  16. I have been called much worse, and deservedly so, Dana.
    Imagine what Ted could have accomplished with network barbie’s time.
    My wife and I cut the chord years ago, so viewing this folly would never happen.

    mg (31009b)

  17. The thing about Trumps debate performance, as it was going down, the moderators coming out and shooting for him to bait a meltdown or some sort of emo response, my internal narrative drowned out Trumps actual response. It wan’t nearly as bad as I imagined on a second or third viewing.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  18. Enjoy your posting, Dana.
    Is Patterico sailing around the world?

    mg (31009b)

  19. It didn’t work, Fox; in fact, it blew up in your face.

    What is being misunderstood is that this is not so much about Trump as it is about the Republican party, which has lied repeatedly over the last several decades and, when in power, has failed to deliver on any of its promises despite having the ability to do so.

    The mealy-mouthed games have finally awakened the people of this country
    who understand that there is a Constitution and it has meaning — the
    original meaning in the words, not some load of crap after-the-fact that happens to be convenient for you at the time.

    The cuckservative games, whether condescending crap that spews repeatedly
    from John McCain, the crying of Boehner, the outright lies of Ryan and
    McMorris-Rodgers and more have finally reached the point that the people
    of this country with a view toward the original intent and wisdom of
    the founders of this nation, never mind the Republican structure of our
    government, have simply had enough.

    We’re not going to vote for another McCain, no matter what name he has. We’re not going to vote for a Bush who takes credit for a Florida “economic miracle” that
    was in fact all built on housing market leverage, liar loans and illegal mexican labor. We’re not going to vote for those who claim to be opposed to virtually every program President Obama has championed and led yet while holding the power of the purse to stop every last one of them they were instead funded, continued and expanded! We’re not going to vote for a Doctor who refuses to raise and debate the issue of outrageous monopoly interests that drive the price of medical care up by 10x what it should cost, and why the people involved are not under indictment and in prison rather than driving around in a Mercedes. And we’re not interested
    in the excuses coming from the various orifices of these candidates
    while they bow before the Koch Brothers and their money, or show up at
    Redstate when its leader bars Trump from coming after he, and the media, charged him with using words he never spoke,turning a well-justified riposte for an uncivil and intentionally dishonest attack put forward by the big corporate media into words he
    never uttered.

    We, those of mind such as myself and others, simply refuse
    to play this “but if you don’t vote for our jackass, evil though he may
    be, Hillary will win” game any more. This garbage was run with McCain
    in 2008 and Romney in 2012, and it’s not happening again. I voted for Cthulu last time for this very reason and vowed to never again lend support or assistance to any such crap by the cuckservative Republicans — then or in the future. I meant it.

    Yes, this means that if Trump is improperly treated by the Republican Party and/or their media affiliates and as a result he decides to run on a third party or independent ticket, an act he certainly can do and fund himself, I will vote for him. If you think I fail to understand the consequence of this you’re wrong; my intent is to destroy the Cuckservative party now masquerading as “Republican”, and I’m not alone.

    Yes,that is a threat Mr. Boehner, Mr. Ryan, Mr. McConnell, Ms.
    McMorris-Rodgers and all of the rest of you. It is a lawful and
    political threat. It is a gigantic “**** you” middle finger in your
    direction, exactly as I expressed in plain language to a
    McMorris-Rodgers staffer after all of you folded in the debt ceiling
    debacle rather than doing what you were elected to, and promised to, do.

    I will accept no more excuses nor will I accept any more lies. I am done
    and so are millions of others who identify as Conservative. You are not conservatives, you are cuckservatives, sellouts, frauds, liars and thieves and you will either reform now and turn back all of what you have done to destroy this republic, federalism and the rights guaranteed to us under the Constitution before you ask for my vote once again or I, and millions of others, will take every legal political action available to us to destroy YOU.

    THAT is what this — and Trump’s popularity — is about.

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=230492

    adam smith (aaea68)

  20. toss them all into the mississippi river and see if the caucus voters pull any of them out!

    better way (eeab26)

  21. re Dr Carson: after the debate I read a lot of people commenting on how good Dr Carson.
    literally, they were complimenting his suit and how sharp it was.
    Maybe a simple case of “looking marvelous”

    seeRpea (a7b697)

  22. some did, but others noted his eloquence re the war on terror, and race relations,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  23. It was no accident that on FOX NEWS George Will, called Donald Trump supporters vulgar, unwashed masses. He went on to describe Trump’s supporters as incapable of cognitive thought or rational argument.

    Clearly, the GOP establishment has declared war on Trump and anyone who might vote for him.

    ropelight (49e309)

  24. Do you believe that the debates are counter-productive, a waste of time, or just performance art in desperate search of a vote?

    No, I thought that Fox did a poor job with the one I watched. I turned it off after a few minutes of embarrassment. I will watch when we get a little closer and have some more serious people to “debate.” I don’t think Trump is serious. I like Carly and Walker and Jindal. Jindal has had trouble with his speaking style. Carly needs to put up a serious and detailed explanation of her time at HP. Walker is cool and will look better once the clown show is off the debate stage.

    Clearly, the GOP establishment has declared war on Trump and anyone who might vote for him.

    George Will can be stuffy but he is not “the establishment.” He opposed the Iraq invasion and is best understood as a serious conservative although he has been trending libertarian for years.

    Trump is attractive to people who normally don’t vote GOP and probably won’t no matter who the nominee is. It won’t be Trump.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  25. Well, it is not a stretch to call Trump himself a vulgar mass and to wonder how much rational argument he is capable of.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  26. Adam Smith, I don’t know who you are, but I like the cut of your jib.

    Gazzer (feaf20)

  27. I’m not sure Cruz is doing useful things. Clinton outwitted Gingrich in the 1995 shutdown and it has been pretty much a loser since then. A lot of the problem is that Congress has a hard time with a lawless president like Obama. I think there is a strategy that could do better in defunding government but they have to be nimble. Nobody ever accused the GOP of being nimble.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  28. yes, and the house lost a handful of seats as a consequence, yet the narrative remains, of course Bob Dole, ran such a winning campaign regardless,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  29. Dana, I wasn’t fussing at you. I’m sorry that my comment came across that way. I’d seen Bump’s piece linked from elsewhere, before I saw it linked here; read it; found his declaration off-putting; wondered who he was; looked him up; and reacted negatively here.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  30. Bump is a damn chump
    best focus on what he knows
    feathering his nest

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  31. To be more specific about what else, besides Bump’s presumptuous, annoyed me about his post:

    I think it’s misleading to pretend that an early-stage debate like this one had a single “winner,” as if it were a high school tournament with judges keeping point scores.

    It was the first exposure of many viewers — including those who didn’t watch the debate, but read coverage of it or watched snippets of it afterwards — to quite a few of these candidates. As Fiorina pointed out, before the debate she had a very low name recognition among GOP voters. The same was true for Dr. Carson. That wasn’t true of Huckabee or Santorum or Perry, for example, all of whom were in scads of debates in 2008 and/or 2012.

    So if we’re talking about “winning the debate” as meaning “made a good first introduction,” then clearly Dr. Carson and Fiorina had good performances (even though Fiorina was in the “happy hour” undercard session). Both of them certainly “beat” Gilmore, who was almost unknown before, and remains almost unknown after.

    But did anyone on the stage in either session make any tangible, definitive progress toward becoming the GOP nominee? There still hasn’t been a single primary held, not a single ballot cast, not a single delegate selected or pledged. That’s not to say the debates weren’t interesting — they were. That’s not to say they weren’t consequential — making a good introduction, when you’re unknown, may become very consequential indeed as a step to later real success, and making a poor impression (e.g., Rand Paul’s) may likewise be consequential in a negative direction.

    But I think Bump was making mischief with his column. I don’t think he added anything to the raw polling numbers that had already been available, so I don’t like him and I didn’t like his article. I don’t blame you for linking or quoting it here, Dana, but Bump isn’t someone to whom I’m inclined to give any credit, and neither do I credit his conclusion that Carson “won the debate” as being a useful one.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  32. Oh Beldar,

    I certainly didn’t take your comment as you fussing at me. Rather, it was a question I wanted to answer. No worries. Now I’ll go read your lengthy comment above as I’m sure it will be an interesting read.

    And Mike K, you’re simply going to have to offer more than your not sure if Cruz is doing anything. In what way do you mean? His Senate floor behavior, calling out establishment Republicans, etc? Please expand on your comment about him. Is he off putting?

    Dana (86e864)

  33. Eh… doing anything useful…

    Dana (86e864)

  34. It was no accident that on FOX NEWS George Will, called Donald Trump supporters vulgar, unwashed masses.

    And what about the electorate that voted for the current occupant of the Oval Office, not just in November 2008 but again in 2012? Simply put, the bar has been so lowered — way down, far, far down — since 7 years ago that it’s now hard to ever characterize future presidential candidates and Americans in even more negative or condescending terms.

    BTW, this country’s president is so egotistical and superficial that I have no doubt he keeps a close eye on opinion polls and relishes that his ratings have been consistently higher than those of his predecessor. Therefore, Barry’s hubris and arrogance — which would be firmly intact even if he had tanked in, for example, the Gallup Poll — have been buttressed by all the Americans who’ve been giving him a far better ranking than he deserves.

    Moreover, I’m sure he’s fully aware of the Republican-controlled Congress rating far more negatively in those same polls. This is one reason why he probably has been even more cavalier in dealing with the Congress than he’d otherwise be, and, in turn, why the Republicans have been even more pathetically squishier than they’d normally be.

    We have met the enemy (or dummy), and he is us.

    Mark (9abec5)

  35. Beldar @ 32,

    The debate, although only the first, was important, I think, not only as a way for candidates to introduce themselves, but just as importantly, people could also start to see the emptiness that is candidate Trump. The sooner he is fully exposed, the more opportunity to focus on the serious candidates and also, the more they can be heard.

    Bump is irrelevant to me. He gave his opinion and decided he was the final decision. So he is egotistical and self-important. But them he’s a liberal, so no surprise there. I don’t think this is gospel but am taking it at face value. I believe most people here are savvy enough to also realize this. I’m more interested in the position of the candidates now and the big bump of Fiorina, Carson and Cruz. There will be new polls out this week to see how they all played in Iowa, and that will tell us more.

    Mostly, I wonder how long Trump will stay in, and God help us , how to psychologically prepare oneself if he becomes the nominee.

    Dana (86e864)

  36. I, too, felt embarrassed during the debate. Several cringe-worthy moments. It wasn’t the candidates themselves, it was the circus atmosphere of Trump and the moderators playing on that.

    Dana (86e864)

  37. Cruz’s book is worth the time. He explains in almost painful detail his actions in the Senate and names the names of those who figured their re-election chances were improved by going along to get along with Reid and Obola. I kept having these flash backs remembering the events, but I didn’t really understand why they evolved as they did at the time. Some of this is just people seeing things differently, but a lot of it is career politicians putting their pensions ahead of their responsibilities. I think Cruz’s polling numbers will improve as more people become familiar with his book. He is also a very powerful debater and will do very well if these beauty pageants get down to some back and forth between the candidates.

    bobathome (6f310e)

  38. Obama showed how amateurs can screw up a country. Even if Donald Trump’s very right 75% of the time, he’s dangerous on the other 25. And forget Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina too, an M.D.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415622/ben-carson-forgets-baltic-states-are-nato-dates-islam-christ-flubbed-foreign-policy

    and a business exec who did a measurably crap job at Hewlett-Packard and then lost a senate race to the execrable Barbara Boxer, and not with a bang but a whimper [52%-42%].

    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_2010“>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_2010

    I love me some Ted Cruz bigtime, but until he can unify his own party, he can’t unify the nation, and vice-versa. The same goes for Rand Paul, whom I admit I don’t even love me all that much.

    Chris Christie‘s approval in NJ is down to 30% and even if were 60, he still wouldn’t carry his own blue state. Bobby Jindal would still carry LA, but his home state approval is even worse than Christie’s.

    That’s 7 down, and WTFs Lindsay Graham, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, and Jim Gilmore make it 11 out of the 17 candidates who have no, zero, nada shot at the GOP nomination in 2016.

    So let’s get real: The main ring [not the sideshow] of credible, experienced and qualified candidates is only 6–all of whom who have not just actually won an election, but unlike Mitt Romney have won more than one:

    Jeb Bush
    Scott Walker
    Mike Huckabee
    Rick Perry
    Marco Rubio
    John Kasich

    This 6 is the reality, America, make your pick. The rest are fantasy league, the stuff of failed-candidacy documentaries, if not Donald Trump reality show farce.

    Tom Van Dyke (b78be6)

  39. well, wow , first time commenter Tom Van Dyke couldn’t be more wrong, however the powers that be compelled him to comment. They always tell you who9 they fear…

    Gazzer (feaf20)

  40. This 6 is the reality, America, make your pick.

    Squish. (His inability to get a clue from his mother, Barbara, speaks volumes)
    Okay but too tentative.
    Squish.
    Tone deaf.
    Iffy.
    Squish.

    We need to do better than that, so no thank you.

    Incidentally, being a squish in the context of over 60 years ago — when the middle of the ideological spectrum was to the right of where it is today — was one thing. Being a squish in the context of 21st century America — of Obama’s America — is a whole different matter.

    Mark (9abec5)

  41. TVD – Walker is the only one that would get me off my rear end to vote. The rest of your list is not for America.

    mg (31009b)

  42. yes yes Walker i would vote for

    i agree about the amateurs though

    this idea that inexperienced self-promoting no-accounts like senators and computer babes can just waltz into the presidency infects both parties now

    it ranks among the most damaging parts of obama’s legacy

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  43. The amount of progressive rino writers that are hating on trump does not seem to be helping jebby. I am starting to like trump more and more. Anything that sends beck into a tizzy is a good thing.

    mg (31009b)

  44. i certainly have great respect for Mr. Trump’s views on John McCain

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  45. At the debate FOX moderators asked the candidates if they would pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee or not. Of course we all know that only Donald Trump declined to make the pledge and kept his option to run as a third party candidate open.

    Here’s a similar question: Would you pledge to vote for the GOP nominee, even if your preferred candidate fails to win the nomination?

    If not, you and the Donald have something in common.

    ropelight (d35203)

  46. What a nice, thought-provoking post. Thank you, Dana.

    ThOR (a52560)

  47. “He went on to describe Trump’s supporters as incapable of cognitive thought or rational argument.”

    Trump supporters praise him as the only true conservative in the race, but he’s expressed support for single payer and Planned Parenthood. Of course, that is hardly surprising, what with Trump’s history of liberal positions and support for liberal candidates. The simple fact is, Trump supporters only follow him because he says things they already believed. Andrew Breitbart saw this coming. Trump’s playing his supporters like saps–making a lot of lofty promises but not bothering to explain how he’d be able to keep them. The guy is our Obama. Of course, when you point such things out, Trump supporters resort to the same childish name-calling and petulant behavior found in Trump himself. There’s also the rather brazen hypocrisy of Trump supporters acting terribly wounded when insulted but supporting insults directed at others (e.g. “McCain called us crazy, so it’s okay for Trump to mock all POWs”).

    So, in other words, George Will is right to question the cognitive thought and rationality of Trump supporters.

    The fact is, Trump is a clown. For all of his tough talk, he’s just a thin-skinned crybaby that can’t hack difficult questions or criticism. Obama is bad enough; I really don’t want a weenie who’ll spend a week tweeting insults at legislators or foreign leaders whenever he doesn’t get his way. His platform is stunningly lacking for a presidential candidate. He talks about what he’d do, but he refuses to explain how he’d do it. That’s not unique in politics, but bluster like “I’ll make Mexico pay for the wall” warrants an explanation. (That little entity called Congress would have to actually pass things for Trump to make good on his promises. Given that the Democrats are likely to re-take the Senate in 2016, a theoretical President Trump would go nowhere. I somehow doubt they’d let him get away with executive actions, either.) Again, Trump is Obama 2.0.

    Hopefully, the Rasmussen poll where he lost nine points (not to mention that survey that says most of Trump’s supporters aren’t even registered voters) signal that we’ll soon be rid of that clown and can focus on a real candidate. Once candidates start dropping out, too, I somehow doubt their supporters will go to Trump. Walker’s my preferred choice, but Fiorina is looking pretty impressive, too. (I look forward to that CNN debate for the chance to see Fiorina make Trump cry.) I’d also have voted for Perry, but it looks like his campaign is toast. I got no real problem with Cruz or Rubio, other than them being one-term Senators. The other candidates don’t enthuse me.

    tops116 (d094f8)

  48. Amen on the Trump part. It is absurd he is even being considered.

    JD (34f761)

  49. TVD – Walker is the only one that would get me off my rear end to vote. The rest of your list is not for America. mg (31009b)

    Like when Buchanan won New Hampshire in 1996, the GOP will have to unite behind somebody to stop that psycho Trump from bringing the entire party down with him in a 1964-type Goldwater electoral armageddon.

    Jeb Bush, like Dole in ’96, is the convenient choice. Win or lose, the GOP will not suffer downticket and will keep control of Congress. If you don’t want Bush, pick somebody realistic, not the amateurs, and unfortunately not Ted Cruz, who cannot unify his own party let alone the nation.

    Tom Van Dyke (b78be6)

  50. things what say “trump” on them look cheesy and tacky for it even if they’re otherwise nice buildings

    it wasn’t like this before

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  51. i can’t vote for bushfilth though the stakes are simply not that high for me to debase myself in that way

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  52. 50.TVD – If not Cruz or Walker, team r will fold under it’s own ignorance, but praise Mohamhead, the chamber of commerce will live to corrupt a new generation of dolts.

    mg (31009b)

  53. TVD – If not Cruz or Walker, team r will fold under it’s own ignorance, but praise Mohamhead, the chamber of commerce will live to corrupt a new generation of dolts. mg (31009b)

    It’s my party too and I’m not going to let the yahoos on the right hand the country over to the McGovernites without a fight. America is still reeling from the 2 years the Obamaites ruled after we dumped the 2008 election.

    http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/237874

    Tom Van Dyke (b78be6)

  54. Sadly, most conservative news outlets and pundits have fallen for the media trick of focusing on polls and “horse race” reporting in lieu of issue-centered discussions. The media switched to this after Reagan, when Republicans began winning on most issues.

    Notice that usually if media does focus on an issue, it is either an issue that favors Democrats or is designed to sow discord among Republicans.

    Relying on polls with a MOE of +/- 4% at this stage is just a waste of time. A fool’s pursuit.

    Estragon (ada867)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1162 secs.