Who won this exchange in Saturday's GOP debate?

[ThomasT]

Around the second hour of the debate, Gingrich's Friday statement about Palestinians being "an invented people" was raised by moderator George Stephanopoulos. Yahoo! IntoNow watchers had flagged it early in the debate as a topic they wanted to hear about. Omar S. wrote, "Ask Newt about his Palestinian statement, It was clearly racist and actually not factually accurate."

But another Yahoo! commenter wondered at the foreign policy discussion the question produced, "With as broken as this country is why are they wasting so much time on Bibi and co.?" You can watch the debate exchange below.

I thought Gingrich's statements and demeanor helped him more than the Paul's and Romney's helped them.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/yahoo-readers-rate-debate-10-000-more-people-044851269.html
It's the third video as you scroll down the page in the section sub-titled "The Palestinian Question". Keep in mind that this thread isn't about the Palestinian question or whether Gingrich's statement was true. I'm just curious who people think came across better in that exchange.

It looks to me like Gingrich should be the overwhelming favorite to win the GOP nomination. Regarding the subject of this thread, Gingrich stirred things up a bit by making what some consider (for different reasons) to be a questionable statement about the Palestinian people. Then, in my view, he effectively defended it. While, also imo, Paul came across as sincere, but somewhat less knowledgeable than Gingrich, and Romney came across as a stutteringly insincere oportunist. At least that's my take on it.

 

[turbo]

I think that Newt is a leader now. What can he do in a general election? Probably less-well than Mitt, IMO. Newt has some real problems that will sink him. The GOP is ceding this election to the Democrats, IMO, and that is NOT a good thing. Neither major party can claim to be free from corporate corruption and control (even a little bit) and that is quite disturbing.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I think that Newt is a leader now. What can he do in a general election? Probably less-well than Mitt, IMO. Newt has some real problems that will sink him. The GOP is ceding this election to the Democrats, IMO, and that is NOT a good thing. Neither major party can claim to be free from corporate corruption and control (even a little bit) and that is quite disturbing.

I think this is shaping up to be a real pathetic election. Romney was really out classed by Newt and looked weak. Newt is world class in history and debate, but I really don't trust him.

 

[aquitaine]

Newt has a lot of historical baggage from the 90's (even members of the Republican Party from that era are speaking out against him) and Romney is even more of a flip flopper than Kerry in '04 was. Given that they are facing a weak, Carter-esque president, I find it amazing that the Republicans would choose to field such unpalatible candidates.

 

[Chronos]

Newt is not a better alternative to Obama. The republican party is out of touch with reality if they nominate him.

 

[BobG]

I don't know that nominating Gingrich presents a much bigger problem than nominating Romney. Here's the real problem.

Rasmussen polls:

Generic Republican vs. Obama? Voters favor the Republican 49% to 41%

Obama vs. Romney? Voters favor Romney 45% to 42%

Obama vs. Gingrich? Voters favor Obama 45% to 40%

Rasmussen is the only poll that offered a generic Republican vs Obama.

In the other polls (and http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/shows a mix of polls, some reliable and some not), Obama and Romney are in a dead heat (within 3% of each other and no consistent leader in the polls) while Obama has a slight advantage over Gingrich (at least slightly more than the margin of error with Obama leading virtually every poll).

The important point is that both of the leading Republican candidates perform worse than a generic Republican candidate. People wouldn't mind seeing Obama defeated; just not by any of the candidates actually running.

 

[Office_Shredder]

My understanding is that it's fairly rare for an actual candidate to perform better in polls than their generic counterpart

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I watched the Huntsman and Gingrich "debate" earlier tonight and was actually interested in it. There was no battle between them and they really gave each other respect and added on to what the other had just said. The discussion was at a much more interesting and impressive level than with the large group. As far as foreign policy, I really like Huntsman. No surprise as he has had some nice Ambassador roles. I suppose he has some deficiencies in domestic policy otherwise I'd see him as a front runner. He could be a nice Secretary of State next round.

 

[turbo]

If Clinton bows out, Huntsman could be a shoo-in. I don't think a Huntsman/Romney ticket (or even in reverse order) has a chance to be electable (two Mormons vying for a GOP spot), but Huntsman has a pretty darned good chance as Secretary of State in any upcoming administration. I reserve the right to be horribly wrong on this one, but Huntsman has shown some maturity and savvy.

 

[skippy1729]

I don't know that nominating Gingrich presents a much bigger problem than nominating Romney. Here's the real problem.

Rasmussen polls:

Generic Republican vs. Obama? Voters favor the Republican 49% to 41%

Obama vs. Romney? Voters favor Romney 45% to 42%

Obama vs. Gingrich? Voters favor Obama 45% to 40%

Rasmussen is the only poll that offered a generic Republican vs Obama.

In the other polls (and http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/shows a mix of polls, some reliable and some not), Obama and Romney are in a dead heat (within 3% of each other and no consistent leader in the polls) while Obama has a slight advantage over Gingrich (at least slightly more than the margin of error with Obama leading virtually every poll).

The important point is that both of the leading Republican candidates perform worse than a generic Republican candidate. People wouldn't mind seeing Obama defeated; just not by any of the candidates actually running.

These polls are meaningless. Romney has been running for president for six years. Among typical voters Newt is almost unknown, he has been out of the headlines for a generation.

 

[Astronuc]

Gingrich's economic plan is getting a second look.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gingrich-end-fed-focus-jobs-focus-only-inflation-141508938.html

Meanwile, talk-radio personality Michael Savage has offered Gingrich $1M to drop out of the race.
http://news.yahoo.com/talk-show-host-offers-newt-gingrich-1-million-014908204.html

 

[BobG]

My understanding is that it's fairly rare for an actual candidate to perform better in polls than their generic counterpart

This is true. The only candidates that ever poll better than their generic counterpart are the candidates with a chance to win, and most candidates' chances are merely a dream (or at least, merely an introduction for a more serious run next go around).

These polls are meaningless. Romney has been running for president for six years. Among typical voters Newt is almost unknown, he has been out of the headlines for a generation.

Seriously? You could say that for most candidates, but for Gingrich? I think he faded from the headlines for maybe 5 years at most. He might be a new candidate for 18-year-olds, or maybe among people so completely disinterested in politics that they seldom vote, but that's about it.

 

[mheslep]

I watched the Huntsman and Gingrich "debate" earlier tonight and was actually interested in it. There was no battle between them and they really gave each other respect and added on to what the other had just said. The discussion was at a much more interesting and impressive level than with the large group. As far as foreign policy, I really like Huntsman. No surprise as he has had some nice Ambassador roles. I suppose he has some deficiencies in domestic policy otherwise I'd see him as a front runner. He could be a nice Secretary of State next round.

They demonstrated a command of foreign policy. But this sounded more like a job interview than a debate, especially by Huntsman who sounded a bit like the SNL skit of Bush in the second Gore-Bush debate where Bush recites a litany of obscure FP facts and names. Newt went to his usual "profound" and "fundamental" rethinking on Pakistan is required. Ok, sounds right, so let's hear some. Cut off the Paki foreign aid? Yes they have 100 nukes, so? Shift to India? Gingrich and Huntsman should have agreed on an area to debate, and then engage in an actual point-counter point.

 

[ThomasT]

I watched the Huntsman and Gingrich "debate" earlier tonight and was actually interested in it. There was no battle between them and they really gave each other respect and added on to what the other had just said. The discussion was at a much more interesting and impressive level than with the large group. As far as foreign policy, I really like Huntsman. No surprise as he has had some nice Ambassador roles. I suppose he has some deficiencies in domestic policy otherwise I'd see him as a front runner. He could be a nice Secretary of State next round.

I forgot about Huntsman. Do you have a link for his recent exchange with Gingrich? Checked him out via Wiki. Thought this was an interesting comment by him:

I was raised a Mormon, Mary Kaye was raised Episcopalian, our kids have gone to Catholic school, I went to a Lutheran school growing up in Los Angeles. I have an adopted daughter from India who has a very distinct Hindu tradition, one that we would celebrate during Diwali. So you kind of bind all this together.

Of course, his experience might be a bit too diverse, and his apparent attitude a bit too open, to capture the 'Christian right' vote.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I forgot about Huntsman. Do you have a link for his recent exchange with Gingrich? Checked him out via Wiki. Thought this was an interesting comment by him:

Of course, his experience might be a bit too diverse to capture the 'Christian right' vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Q54P2djFx8U

The following quote on wikipedia won't win him votes, but PF has got to respect it!

Huntsman professes a firm belief in science, rejecting the notion that faith and evolution are mutually exclusive. In response to Rick Perry's creationist world view,[108] Huntsman warned that the Republicans should not become the "anti-science" party, and stated: "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

 

[ThomasT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Q54P2djFx8U

The following quote on wikipedia won't win him votes, but PF has got to respect it!

Huntsman professes a firm belief in science, rejecting the notion that faith and evolution are mutually exclusive. In response to Rick Perry's creationist world view,[108] Huntsman warned that the Republicans should not become the "anti-science" party, and stated: "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. But already, from that quote, I like him better than most of the other GOP candidates, except maybe Gingrich (but then Gingrich professes a reverence for Reagan, who I thought was a senile jelly-bean-eating idiot, of sorts). I wonder why he hasn't gotten more exposure. Huntsman, that is. Is there something about him that the 'powers that be' don't like? Or has he just not been campaigning that hard?

 

[ThomasT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Q54P2djFx8U

Well, I just watched that whole thing. My impression was that these two guys are the GOP heavyweights. But I must say that Gingrich impressed me as being the more knowledgeable, while Huntsman looked more like a traditional 'politician', conveying, to me at least, all the negative connotations of that label. So, based on that interchange, I would choose Gingrich. That's 3 for 3 in favor of Gingrich so far, imo.

Romney just seems like an ill-prepared wannabe to me. Gingrich, Huntsman, and Paul seem like the real deal, but, unfortunately, as much as I want to like Paul as a person, I don't think that he can compete with Gingrich and Huntsman. He's just not knowledgeable enough. And Romney comes across, to me, as both ignorant AND slimely. Which I suppose means that Romney is a shoe-in for the nomination.

 

[edward]

How many debates have they had now? The whole thing is taking on the appearance of a political reality show. When do the Kardashians show up, will they bring a clown and a pony?

 

[ThomasT]

How many debates have they had now? The whole thing is taking on the appearance of a political reality show. When do the Kardashians show up, will they bring a clown and a pony?

Yeah, good point imo. But the thing with Gingrich and Huntsman was qualitatively different. It really was interesting, imo.

 

[turbo]

Yeah, good point imo. But the thing with Gingrich and Huntsman was qualitatively different. It really was interesting, imo.

Was that a prelude to a Gingrich/Huntsman ticket? I really hope not for Huntsman's sake, because he has a solid shot as SOS if Hillary decides to bow out. The GOP field looks weak and unfocused, IMO and they will all come out of this damaged and less-likely to be electable in the general election. This is not a good thing, IMO. There is about as much contrast between the GOP and the Dems as there is between Time and Newsweek, or between Coke and Pepsi. Still, a pretend two party system is better than no opposition at all.

 

[ThomasT]

Was that a prelude to a Gingrich/Huntsman ticket? I really hope not for Huntsman's sake, because he has a solid shot as SOS if Hillary decides to bow out. The GOP field looks weak and unfocused, IMO and they will all come out of this damaged and less-likely to be electable in the general election. This is not a good thing, IMO. There is about as much contrast between the GOP and the Dems as there is between Time and Newsweek, or between Coke and Pepsi. Still, a pretend two party system is better than no opposition at all.

There's a HUGE difference between Coke and Pepsi. Ok, maybe not. Anyway, Huntsman will choose what's best for, and available to, him when the time comes. As for what I've seen so far of the GOP candidates, Gingrich is, imo, way above the rest of the field, including Huntsman. But of course I don't expect the rest of America to see it the way I do. After all, I voted for Nader (twice ).

 

[skippy1729]

...Newt... I think he faded from the headlines for maybe 5 years at most. He might be a new candidate for 18-year-olds, or maybe among people so completely disinterested in politics that they seldom vote, but that's about it.

It has been a little longer than 5 years. I always find it entertaining to watch the "man in the street" interviews that O'Reilly occasionally has on his show. The average voter is clueless, most of them don't know the current Speaker and are hard pressed to name one or two cabinet members.

Newt's baggage is not as bad as it might seem. He was acquitted on 83 of 84 ethics allegations and that one was minor; the president has Tony Resko. He has flip-flops just like Romney and the president. He blows money at Tiffany's; the first lady goes through money like water and Romney tosses around $10,000 wagers.

He is divorced and has hung around with Nancy Pelosi and Reverend Al, believes in science, has a rational humane program to deal with illegals and doesn't like "right wing social engineering". These might be big roadblocks in a Republican primary but would be dangerous to try to use against him in a general election.

He has a legislative record of balancing the budget and welfare reform. He has specific programs and executive orders and is very articulate in presenting them. He has "fire in the belly" and will devastate the president in any debate. All in all, I think he will make a much more formidable candidate than Romney. Yes, I believe that these current polls are almost meaningless.

Skippy