Please read "The Reagan Rumble" found in Sabato's Crystal Ball from the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.
Comment on your thoughts on the analysis of the second Republican Presidential Debate. Include specifics in your thoughts. (You need to show me you watched or read about the debate)
Katelyn Wolfgang: The analysis of the debat appears that Fiorina won in the end. While Trump received a large amount of air time, he did not appear focused on the camera. Fiorina on the other hand did and kept her comments clear and focused, not rising up when baited. She used her air time well, unlike Trump who made several worrying comments such as working well with Putin. While Jeb Bush also received lots of air time, he was not as strong a candidate and while trying to get Trump to say he was sorry to his wife ( a touching moment and wonderful show of love), he allowed himself to be dragged into arguments. Both he and Trump appeared to act as children trying to get the other in trouble. The article appeared correct in that others did not use their time well and I have to agree that Trump's lead could drop due to Carly Fiorina.
ReplyDeleteReading this article made me learn new things about the 2nd Republican debate. For instance, I learned that this debate was one for the record books because it was the only debate that featured more than ten debaters. In regards to the debate, the authors were right in saying that Jeb Bush did not give a strong performance because he focused more on bickering with Donald Trump; however, the authors were also correct in saying that Bush improved his performance when he counter-attacked Trump's comments on the Hispanic community and also on the decisions that his brother, George Bush made.
ReplyDeleteThis debate was poorly structured. The article stated how the debate was focused on only a few of the debaters (Trump, Christie, Bush), leaving the rest with little time to make an impression; however, the beautiful, Fiorina changed that and made a strong statement to America that she is a powerful candidate.
-Gerald Bonsu
Jessica Ellison: The final analysis of the debate shows Carly Fiorina as the clear winner. Despite the fact that she did not receive the most airtime, Fiorina used her time wisely to explain her policies and beliefs to the viewers. Even though Trump and Jeb Bush had a great deal of airtime, they used it to get in to petty arguments, and did not affectively explain their policies. Due to her performance, the article may be correct in saying that Trump's lead in the polls may decrease due to Carly Fiorina.
ReplyDeleteSofia Ackerman: There were clear winners and losers from this debate, and some candidates falling in between those two distinctions. Winners included Carly Fiorina and perhaps Ted Cruz, and the clear loser seems to be Walker. Although this article states that Ben Carson was also a 'winner' I would have to disagree. I personally was not impressed with his soft spoken answers and his disengaged attitude throughout the debate. JEB Bush certainly would have been the winner had the debate only included the last hour where he finally picked up energy and began to defend himself again Trump's constant assaults. Although Trump was not designated as a clear 'winner' in this debate, I don't think Fiorina or Cruz will make a significant change in Trump's lead in the polls.
ReplyDeleteThe second Republican Presidential Debate may best be remembered as the event that put Carly Fiorina on the Republican radar. She was a clear winner of this debate and will likely poll much higher in the coming weeks than she did prior to the debate. While receiving significantly more air time than most other candidates, Trump did not seem to make the most of his opportunities, I would not consider it a loss, but he will certainly not be winning many new supporters as a result of his performance. In a similar situation, but not with as much airtime was Carson. While he seemed well spoken and methodical nothing about his performance seemed to live up to his position in the polls, being Trump's main competitor. Also of note was the sheer size of the candidate pool at this debate, 11 people! At times it did feel like too many people had too many different opinions about similar topics, and because of this topics did not seem completely discussed. Fiorina was the only candidate I feel actually went into specifics about her opinions often enough to merit mention for it. Having watched only the last half of the debate I do also think Bush did well, he seemed like a winner when compared to Trump or Carson but I do not think his performance will garner enough attention to attract more support. -Kohl Kuntze
ReplyDeleteI think it is very obvious that Carly Fiorina won this debate due to a combination of her and others words. Donald Trump didn't change his strategy of making childish jokes and this is partly explains why Jeb Bush didn't perform well either. Instead of focusing on making well thought out statements, he responded to Donald Trump with equally childish statements. The reason why Carly Fiorina won the debate is mainly because of her remark to Trump concerning women. This must have gotten her a great amount of support from women voters. Ben Carson didn't speak much in the first half of the debate, but I was impressed with the statement he made about race and unity. Lastly, its obvious that there hasn't been a debate with this many people for a reason. I think it would be wise to see this was unsuccessful, and I think we should stick to more important questions because politics should be taken more seriously. They could have talked about much more important things like single parents, college affordability or even the middle class. -Justin Ceresa
ReplyDelete"The Reagan Rumble" truly highlighted the second Republican Presidential Debate in various ways. First, Carly Fiorina was mentioned as a new face on the stage for she left the "kid's table." She clearly demonstrated her right on the stage as a candidate by speaking into the cameras to the American people and detailing her policies on issues such as planned parenthood. Second, the article noted that the format of the debate was poorly constructed. I believe the moderators could have been more firm with the candidates rather than having to repeat, "thank you" numerous times. The debate would have been more sound if it were split evenly. In this case, it would have been better if half of the group at the top of the polls was separated from the half at the bottom of the polls. The debate was focused on Donald Trump in numerous ways. In the beginning, candidates such as Carly Fiorina did not directly answer "yes" or "no" if they would be comfortable with Trump having access to nuclear weapons. They simply stated that the decision would be made by the voters, which I agree with, but they should have stated their opinions too (although their opinions were hinted by their indirect answers). Trump was also called out for his comments on Columba Bush's nationality and Fiorina's face/persona. All in all, the debate portrayed candidates who skipped around answers to topics often. I believe Carly Fiorina will catch up to Trump in the polls unless he does something significant to increase his following.
ReplyDeleteThe Second Republican Presidential Debate
ReplyDeleteThis article clearly supports “articulate and steely” Carly Fiorina. Even though she didn’t get much airtime during the debate, I certainly agree that she was one of the strongest speakers. Unlike the other candidates, she clearly stated to America what her plans were. I feel like she used this debate as a form of self-publicity, which was effective and smart of her versus Donald Trump and Jeb Bush. Even though Trump and Jeb Bush had majority of airtime, they used it as a way to show “who’s better” and got into petty sideline arguments. The article stated that Trump's lead in the polls may decrease due to Carly Fiorina – I think after this debate, Trump followers might change their minds and Fiorina will hopefully poll higher in following weeks. Trump certainly won’t get any new supporters after that trainwreck.
The size of the debate was also a bit overwhelming, 11 candidates… so of course we didn’t hear from everyone. Honestly, I still don’t know who the other candidates are aside from Trump, Fiorina and Jeb Bush.
Jasmine Prophet
Jasmine -
DeleteFound your post. Make sure next time to post on the Academic board.
Thanks
Jasmine -
DeleteFound your post. Make sure next time to post on the Academic board.
Thanks
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCarly Fiorina seemed to be the clear winner of the debate. She gave strong, knowledgeable arguments and clearly presented her ideas, remaining focused on important policies and topics. Ben Carson seemed to remain mostly quiet, not making a significant impression on viewers. Donald Trump and Jeb Bush had a lot more airtime, but spent a lot of time arguing, never giving strong answers concerning policies and ideas, which did not allow for a good overall performance. After this debate, I think Carly Fiorina will certainly gain more supporters and become a more threatening candidate in the presidential race, due to her standout performance in this debate. Like the article said, I think it is possible for Trump's poll numbers to drop, possibly due to this debate; however, I think it will still take some time for other candidates, like Carly Fiorina, to catch up to Trump.
ReplyDeleteWhile there were many problems with the set up of the debate, candidates like Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz made the most out of it. They both were able to relate their stance on issues such as foreign policy despite Trumps dominance of airtime. Carson had little air time but did well with the time he had and stayed true to his persona by not taking part in bantering with Trump which I think will allow him to stay solidly in second in the polls and keep his previous followers. While Trump has kept his lead despite the barrage of questions and attacks against him during the debate, his lead continues to go down as the number of competitive opponents rise with Fiorina, Rubio, and Cruz gaining new supporters after the debate.
ReplyDeleteDuring this second presidential debate, I believe the set up cost the debaters. Ten people on one stage is on the heavy side and it was seen when Trump and Bush stole the show and used their extensive airtime for nonsense arguments. While many think that because Fiorina could get her foot in between Trump and Bush to share her views for a minute or two she may replace Trump in the rankings, I highly disagree. Trump has gained viewers through senseless arguments and the avoidance of questions directly asked to him at such a fast pace that I feel his momentum will take a lot more than Fioriana's views to slow down. I do not feel there was a winner to this debate, either. Had the ten candidates focused around a central idea instead of insulting one another's wives, a winner may have been determined. I feel like this "Rumble" was another Trump show down, and a messy one.
ReplyDeleteEmily Roché
Daisy Garner- After reading the analysis of the second Republican Presidential debate, I was able to become more informed about the debate from Larry J. Sabato. A big issue with the debate that Sabato supports is the fact that the debate became off-topic many times. A lot of the debate was focused on insulting or getting Trump riled up. However, Trump was surprisingly quiet. The fact that a part of the debate was personal (such as Paul and Trump insulting each other's looks) and that non-valid points were made (such as vaccines cause autism supported by Trump, Carson, and Paul) can be distracting for viewers from the keen issues that were addressed. Another issue, was the format of the debate was "inadequate". There were considerably too many people on stage, the debate lasted for an extremely long time (over three hours), and the topics skipped around many times. Sabato believes that this was not the moderators fault, but the format. He states: "Eleven contenders create a chaotic, sputtering mob.". However, he does believe that Cruz and Fiorina were the strongest candidates at the debate. Cruz focused his points to American Conservatives whom were watching at home. Being a debate champion benefited him during the debate by enabling him to make clear and firm answers. One the other hand, Fiorina was speaking more to the television audience. Fiorina seemed to show a lot of intelligence and detail on particular issues. If Trump's lead in the national poll falls, Sabato states Carson or Fiorina could take his place in some surveys.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, this was not the most successful debate. It was very focused on Trump, and less on the other candidates. There were too many personal comments made about the other candidates (both to other Republicans and Democrats). I do not understand why comments about candidates looks were being made when we should address issues such as our rising deficit.
Sabato's analysis of the debate supports Fiorina as the strongest performer, which is easy to understand and agree with. Despite the unfair airtime advantage given to Trump and Bush, both of whom spent the majority of it agruing with each other, Fiorina was able to use her time wisely, get her positions across and stay away from the personal arguments. Trump had his same antics of not taking everything seriously and calling out others, but Jeb Bush was easily distracted by it, more so this time around then before. Neither Bush nor Trump stated their positions on many topics due to the constate back-and-forth, and I think that could hurt their poll numbers, especially with performances that Fiorina, Carson, and Cruz had.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the debate format with 11 people, it is quite simply too much. The amount of airtime given to each candidate was unequal and unfair, and most of the time it was hard to remember that there were other guys standing on the stage.
Without a doubt, the Second Republican Debate of 2015 was confusing and unfocused. Arguments fluctuated from formal issues like the legalization of marijuana and the Iran nuclear deal to whom should be on the ten dollar bill and near constant ad hominem directed at Donald Trump. Those watching the debate for legitimate policy were likely disappointed, but in terms of entertainment, the Second Republican Debate surely delivered. Confessions were made (Jeb Bush and his high times) and desires were shown (Donald Trump and his Great Wall). But, what the debate did reveal was the previously unknown strength of hopeful Carly Fiorina, whose shorter comparative airtime was assuaged by her articulate and on-topic remarks. She proved herself worthy of her position at the podium with her performance, and will likely be a mainstay for future debates. Senator Ted Cruz also had a good night, but his performance paled in comparison due to the unexpected depth of Fiorina's responses over a wide variety of topics. From the debate, still only three, potentially four candidates stood out among the rest - Fiorina, Trump, Bush, and possibly Cruz. Fiorina and Cruz were notable in their performances, while Trump and Bush were known more for their banter than actual substance. The three 'outsider candidates,' Carson, Fiorina, and Trump, still hold significant public interest, but it seems like of the three Fiorina will garner more interest as Trump's appeal goes down while Carson's appeal will likely remain relatively unchanged. Overall, the debate can be summarized as a potential win for Fiorina from a disorganized, messy, and somewhat unprofessional debate.
ReplyDelete-- Teddy Chu
Definitely after watching the clips and reading this article it was clear this debate was unorganized and not about the serious topics that should be addressed. What bothers me more than the blatant attacks on Donald Trump is that most of these candidates said they wouldn't trust him if he won the nomination. That alone should show those people aren't good candidates. Other than the main front runners for the republicans most were unable to talk except the dark horse Fiorina who definitely impressed and has now put herself on the map. It was also nice seeing Jeb Bush break out of his shell a bit however, I don't think he really has a chance with the past experiences with the Bush dynasty. 3 hours was too long, inability to talk about real issues, and the amount of people on that stage was concerning. With his strong number even after it was assumed he lost make me happy that Trump is still getting the numbers he deserves.
ReplyDelete-Jake Haines
After watching clips and reading the article on the second republican debate, I think it was too much. There were way too many people on the stage at once. The split of the second-tier debaters (the lowest polling candidates) and the prime time debaters (highest polling candidates) made it very confusing, and it also wasn't evenly split. With there being 11 people on one stage there were too many voices trying to be heard. A majority of the debate was based on Trump, even though the questions weren't all directed at him, they were about him. Giving the impression that he won the overall debate. However, I think that Fiorina won the debate. Her answers were careful and thought out with a little bit of wit in them, which appealed me as an observer.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem of the debate was the number of candidates. It seemed like many of the lesser known candidates didn't even fit in; that is, the debate was dominated by Trump and Fiorina, while candidates like Paul and Huckabee seemed to disappear from the stage. It's hard to judge who won the debate from my biased viewpoint. I would say Trump "won", just due to the fact that he seemed to dominate over all the other candidates, and often just blatantly talked over them. The polls clearly show, however, that Fiorina won. Rand Paul stood out to me, but that was only because he said the only thing I agreed with in the debate, that the War on Drugs is ineffective. In conservative voters' minds, I would guess that Fiorina and possibly Cruz stood out. Carson fell short, as nothing he said made any sort of impact, at least compared to Trump and Fiorina. This correlates with the rise of Fiorina and fall of Carson.
ReplyDeleteThe Reagan Rumble clearly summarized how the second Republican Debate went. After watching parts of the debate and reading this article, it was obvious that this debate could have gone much better. It was unorganized and the debaters could have been much cordial with each other. The topics could have been much more focused but they went off topic many times such as when they talked about the legalization of marijuana. Carly Fiorina, on the other hand, did great in the debate. As the Reagan Rumble said she was "articulate and steely". She had great responses to the questions and had was very tactful. She stayed on topic for the questions of many different topics. She was was generally speaking to the television audience which many enjoyed. Ben Carson on the other hand did not stand out that much. He barely spoke up and was not as confident as the other candidates. Trumps numbers have not changed much from the before the debate, I feel that Fiorina continues do as well as she did in the debate, then she could easily top him. Many people feel that we do not need another Bush as a president. I feel that its unfair to him to make these quick judgements about him. On the other he hasnt done anything to stand out as a candidate or give any reasons why hes better than the others. Overall, I believe Fiorina did great in the debate and she clearly won.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCarly Fiorina was the clear winner of the second GOP Debate. Even with little airtime, which was focused a lot on both Trump and Bush's bickering back-and-forth, Fiorina was able to make clear statements on her stance on different issues. This debate could possibly raise Fiorina's poll numbers. Ben Carson, on the other hand, was "soft-spoken", there wasn't much that made him stand out. Bush didn't take advantage of the first half hour of the debate, he didn't come "alive" till towards the end of the debate. The problem with this debate is that there were too many people. The candidates skipped around on topics and as a result no one topic was fully discussed. The amount of airtime each candidate got was unequal, which made it easy to forget that there were other candidates apart from Trump and Bush.
ReplyDeleteWhen we left class (the day we talked about the debate) I believed that Fiorina had won the debate, but reading the analysis of the debate left me with some other views. For one, had the debate been smaller, perhaps only 6 or 7 of the eleven, real points may have been discussed in detail. From what we watched in class, the debate was a series of comments meant to disarm their opponents, not create any real talk, which is what the article reiterated. Who knows how some of the candidates may have responded if given a more reasonable chance. It's funny, many think being in a debate with Trump will help you, but maybe it might be better to get away from that floppy-haired mess and talk about some things with clear, precise responses that get the country on board with the agenda you wish to seek out. Second, the author of the article mentioned how Cruz tried to connect with the audience, something I did not notice while watching Trump and the other candidates make fools of themselves. Too bad Cruz may not get much attention because of the fool party. But like above, if one imagines what could have been, maybe Cruz could have been more noticeable without Trump. Finally, if anything, Fiorina only really won because she was competing against Trump who, in my opinion, has lacked the precision and etiquette that a political leader needs in his/her responses. He spent many parts of the debates declaring juvenile comments such as "wrong" when Jeb Bush was speaking. Then Bush has had some problems getting support after his father's controversial (for lack of a better term) presidency, so nothing new to report on the front of Bush other than "well, there he is." So that leaves Fiorina, the next glowing, promising candidate to save us from the Trump Dump.
ReplyDelete-Laura Johnson
Despite the fact that a debate took place a few nights ago, not much was achieved in the way of progress. Eleven candidates took the stage, with three hours to kill, and despite the fact that there was an overwhelming number of candidates, and an overwhelming amount of time, it still seemed to be wasted. Useless questions that yielded meaningless answers along with unfair screen time for candidate Donald Trump led this to be a rather long and tedious process. Despite the fact that Carly Fiorina was overlooked before the debate, and her lack of screen time during it, she still managed to grab onto the attention of listeners and engage them in a thoughtful way that was not done so by essentially any other candidate. In short, an unfair debate, but despite being unfair and sloppy, Fiorina was so organized that she managed to take it home.
ReplyDelete-Andrew Bonieskie
I think based on the the comments made in the article and just listening to how rushed each candidate sounded during the debate that each party should simply limit the amount of candidates allowed to run for the nomination in their party. This doesn't infringe on anybody's rights because a potential candidate can simply choose to run in a different part or as an independent if they are left out of the candidate quota. This candidate quota would also make it easier for voters to select which candidate best supports their individual interest. The party also benefits because with less candidate the selection process passes by much more quickly. This allows them to begin attacking the other party sooner,and focus on winning voters outside their own reign. As for the debate, Chris Christie's interjection and lashing out at Trump and Fiorina was the most powerful moment, but it seemed desperate like he was trying to say "Hey look at me, I'm still here." I think this moment shows that he knows he's practically out of the race and it was an attempt to rattle the front runners to try and gain some points on them.
ReplyDeleteThe debate was truly won by Fiorina. The other candidates either didn't receive enough camera time for it to be fair, or where simply dodging the questions present to them. Donald Trump, despite his claims the debate was fair, received the most screen time, and much of what he said was the typical Trump response that everyone has come to expect. Trump and Bush spent much of their camera time arguing with each other, Trump bullying Bush out of the spotlight. In the three hour time provided, Fiorina was the only candidate who's responses didn't just dodge the questions, she was organized, and straight forward with her responses. Fiorina really hit the nail on the head. She really made use of all the screen time she received and truly demonstrated what the debate should of been more like. Unlike her opponents who simply bashed each other, or made useless comments that didn't necessarily pertain to the question at hand. Trump was the focus of the debate overall, but that's because he's a bully, and his screen time was spent doing what he does best, bullying. Fiornia actually sounded like someone who wanted to be president, and someone genuinely attempting to attract more people to her side.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, despite that much of the debate was useless blabber, and silly questions that shouldn't have been asked, Fiornia really took home the money on this one. Trump better watch out, because Fiornia is a major threat to him after this debate.
~ Eyad Hasan
Fiorina clearly won the debate, despite the massive amount of screen time given to Trump. Most of the debate was spent with candidates arbitrarily arguing with each other. As a backlash, Fiorina took the opportunity to give concise responses and sophisticated proposals, allowing her to steal the show from the other childish candidates. Now a threat to Trump, the pseudo haired lunatic has already begun to attack her, indicating that she is now a major threat to not only him, but all the other candidates as well.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to the poorly formed arguments of my peers, I fundamentally believe that a 10-way quite simply cannot be won by a single individual; if it could, Rubio won without a doubt. Rather risibly, these 10 individuals largely adhere to more or less the same ideologies and purport largely the same policies, all with different degrees of radicalism.
ReplyDeleteIt is, however, worth noting, the range of issues brought up during the debate: Planned Parenthood, interventionism in the Middle East, mandatory vaccinations, and Kim Davis. These are not particularly pertinent issues to general election voters, and the conversation was clearly tailored to GOP’s more conservative elite. The normally incoherent Chris Christie made some remarkably poignant, and not entirely fatuous remarks during the course of the debate; in response to Trump and Fiorina’s discussions of one another’s (failed) business careers a righteously indignant Christie remarked: “While I'm as entertained as anyone by this personal back and forth about the history of Donald and Carly's career, for the 55-year-old construction worker who doesn't have a job, who doesn't have money to fund his child's education, I gotta tell you the truth. They could care less about your careers. They care about theirs.”
The fact of the matter is that these 10-way presidential “debates” do little to engage in civil, public discourse on the issues that matter most to Americans: affordable education, creating high-paying high productivity jobs, protecting the most vulnerable in our society, and ensuring the equitability of our political and economic systems. These are problems that government must address; problems that I believe conservatives are uniquely positioned to solve far more effectively and sustainable than their liberal counterparts. But if we allow the extreme-right wing of the GOP to dominate the primaries, the party risks losing moderate Republicans in the Northeast and conservative Democrats in the South and Midwest to the Democrats and the Clinton Crime Family.
Presidential debates in our country need focus, not hot blonds like Megyn Kelly or devilishly handsome square-jawed red-blooded jingoes like Bret Baier. They must be about issues, not soundbites; we can’t have 10 candidates on stage engaging in meaningful discussion through 30 second formulations of weak unsubstantiated arguments. This how outsiders like Carson, Florina, and Trump are dominating the primary. Upon being asked tough questions, and asked for specific policies candidates such as these expose their immense inexperience, their gross incompetence, utter lack of knowledge of global affairs, and inability to reason, analyze, and think critically in a moments notice. Establishment candidates do far better upon intense scrutiny; this is why Rubio provided such brilliant, nuanced, and thoughtful responses when he was asked to comment. And traditionally, this is how establishment candidates have won; candidates like Trump, Florin, and Carson would have crumbled before the immense knowledge, intelligence, and charisma of establishment candidates of the past fifty years, men like Kennedy and Reagan, Clinton and Eisenhower
--Adriel Sumathipala
"In contrast to the poorly formed arguments of my peers,"?
DeleteYour points are well taken, but be careful about your criticisms of your peers.
"In contrast to the poorly formed arguments of my peers,"?
DeleteYour points are well taken, but be careful about your criticisms of your peers.
My very late and time lapsed opinion on this argument is overall a poor grade. Lets begin with the poor mediation done by our boy Jake Tapper, being slammed left and right by eager and bickering politicians dominating his position as mediator. although, he did give way to some interesting topics, for instance the wall in Mexico which Donald Trump so furiously defends, while Jeb sits in his corner and whines for Donald to stop like a 5 year old boy. Carsen was silent and pretty vague concerning policy and decision making. And the tea party went rampant on the recent Iran negotiations, slamming every Democratic president since 1992. Fiorina, not afraid to jab directly at trump, was the real front-runner in this debate. She came prepared to defend herself against Trumps hits and brought forth intriguing policy proposals such as heightening or defense in Eastern block Europe, restoring our nuclear defense program, and even arming the Kurds in Iran. Most interestingly, in my opinion, she mentioned the realities and demons associated with Vladimir Putin, and painted a vivid picture in my mind of this renegade of a "President." However, I do think there needs to be more focus on serious issues like our environment, our debt, and our foreign relations with the middle east.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, it is obvious that most people support Carly Fiorina as the winner of the debate. Despite the larger number of candidates and the constant voice of trump, she still stood out with her intelligent answers and correct use of camera time. Of all the candidates, Cruz was the only debater, other than Fiorina, who remained on topic and remembered the importance of reaching the viewers at home. In such an unorganized debate, Carson's soft spoken tactics, and Bush's usual point of "I am my own man," were no match to the 11 candidates. Although Bush's final end of the debate got him some recognition, it wasn't enough to call him a "winner". Donald Trump's typical attack on others may have gotten him camera time, it was nothing that we haven't seen before from him and we still haven't gotten what we need to call him a winner of any debate. The lack of time spent on policy might have been due to the format of the debate as well as the numbers, the candidates who manged to get their views across deserve a spot on the top of this debate. Walker's submission to the mess put him at the bottom. i think we have learned that a debate this large doesn't lead to much distinction between candidates and is not efficient in staying on topic or leave room for candidates worthy of speaking rather than letting Trump bash others.
ReplyDelete-Madison Johnston
From this debate, the clear winner in my opinion was Carly Fiorina. She used her time wisely to explain her political stance and ideas, something that nearly all of the other candidates failed to do and have failed to do up to the present. Donald Trump continued with his usual banter of bashing other candidates and making borderline offensive remarks towards the other candidates. Carson and Bush all managed to get out a little bit of relevant information, but the real winner of the night was Fiorina. Hands down.
ReplyDelete