Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Who won this exchange in Saturday's GOP debate?

  1. Dec 11, 2011 #1
    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.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 11, 2011 #2

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  4. Dec 11, 2011 #3
    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.
     
  5. Dec 12, 2011 #4
    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.
     
  6. Dec 12, 2011 #5

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Newt is not a better alternative to Obama. The republican party is out of touch with reality if they nominate him.
     
  7. Dec 12, 2011 #6

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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 this 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.
     
  8. Dec 12, 2011 #7

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    My understanding is that it's fairly rare for an actual candidate to perform better in polls than their generic counterpart
     
  9. Dec 12, 2011 #8
    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.
     
  10. Dec 12, 2011 #9

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  11. Dec 13, 2011 #10
    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.
     
  12. Dec 13, 2011 #11

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  13. Dec 13, 2011 #12

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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).



    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.
     
  14. Dec 13, 2011 #13

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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 lets 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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2011
  15. Dec 13, 2011 #14
    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, and his apparent attitude a bit too open, to capture the 'Christian right' vote.
     
  16. Dec 13, 2011 #15
    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!

     
  17. Dec 13, 2011 #16
    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?
     
  18. Dec 13, 2011 #17
    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.
     
  19. Dec 13, 2011 #18
    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?:devil:
     
  20. Dec 13, 2011 #19
    Yeah, good point imo. But the thing with Gingrich and Huntsman was qualitatively different. It really was interesting, imo.
     
  21. Dec 13, 2011 #20

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Who won this exchange in Saturday's GOP debate?
  1. Who won israel vs gaza ? (Replies: 98)

  2. Who Won, Who lost? (Replies: 27)

Loading...