Well, it’s way too damned early for this crap! I had no intention on writing about this. However, there was some significance to the debate, and so, I thought I’d jot a line. Here’s the most noteworthy of the debate ……DEBATE A
WASHINGTON – Fox News Channel made ratings history Thursday night with the widely watched Republican presidential primary debate in Cleveland.
More than 24 million viewers tuned in to watch the two-hour prime-time event which featured the top 10 GOP candidates in the running for the 2016 presidential nomination. That makes it the highest-rated primary debate in television history as well as the highest-rated non-sports cable telecast of all time in total viewers.
According to Nielsen Media Research, an average viewership of 24 million for one telecast is more than the combined viewers that watched the top 20 cable networks last week.
The night’s ratings also eclipsed Game 7 of the 2014 World Series which drew in an average of 23.5 million viewers.
The cable news network pulled in 7.9 million viewers in the key 25-54 demographic.
Moderated by Fox News anchors Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier, the debate was the network’s most-watched program ever in both total viewers and the demo. The Thursday debate more than doubled the network’s previous high of 11.8 million total viewers, earned during the coverage of the 2012 presidential election.
The evening’s 5 p.m. debate between the seven Republican candidates who did not make the primetime cut averaged 6.1 million total viewers and 1.2 million viewers in the 25-54 demographic, which made it the third-highest primary presidential debate ever for the network.
Both debates were hosted by Fox News and Facebook, in conjunction with the Ohio Republican Party.
As noted by a couple readers, here, the debate(s) had little substance as far as policy and ideas and specifics of said were severely lacking.
Disclaimer!!!! I didn’t watch the debates, only snippets and read the coverage.
From what I can discern, if you’re really into one particular candidate, you would think they did an okay job. But, that doesn’t mean there weren’t some real winners and losers in the debates. Even if you watched the entire mind numbing 4 hours of the two debates your opinion won’t count as much as the media spin after the debates. That said, the debate set a record for viewership, so, there’s only so much spin the media can do.
The big ones! In my humble opinion, after this debate, if you like Trump, you’re still going to like Trump. The appeal of Trump largely comes from people who want people to stick a thumb in the eye of the media, the concern trolls, and the politically correct obsessed. Trump continued to do so. However, he didn’t win any more supporters, either. I’ll tell readers this ….. 25% of the Republicans won’t get you elected president. I would expect Trump to do well towards the independents and even some non-committed Dims in relation to the other candidates, but, he’s going to have to do the things to win over more Repubs, or, he’s not going to get from here to there. As noted by readers, specifics on how he’s to secure the border would do wonders. …….. The media liked Rubio. Rand Paul probably didn’t do himself any favors, other than solidify his support. Ted Cruz got a bump from the Fox Focus group, and had the most Google hits during the debate, which surprises me ……… you’re watching the debate, but, have to Google Cruz? What? ………. The rest, as far as I can tell, did “okay”. That is, they didn’t really hurt themselves, but, they didn’t help themselves much, either. But, in a field this large, if you don’t help yourself, you’re hurting yourself.
At the kiddy table debate, Fiorina was the clear media winner. From what I could see, she was poised and polished, and the others weren’t.
But, how did the leftards view it? Well, it doesn’t matter ….. except for the fact that the media types are leftards. But, here’s how a HuffPo article framed it …..
Now, remembering what I just wrote about Fiorina and the leftards, read this …..
Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s spirit is apparently as immortal as his earthly vessel.
At Thursday evening’s GOP candidate forum in Cleveland, Cheney’s foreign policy vision was very much alive as various presidential hopefuls vowed to re-invade Iraq, send troops to Syria, spy on mosques here in America and get tough with Iran by scrapping President Barack Obama’s diplomatic approach.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explicitly promised — twice — to invade Iraq again. “If you’re running for president of the United States and you don’t understand that we need more American ground forces in Iraq and that America has to be part of a regional ground force that will go into Syria and destroy ISIL in Syria, then you’re not ready to be commander in chief,” Graham said, referring the Islamic State militant group, which is also known as ISIL or ISIS. “And you’re not serious about destroying ISIL.”
Even former New York Gov. George Pataki, generally viewed as one of the most moderate candidates among the GOP pack, appeared to commit to sending more U.S. troops to the Middle East, saying that it was “necessary” to put American lives at risk to “destroy ISIS.”
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said he would focus on “killing murderous, evil terrorists” and “take the political handcuffs off the military.” He accused Obama of lacking the “moral honesty and clarity to say that Islam has a problem, and that problem is radical Islam.”
Several candidates suggested they’d scrap the nuclear deal recently reached between the U.S., Iran and five world powers. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry pledged that if he were elected president, “the first thing that I will do is tear up that agreement with Iran.”
Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO whom many in the media dubbed the winner of the debate, said the Islamic Republic was “at the heart of most evil in the Middle East.” She pledged to call the supreme leader on her first day in office to tell him the U.S. would block Iran’s access to the world financial system unless his country opened “every nuclear and every military facility to full, open, anytime/anywhere, for real, inspections” (after calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and reassuring him of the U.S.’s commitment to Israeli security, of course).
Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore called for “a Middle East NATO so that we can combine our allies there to stand up to Iranian expansion” and “stop this ISIL thing before it becomes an actual state.”
Fox News debate moderator Martha MacCallum asked the candidates “how far” they’d go to “root out” ISIS at home in the U.S., and whether they’d “put mosques, for example, potentially, under surveillance.” Never mind that mosques are already under surveillance — candidates were still eager to promise to crack down.
“Martha, religious liberty doesn’t include encouraging a fellow American to engage in violent jihad and kill an American here,” Pataki responded. “That is not protected free speech. That is not protected religious belief. That is like shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, and it is illegal.”
“We have to shut down — whether or not they are in prisons preaching — or in mosques preaching,” Pataki added.
“If I have to monitor a mosque, I’ll monitor a mosque,” Graham said.
The only candidate who came anywhere near acknowledging the complexity of the situation in the Middle East — much less the capacity for U.S. military action to escalate violent tensions in the region — was Fiorina.
“Yes, our allies are not perfect,” she said in response to a question about U.S. allies funneling money to terrorist groups.
Still, Fiorina began her response with a phrase that could have summed up many of the candidates’ Cheneyesque takes on foreign policy: “Sometimes it’s a complicated situation, but some things are black and white.”
For more GOP debate coverage, visit our liveblog.
CORRECTION: This article has been corrected to more accurately reflect Fiorina’s comments on Iran’s nuclear program.
I’ve stated before, and I’ll state it again, I will not vote for Fiorina.
I find it a bit disingenuous, or perhaps, self-deceiving of HuffPo to not recognize all of the entanglements Obama has put us in. We already have boots on the ground in Iraq. We’re still in Afghanistan. We’re in Yemen, fighting. We’ve been to Libya, and, are sponsoring fighters in Syria …… albeit pathetic fighters, sent over via the Turkey border. We’re arming the Ukrainians against Russia. ….. one can argue the merits of each case …. or the lack of merits, but, how’s this better or worse than Cheney’s advocacy?
Anyway, that’s my take!