Yes, I watched the Republican debate. Not all that closely, but I did watch it.
It was a shitshow. With the exception of Chris Christie, every candidate on the stage seemed to think the key to victory was to talk really fast and stuff as much as possible into every answer. Add to that an immense amount of crosstalk and probably about half the debate was unintelligible. Hell, even the two Fox moderators talked over each other.
Nobody stood out. Vivek Ramaswamy stuck with his usual schtick of trying to be the most ridiculous person in the field and refusing to ever shut up. Ron DeSantis never came close to answering a question. He sounded like he was reading off cue cards transcribed from his website. Chris Christie is the anti-Trump guy, but even when he finally got a question about Trump he waffled around and didn't say much. Nikki Haley tried to straddle a lot of lines and failed to distinguish herself from the others. Mike Pence invoked Christ a lot but never said anything very interesting. Ditto for Tim Scott, though he tried pretty hard to out-conservative everyone there. Asa Hutchinson—I dunno. I can't really remember anything he said. Doug Burgum produced probably the worst closing statement I've ever heard. He sounded like a fourth grader mumbling a speech because he was embarrassed to be up there.
Nearly everyone agreed that climate change was real but we shouldn't do anything about it. Everyone was in favor of securing our borders. Everyone agreed that our nation is in decline. Everyone (apparently) believed that American education is in crisis. In fact, almost every person on the stage agreed with everyone else. There was precious little actual debate.
Other than that it was great.
Hot action at Cook's corner. I think you or someone like you posted a photo of the bar.
10 shot has been reported. A Well Regulated Militia Action!!!
According to CNN it was an ex-cop.
WTF are you raving about? A mass shooting? Where? When?
You don't know where Cook's Corner is?????!!!! You been hiding under a rock????
Sometimes bad people shoot at and kill other bad people. Win - win!
"Vote for Jack Johnson, who isn't afraid to take a stand!"
"No, Vote for John Jackson, Who also isn't afraid to take that very same stand, only harder!"
Republican debate was very Republican, more at 11.
For sure. Meanwhile, over on NPR, 1A had an interview with a USC sociology professor who wrote a book apparently pointing out that (1) Rural Americans are 14% of the population, and (2) they have a lot in common with urban Dems, they just don't like being overlooked.
This follows up on her first book about how the sun rises in the East.
Nothing against USC or sociology professors, but how much more of this are we going to have to listen to? Everybody knows rural R's vote in favor of more guns, less taxes (but no problem taking blue state tax revenue, no sir!), zero regulation, anti abortion, and (and we don't need a book for this, just any of Trump's tweets) and liberals are evil. The professor pointed out that she interviewed people and they did not mention that last point. Right-o! The fact that you can make it through an interview without the last point is the most unpersuasive thing I have seen.
I could make it through an entire conversation with anyone without discussing politics at all, so what?
Its as if the entire liberal media establishment still cannot believe what Republicans actually vote for. And further treat what Repubs say as some sort of joke rather than exactly what they will do when they get the slightest chance.
Rural Americans are griping about being "overlooked"? What world are they living in, anyway?? With all the breathless East Coast reporters trekking out to interview them at their "diners" (I guess unlike the "restaurants" and "coffee shops" that we effete, snooty "librulz" go to)? With all the concentration on "Trump Voters" and "MAGA"?
For that matter, with the rural-slanted Constitution (hello, Senate! hi there, electorral college!) and blatant gerrymandering, these folks get legally-mandated disproportionate (one might even say "undemocratic") power and voice.
And yet, the snowflakes still whine and gripe. Fourteen percent! There are more trans-humans in this country than that!
Exactly. It took awhile to sink in, but I get why reporters have to interview Dems all the time because if you take an issue important to Dems (pick any one) just becuase its important does not mean all Dem candidates have the exact same proposed solution.
I don't know why the mainstream media hasn't figured out that for Repubs its not the same thing at all. They have their issues, and since all of them are coupled with two other overriding issues (a) government is a joke and anything proposed wouldn't work anyway, and (b) liberals are evil and lie to you and hate America, well, the combination of (a) plus (b) plus any issue means you don't even need to worry about any policy points at all.
Trump actually does not give rats ass about policy, and so he was the perfect candidate - you can tell he doesn't give a F - its obvious in every ridiculous post.
Yet, for years the media covers him like he's some regular candidate. He's not, and no current republican is. Its why DeSantis comes off so poorly, its hard as governor of a large state, to fake as if you could care less about governing.
I don’t understand why there has been so little attention paid to the one very unpredictable debate moment — Nikki Haley actually accused Trump of adding $8 trillion to our national debt and pointed fingers at Tim Scott Mike, Mike Pence and Ron DeSantis for supporting that vote. Biden liked it so much he posted the clip on Xitter with “What she said”.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1694538518343663709?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Haley also pointed out that Republicans in Congress asked for a much higher amount for earmarks in the budget than did Democrats. Even our mainstream “liberal” media doesn’t like pointing those fact out.
In a Bulwark 4-person review that covered policy and presentation
(Tim Miller, JVL, Tom Nichols and Ben Smith)
Live Reaction to 1st GOP Debate! Everyone Hates Vivek! DeSantis is a Weirdo! & Haley Impresses?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZep4APpcR4
overall reactions:
Vivek was incredibly annoying; a stand-in for Trump
Vivek only one to raise hand to oppose aid for Ukraine
Fox News (actually, Murdoch) had thumb on the scale for DeSantis
Pence occasionally good
GOP is now the counter-culture (opposed to what majority of Americans support)
Tim Scott - until now the normies' candidate was unimpressive; Haley may benefit (also, she was good on policy from a 1980's GOP standpoint)
Hutchinson: who?
Christie okay but not what people were hoping for. Mostly went after Ramaswamy, which is always nice
I hate debates and hate post-debate coverage on TV, but I'll hand it to the one panelist on CNN who said: "You don't need Donald Trump there to have a shitshow." (As Kevin said too, but not on national TV.)
It seems to me there are three Republican parties:
1. The pre-Trump GOP: that describes everyone on stage, except one
2. The Trump GOP: Trump, absent
3. The post-Trump GOP: Ramaswamy (DeSantis thought he was here but he proved tonight he is not)
The political commentariat will debate which politician "won" and have good things to say about Haley or Pence. Those two probably make anyone feeling nostalgic for old-time conservatism most comfortable.
By most standards, the person who should be disqualified is Ramaswamy. He's completely inexperienced, completely unserious, and, no small thing, a complete wacko. Hands down, he'd be the most dangerous of tonight's candidates to win the White House. But that's not a handicap in the GOP. For one thing, he's a showman. He draws a sharp contrast to the old-school politicians, and like it or not, a showman is what the GOP base wants. If you listened to the crowd reaction, he connected. He out-polled the others with CNN's focus group of voters in NV.
He's young and green enough that he could self-destruct in a few weeks. Or Trump, on a whim or grievance, might put him in the crosshairs. But he might also stick around and consolidate the position of #2 in the race. That still might get him nowhere, but if anything (like 91 felony charges) makes Trump unavailable, Ramaswamy could be the guy the base turns to.
It's not a sane party. We should know that by now. That's why it's not enough to get rid of Trump. For the country to move forward, we need to get rid of the Republican Party.
If you think the Republican Party is the white supremacy party you can’t believe Ramaswamy has a chance. I think he hasn’t got a chance.
Also, Ramaswamy got a Soros foundation scholarship. When Trump decides to take him down he will call him RamaSoros. The end.
Thank you, iamr4man!
I have been thinking conservatives don't actually have it in for Indians but Princess Harangutang could change that in a minute.
@iamr4man
"I think he hasn’t got a chance."
You could say that about everyone on the stage last night. It's Trump's party and he'll be the nominee .... unless X happens.
Meanwhile, Ramaswamy, as much as anyone, has a chance to be in 2nd place.
If X does happen (i.e., Trump somehow is unavailable, which is the only hope any non-T candidate has), then every other would-be front-runner will face the same fate: Trump torpedoes the campaign from the sidelines.
Being in 2nd place will still be better than being in 3rd, 4th, or 5th.
(I seem to have lost the edit button.)
Ramaswamy sees his path, for whatever it's worth. That's why he pledged to pardon Trump -- as a bid to give Trump reason not to go after him.
" Trump torpedoes the campaign from the sidelines. .."
Not obvious, because Trump will need pardon (and help with state cases). Obviously that is what Ramaswamy hopes for, which is why he makes sure to promise pardoning Trump at every possible occasion.
From the beginning the Republican primary has been a race to be in a position to step in if Trump drops dead on a golf course. The only person dumb enough to think otherwise was DeSantas, and I don’t know if even he actually believes he could win over Trump at this point.
Jasper in Boston points out that Ramaswamy is this election cycle’s Herman Cain and I think that’s exactly right. It doesn’t make a bit of difference if Ramaswamy is in second place when Trump croaks. He has as much chance of being the Republican nominee as Kevin Drum has.
I think we can agree: Kevin Drum needs to drop out of the race right now. I don't know what he was thinking.
You can't "get rid of the Republican Party". Well, not without killing the 70 million people WHO COMPOSE THE PARTY. I doubt you want to out-Mao Mao, to out-Stalin Stalin. So cool it with the "eliminationist" rhetoric. It's stupid, anti-American and dangerous.
So cool it with the "eliminationist" rhetoric.
Oh FFS. The notion that the country needs to "get rid of" the GOP obviously doesn't imply a literal genocide targeting its current members any more than the destruction of the Whigs in the 1850s meant mass slaughter.
And you know what? The Whigs were not "gotten rid of". They co-opted some ideas from the Know Nothings and became.....wait for it: the Republican Party. The same people led them; the same people came to the convention. Almost exactly the same people voted for them.
The reason Abraham Lincoln won with roughly the same vote that Steven Douglas got four years earlier was that the Democrats finally split over slavery. After four long years of Buchananist do-nothing and the nomination of Abraham Lincoln, the Southern Democrats said "ENOUGH!" to the Northern temporizers. You know the rest of the story.
You can't "ban" a political party. The members will just create a new one. You can't take away the votes of the people who are in one; they'll rise up, and then you REALLY have a problem.
So yeah, the only way to "get rid of the Republican Party" is to get rid of the voters who comprise it. And that's not going to happen, nor should it.
The Republican Party has to change its own direction, but Trump has insinuated his filthy paranoia so deeply into "The Base" that it has degraded to "Pan et Circenses" politics.
There are two possible ways to solve this problem. Independents have to make a conscious decision to vote against the Republicans en masse. Ideally they WOULD form a pro-democracy "centrist" party with a strict pledge to stay away from "social issues" and state clearly an openness to increasing taxes as the same time they reduce spending. Maybe losing to that would be less of an insult to the MAGA nutters and they'd eventually go back to sleep. But if centrists can't create a genuine "classic Liberal" (the economic / European kind) vehicle, they have to hold their noses and vote for Democrats and hope to put enough middle-of-the-roaders in power to control OUR crazies. We do have some, you know.
The only other answer is to divide the country, and, like when India was divided, that means millions upon millions of refugees lose their homes and resulting financial catastrophe.
@Anandakos
In the vacuum left by the demise of the Whigs, several factions vied to be the main opposition to the Democrats, including the Republicans and the anti-immigrant Know-Nothings. The election of Lincoln settled it, and the country's two major parties have been the D's and R's ever since.
The Know-Nothings were not slaughtered. Some joined other parties, some faded away. The xenophobes didn't die, but they were never the controlling faction within one of the two major political parties until now. The MAGAs are their direct descendants.
The Know-Nothing MAGAs may not be the majority of Republicans, but they hold more power than any other Republican faction. That's why reform within the Republican Party is nearly impossible.
The future is hard to predict. But one scenario I think may hold is this: Republicans continue to nominate nutcases like Trump (or Ramaswamy), who are soundly defeated in national elections. The less-crazy GOPers will flee elsewhere, and enough will form a post-GOP conservative party that will become the main opposition to Democrats.
A loss in '24 won't be enough to get the message though. It'll take repeated losses. Till then, my great fear is that another nutcase somehow gets elected. Then, the demise of a political party will be the least of our troubles.
Meanwhile, a good step in "getting rid of" the Republican Party would be for non-right-wing media to recognize that the old Republican Party is gone and what has replaced it is a radical aberration that needs to be reported as such.
A popular and electoral college loss in 2024 would mean the Republican candidate had lost the popular vote in 8 of the last 9 elections and had the Presidency in 6 of nine.
The closest historical comparison was the Republican domination of the White House from the election of 1860 through 1912, winning the popular vote 10 times and the Presidency 11.
Since 1952, the pattern of a Republican serving two terms as President followed by a Democrat serving two terms has only been broken by Reagan’s victory over Carter in 1989, and Biden’s over Trump in 2020. But that pattern was only maintained because the electoral college overturned the Democrats three-in-a-row twice, in 2000 and 2016.
Technically speaking, the "National Union Party" won the 1864 election, but yes it mostly consisted of Republicans. Andrew Johnson was a "War Democrat", or so it seemed at the time.
@OwnedByTwoCats
It's remarkable how the two parties have traded the White House every 8 years since the passage of the 22nd Amendment. Another way to look at it is the 8R/8D pattern has held every time except Reagan took Carter's 2nd term and Biden likewise with Trump's 2nd.
The pop vote advantage for Dems is evidence against the popular lie that we are a 50/50 nation. GOP candidates ought to be grilled on why they have given up any hope of winning 50% of the vote and why Dems should have to win the pop vote by a ~4.5 point advantage to be elected.
You're forgetting that GHW Bush in 1988 (and Clinton in 1992) also broke the 8R/8D pattern.
Not really. If you start in 1952 and color the calendar 8 yrs RED, then 8 yrs BLUE, and so on, the exceptions are Reagan's 1st term (over Carter) and Biden's 1st (over Trump). All other terms fit the pattern, inc. the Bushes' and Clinton's.
" the electoral college overturned the Democrats"
You do understand how presidential elections work? Why not say "the Democrats didn't win enough states?" Or maybe "the Democrats failed to mobilize a national victory?"
It’s not an inappropriate framing, since in all but a few elections, the EC has aligned with the popular vote. You don’t say “X didn’t win enough states” because elections aren’t determined by the number of states won. And in fact, winning the national popular vote is winning a national victory.
Your prognostication about how the Republican Party can be enticed to change is sound. If there is to be an avoidance of civil war or splitting the country, what you describe has to happen. But it won't happen because of what Democrats do [i.e. "we"].
It will happen because "so much winning" is NOT happening for them.
Unfortunately, the profit motive is now much stronger for media companies than the desire to serve the nation. Profits come in direct proportion to that level of animosity and division that exists within the electorate. Media companies gain from ginning up hatred, not explaining why X idea has some promise, but it might also cause Y and Z side-effects.
Besides, it's too much work for the journalists.
Not to disagree with the smart Jasper_in_Boston, but the destruction of the Wig Party did lead to mass slaughter (the US Civil War).
Lincoln and most Northern Wigs left the Wig Party to form the Republicans after, with Wig support, the Kansas–Nebraska Act was passed---->
Hence, the US Civil War. Best Wishes, Traveller
the destruction of the Wig Party did lead to mass slaughter (the US Civil War).
Slavery was the cause of the civil war.
The (inane) comment I was replying to holds that advocating for the country "get rid" of the GOP equals calling for the murder of tens of millions of Americans. Which is risible. "Get rid of" in the political sense means "reject" or "shun" or "cause to be massively defeated."
It wasn't inane. It was trying to point out that "getting rid of" the Republican Party in the sense you mean wouldn't accomplish anything, because the people who make it up and hold these crazy beliefs WOULD STILL BE THERE.
It will be at least partial solution, because currently Republicans which are not really MAGA cranks themseleves still vote for MAGA anyway, because they are in the same party. If the Republican party goes away or split, it will make MAGA much weaker.
Anandakos deliberately misconstrues my words the way Republicans do Biden's. "He's calling for genocide! He must be stopped!"
Thanks for pointing out that political parties can die without mass slaughter. I didn't think that would be news to anyone.
@Jasper_in_Boston
"Get rid of" is eliminationist, whether you are willing to admit it or not. You did not say "the Republican Party must die", which might be construed as "dissolved" or "replaced". You said "WE need to GET RID OF the Republican Party." [emphasis added]. That implies that "our side" will do something.
As I pointed out, banning a political party just gives rise to a new vehicle. It has happened over and over in many countries.
Choose your words more carefully.
You lost, you inane, unserious, little thing. Possibly because you don't get to be the arbiter of what words mean.
Humpty-Dumptying is never going to win an argument, son.
Once they realize there are real places on Earth where freedom is limitless and the future has yet to be conquered, like Russia and Afghanistan, we should create a national program to help them go forth to achieve their dreams.
Helping with the cost of their relocation is the least we can do for a people we have so wronged.
Please note the time difference...Anandakos beat me by 4 minutes!! However, I was eating Spanish peanuts while I typed and I maintain that the peanuts delayed my posting....Not my fault. Traveller
To me the Republican party is the embodiment of market driven propaganda machine that metastasized from talk radio, to Fox News, to the Internet. Its 'News' sources sell people their own prejudices and grievances to maintain constant outrage because it keeps the eyeballs on the screens. Now the Republican party is the dog being wagged by the tail.
So I say we need to destroy the propaganda machine and when I talk to people about politics I point out that Fox News lies to them. It's demonstrably true and I think many thinking Republicans know it is true in their guts.
"Vivek Ramaswamy stuck with his usual schtick of trying to be the most ridiculous person in the field and refusing to ever shut up."
Apparently, at least one Republican primary candidate has learned the lesson of the 2016 primary season. That's how you win the primary. Too bad for him that the originator of this strategy is also in the race.
If there is one ridiculous thing about Ramaswamy's entire candidacy, it's this notion he has that somehow, deep down, Americans really, really love drug company CEOs.
Or that conservative Christians will vote for a Hindu.
Ramasmarmy is this cycle's Herman Cain. Nothing more.
I appreciate the idiocy of the candidates attempting to be Trump v2.0, unable to recognize that, so long that Trump is available to vote for, they're all just cheap imitations of him, but as soon as he's out of the picture, his supporters will sit this one out.
.. Or vote for Biden just to show them.
thank you for your sacrifice
There was actually a question about UFOs
Illegal aliens.
Stealing the stuff they vacuum out of the carpet in motels.
Awe, I missed the foray to the dark side. Thanks for taking one for us.
Broadcasting on all frequencies, receiving on none is the foundation of the conservative mind.
Sad, but expected watching some candidates raise their hand saying they'd support Trump as the nominee even if he was found guilty of his current charges.
Hilarious watching DeSantis look around to see what others did before raising his hand.
What I want to know is, how many times did DeSantis say "woke"? And how many times the other candidates did?
According to Laura Clawson in an article on the R debate , "woke" only made a single appearance in the debate - and Desatan was not the person who said it - Nikki Haley dropped the "w"-bomb.
This was dropped into the middle of an answer touching on reading remediation (??helping people read better is now "woke"?) that then veered off into an attack on trans athletes.
I didn't watch it but read the post debate sound bites. IMO, Ramaswamy won by being the most ridiculous. Trump has pretty much proven that voters, especially GOP votes, don't really care much about policy (other than racism and religious bigotry). they want to be entertained, and Ramaswamy is an entertainer. And the political media *really, really* avoid reporting on policy like the plague. He won't win due to the racism thing, but hey, if the GOP can overcome their aversion to sexual assault, I suppose anything is possible.
Republicans would vote for a dead possum if he was the Republican nominee and they'll insist the deadness is a particularly great virtue.
They're not playing dead, it's a serious aspiration, but they think, because it's a possum, they're getting away with it --and that's what it's all about.
Tim Scott's outburst, in response to a question about faith, to break the back of the teachers union was disturbing.
"Nearly everyone agreed that climate change was real but we shouldn't do anything about it."
So on that, at least, they align with the country.
Uh no.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/
Uh, yes.
From your link:
Climate change is a lower priority for Americans than other national issues. While a majority of adults view climate change as a major threat, it is a lower priority than issues such as strengthening the economy and reducing health care costs.
Overall, 37% of Americans say addressing climate change should be a top priority for the president and Congress in 2023, and another 34% say it’s an important but lower priority. This ranks climate change 17th out of 21 national issues included in a Center survey from January.
Is that an explicit concession that you were wrong? Yes or no.
No - I was supporting my position.
Do you even read these things before you post? You used to be better than that.
So you not going to admit you were dead wrong, are you?
So no, your own quote says exactly the opposite. No, you don't get to move the goalposts and say 'modest' or 'low' support; you said _no_ support. That's from your own quote, BTW; there's lots more that you didn't quote, like
and
Glad I got you on record for standing by your nonsense, BTW. Why do you think I asked you that specifically? As it was, so it shall be: you're playing _way_ out of your league, boy.
All right. I bow to your brilliant display of ineluctable logic. I took Kevin's statement in the sense I believe he intended - as a reasonable summary, not as a literal statement. But, you have convinced me of the error of my ways.
So, if even one of the candidates supported taking any action at all, no matter how minor or inconsequential, will you be demanding a retraction from him?
It's sad, really. You used to make substantive arguments, at least once in a while. Are you still teaching?
Were talking about _your_ comment, you know, the one about what the citizenry think ... dumbass. Either up your game or I won't bother to reply. Now, sit up straight and say your words right this time.
Well, at least they had a positive vision for America! Which is ... um ...
Quick bullet point profile of why Vivek Ramaswamy is the perfect GOP candidate,
https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1694735109327401362
He can do for America what Brexit did for the UK!
It's hard for me to see how meaningful climate change legislation could pass if one party is convinced it's all a hoax.