2016 Presidential

[Crafty_Dog]

For a bit of fun, predictions on the first five candidates to drop out?

[ccp]

Walker was on Levin's radio show last week.  Levin asked him questions and he started rambling in a rather disorganized fashion and frankly and not exaggeratingly after a few minutes of listening to him I literally fell asleep.

Thank God the car was parked and I wasn't driving down the highway.  I would have died or hurt someone else.

He has zero charisma, zero oratory skills, and without a doubt zero chance of going anywhere.

He would make a great hypnotist.

[DougMacG]

For a bit of fun, predictions on the first five candidates to drop out?

Sounds like good way to continue showing my prediction deficiencies...   Like my prediction that Hillary won't run, it requires them to know they have no chance, not just for me to know.

Looking at the bottom of the draw it ought to be:
Lindsey Graham, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Gilmore and Pataki if anyone is counting them.  Also Jindal and Christie.  I would like to see Jindal stay in but it is tough to do without support.  Of course we may lose key people like Lincoln Chaffee too, lol.  Jim Webb isn't making an impact but may want a seat at the debate.

I think people like Scott Walker (and Tim Pawlenty last time) would make fine Presidents.  CCP and others have been too hard on him but are right, not enough sizzle to sell the steak.  Also, not enough excitement to cover up their errors and move forward.  Walker will get out as soon as he knows he won't win Iowa, but that might be after the results are in.

I would like to see Huckabee and Rand Paul out but it's probably not going to happen.  Rand in particular is way below expectations and has a Senate campaign to run.  Maybe Huck will fizzle when people start focusing on electability.

First big one out could be Jeb Bush.  He may have already found out he doesn't like doing this.  With Walker, that would make 2 of the original top three out.  And Rubio has a trend line down and is starting to make unforced errors.  All three out?

Of the August outsiders, Trump, Carson and Fiorina, you would think at least one may fall hard and fall soon.  My hope is that it's Trump but right now that's hard to see.  He looks stuck in the polls now but doesn't need to gain much ground as frontrunner to keep making an impact.  And he's having a great time doing it.

More importantly, who that is running in place and under-performing now that will step up their game into the big time?  More than one of them, I hope.

Also, who else will still get in?  Another independent?

Yes I realize I dodged your question.  )

[ppulatie]

Here is why no one will want to be the first to drop out.


Perry's smart glasses prevents him from dropping out fast. The glasses lead him to think that he still has a chance.

Graham is an attorney and politician. He is too arrogant to drop out fast.

Walker is still reading his press releases. He believes he can win yet.

Rubio can't drop out. His next job position depends upon him staying in the race, splitting anti Bush votes and allowing Bush to win so that he can get a cabinet post.

Bush is the "GOPe" choice. He can't drop out. He is the third coming of Bush.

Christie is too arrogant to drop out.

Rand is too much like his dad. He will stay in because he has nothing to lose but everything to gain with his Senate campaign.

Huckabee needs G-d to tell him to stop. Right now, he is receiving word from G-d to continue.

Santorum won't because the media is keeping him afloat.

Carly has the media attention, so she will remain for some time, even with her liberal beliefs like man made global warming and amnesty/immigration.

I expect  that Pataki and Gilmore will be the first two to go.

Go Trump!!!!

[ccp]

"Go Trump"

I have to admit here I wish he would stop with the name calling.   I don't disagree with him in point but his name calling of Huma and Weiner is distracting from himself in my opinion.

If only he had Carson's temperament and Carson has his oratory skills;  that would = one big winner.

[ppulatie]

It is red meat for his supporters.  "Advertisers puff."

[Crafty_Dog]

FWIW I can imagine the current flame war between Trump and Jeb damaging both and leaving people fed up , , , and very receptive to Carson, from whom I hope for a strong performance at the next debate.

I could be wrong, but FWIW concern may seem soft, but IMHO he has a will of steel.

[ppulatie]

The Trump supporters can live with a flame war.....in fact they are loving it right now. And all too many of them, myself included, will sit out if Jeb is the nominee.

There are rumors that the GOPe is pushing Carson now as a foil to Trump. Carson splits the vote to allow Jeb to be nominee.

BTW, in Iowa, the airwaves are filled right now with Carson ads running continuously. This is why he is doing so well at the moment. But this is not sustainable at his pace of fund raising.

[Crafty_Dog]

Sorry, but IMHO Jeb is done for more than one reason.

[ppulatie]

Hopefully he is done. But the GOPe is still pushing him over all others. Conservative Treehouse has a full accounting of the Bush strategy.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/08/09/gope-2016-road-map-to-victory-tree-house-challenge/

[Crafty_Dog]

Interesting read.

[Crafty_Dog]

The No-Growth Campaign
Clinton and Trump are offering nothing to improve the economy.


Stocks took another tumble on Tuesday on a weak manufacturing report out of China, and investor shivers about Japan, the oil patch and the U.S. are increasing. The shaky markets and underlying economy seem relevant to the presidential debate—yet the front-runners of both parties have next to no pro-growth ideas to contribute.

Hillary Clinton favors higher taxation, heavier regulation, more political shackling of business, and centralizing more economic control inside the White House. So does Donald Trump—at least as far as we can tell.

Mrs. Clinton is promising Obamanomics Plus: continue the agenda of the last eight years, with bonus corrections toward the left as necessary. She’s proposed to nearly double the top tax rate on some capital gains to 43.4% from 23.8%, for example, up from 15% as recently as 2012.

On energy, one of the few U.S. growth areas of the Obama era, she is even further to the left. The green elites used to tolerate support for the U.S. oil and natural gas boom if gas could be levered as a transition fuel toward a post-carbon future. Now they favor massive subsidies for wind and solar today and no fossil-fuel drilling, and Mrs. Clinton is moving their way.

About the only growth component of Mrs. Clinton’s agenda is immigration, and there she beats Mr. Trump in a romp. A larger workforce adds to GDP, and economists of all political persuasions agree that increasing human capital drives prosperity and offsets an otherwise aging population.

Mr. Trump’s candidacy is more attitude than substance, and his quicksilver positions change day to day, even minute to minute in the same interview. But he has been consistent about rounding up illegal immigrants and deporting them to their home countries—if they have one, in the case of kids born on U.S. soil. He supports “a pause” in legal immigration too.

The real-estate tycoon is also running as the most antitrade candidate since Herbert Hoover. He has assailed the trade agreement with Canada and Mexico and the pending Pacific Rim pact as “disasters” that are “killing us.” Mr. Trump promises to reopen these agreements and do better, though without saying how, apart from his alpha-male negotiating skills. He’s proposing tariffs as high as 30% on imports, and he has already promised to punish Ford and Nabisco for expanding production south of the border.

On taxes, Mr. Trump promises to release a “comprehensive” reform plan soon. So far, though, his only specifics have been some kind of tax relief for the middle class coupled with class warfare. He said in a recent interview that “I would take carried interest out, and I would let people making hundreds of millions of dollars a year pay some tax, because right now they are paying very little tax and I think it’s outrageous.”

Carried interest is the accounting term for a share of profits from investments in general partnerships—private equity, hedge funds, (ahem) real-estate outfits. Congress taxes this at-risk capital at a lower rate than ordinary wages because it only pays out if a fund invests wisely, but this treatment should be reconsidered as part a larger tax reform.

Mr. Trump doesn’t engage these facts, much less anything else that might help the real economy. Carried interest is a sideshow. Much like Mrs. Clinton and President Obama, he’s trying to stoke resentment of the rich, or the merely affluent, or foreigners, people dumber than he is, whoever.
***

This makes it all the passing stranger that some conservatives are embracing Mr. Trump as a truth-teller speaking to the anxieties of middle-American voters. On this view, he’s a hero for challenging the GOP policy consensus of low marginal tax rates, free trade, less regulation and entitlement reform.

Thus instead of modernizing the tax code for the 21st century, offer tax relief that does nothing to reduce complexity and distortion or to improve the incentives to work and invest. Rather than fixing a broken immigration system to attract the hard-working and ambitious, distract low-wage American workers by scapegoating illegal workers. Instead of making the U.S. economy more competitive, attack foreigners and adopt a divisive platform and rhetorical style designed to polarize a justifiably frustrated electorate.

But following Mr. Trump down these cul de sacs—a Canadian border wall?—is a formula to lose and deserve to. After seven years of slow growth and stagnant incomes, the GOP is well positioned to make the case against liberal economic policies while stumping for an optimistic agenda that offers disaffected voters the opportunities that faster growth and tight labor markets create.

But in the anti-reality of the current campaign, the GOP field is attacking each other and giving Hillary a pass. The candidates who break out will invoke something more inspiring than the no-growth future that the front-runners are offering.

[objectivist1]

The WSJ has made it clear that it despises Trump, for various reasons, I suspect most importantly because he is beholden to no one and thus the investor class fears him.  There is an absolutely vicious piece in the WSJ today that Rush Limbaugh quoted from on his radio program this afternoon.  This article makes a lot of assumptions about Trump's policies before they have even been articulated - such as his tax plan.  We simply don't know what it entails yet.  Then there is this from Dick Morris, which I happen to agree with:

www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-negatives-are-irreparable-trumps-are-not-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

[G M]

Trump has one job. Illegal aliens.

I care less about anything else.

[ppulatie]

Agreed....and to build a Wall.

Interesting, building the Wall would even be easier than building the Highway System, or in this case, repairing the Highway System.

[Crafty_Dog]

BTW apparently in various one on one polls, Trump beat all over Rep candidates by sizable margins , , , except for Ben Carson, who beat Donald by 19 points.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/05/new-election-poll-measures-trump-against-hillary-head-to-head-heres-how-it-turned-out/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%20HORIZON%209-6-15%20Build-SUN&utm_term=Firewire

[Crafty_Dog]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) has bounded ahead of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton among Democrats in New Hampshire and has narrowed the gap in Iowa, according to a new NBC News/Marist poll.

The poll also shows businessman Donald Trump and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson in strong positions in both states, with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker fading.


In the New Hampshire poll, Mr. Sanders draws the support of 41% of Democratic voters, with Mrs. Clinton at 32%. Vice President Joe Biden, who has said he is considering a run but hasn’t entered the race, gets 16%. In the July NBC/Marist poll, Mrs. Clinton led Mr. Sanders 42% to 32%, with Biden at 12%.

When Mr. Biden isn’t included in the choices, Mr. Sanders leads Mrs. Clinton 49% to 38% in the new poll, a reversal from July, when Mrs. Clinton led 47% to 34%.

In Iowa, Mrs. Clinton now has an 11-point lead over Mr. Sanders, whether or not Mr. Biden is included, according to the poll. Her lead was more than twice that in the July poll.

While Mr. Sanders has been drawing big crowds to his liberal message at rallies, Mrs. Clinton has been on the defensive for months, hurt by continuing questions about the private email system she used while at the State Department. Senior aides have reached out to reassure supporters amid her slide in recent polls.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who has been pressing the Democratic party to expand the number of debates, remains mired in the low single digits in both Iowa and New Hampshire. The Democratic National Committee has scheduled six debates, four of which come before the first contests — the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1 and New Hampshire primary on Feb. 9.

On the Republican side, Mr. Trump leads in Iowa at 29%, up from 17% in July. Mr. Carson is next, at 22%, with Jeb Bush in third at 6%. Mr. Walker has faded to 5%, down from 19% in July. In New Hampshire, Mr. Trump has 29%, with Ohio Gov. John Kasich in second with 12% and Mr. Carson at 11%.

The Iowa poll was conducted Aug. 26 to Sept. 2 of 998 registered voters overall. Of those, 390 were potential GOP caucus-goers, with a margin of error of +/- five percentage points, and 345 were potential Democratic caucus-goers, with a margin of error of +/- 5.3 points. The New Hampshire poll was conducted Aug. 26 to Sept. 2 of 966 registered voters. Of those,  413 were potential GOP primary voters, with a margin of error of +/- 4.8 points, and 356 were potential Democratic primary voters, representing a margin of error of +/- 5.2 points.


 

______________________________________________________

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/10/hillary-clinton-speaks-to-mostly-empty-hall-in-columbus-ohio/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

[ppulatie]

First one gone!!!!!

Rick Perry drops out.  The smart glasses failed him!!!

[Crafty_Dog]

Well, arguably Gilmore is the first, though he did not self-select, he was pushed by CNN not including him in the upcoming debate.

.

[DougMacG]

For a bit of fun, predictions on the first five candidates to drop out?

Since this post, Rich Perry is out and Scott Walker is scaling back to just Iowa and South Carolina.  The drive from Madison to Dubuque costs about $10 so there is no urgency for walker to drop out except to save face.

What happens to this race if Jeb drops out?  One thing I noticed on the Colbert clip is that he doesn't seem to be enjoying this process.  He has a good message on economics but shows no fire in the belly and has steadfastly refused to address his weaknesses and blind spots.  The Jeb candidacy IS the rationale for the Trump phenomenon.  He has  refused to acknowledge any aspect of the immigration problem that Trump attacked head on.  Jeb came out with a great tax plan this past week, yet his support of it conveyed none of the excitement of the 4 good economists who wrote it.  Jeb will either up his game, which he doesn't seem capable of, or drop out well before the Florida primary where he is not going to let his political career end by taking 3rd place or worse at home.

Of the major state, 2 term Governors, that leaves Kasich, also not exactly Mr. Excitement.

All of those out of the top ten need to either start gaining traction or should drop.  OTOH, folks like Huckabee, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham love to be seen and heard for as long as they can and the noise in the room keeps others from being heard.
---------------------------------------------

Joe Biden.  When you face a loss like he just did, you sit and grieve and then you decide what you want to do with the rest of your life.  Biden will announce in 2 months, in time to be on the Des Moines Democrat debate stage Nov 14 and on the ballots in 50 states and he will win the nomination.  His running mate will be Elizabeth Warren.  The Biden choice is really up to Valerie Jarrett and Obama.  If they tell old Joe he has the 100% backing of the Obama machine, Joe is in and instantly the frontrunner. If Hillary drops out and jumps on board, the war in the Dem party is over. The right had better get focused on the wrongness of the Obama policies, not just the character defects of one presumed candidate.

-------------------------------------------

Sean Trende of RCP has the math on winning after a two term Presidency.  Call this election gift wrapped for the Republicans - unless they don't nominate the best Republican.

[ppulatie]

If you accept that Wall Street and Big Money are behind all the political manuevering, then here is something to consider from Sundance at Conservative Treehouse.

1. Wall Street and Big Money are pulling the strings, along with groups like the COC.

2. The plan was to get Jeb into the presidency, and if not him, settle for Hillary.  (They are one and the same.)

3. Bush is failing because of Trump. They must get Trump out if they can.

4. If they cannot get Trump out and he proves inevitable, then they must get Hillary out because Trump would take her out as well.

5. This leads to the movement to get Biden in, with Warren as VP. It  is believed that this could thwart Trump.

Of course, if you do not believe that our politics is manipulated, then all of this means nothing.

[DougMacG]

If you accept that Wall Street and Big Money are behind all the political manuevering, then here is something to consider from Sundance at Conservative Treehouse.
1. Wall Street and Big Money are pulling the strings, along with groups like the COC.
2. The plan was to get Jeb into the presidency, and if not him, settle for Hillary.  (They are one and the same.)
3. Bush is failing because of Trump. They must get Trump out if they can.
4. If they cannot get Trump out and he proves inevitable, then they must get Hillary out because Trump would take her out as well.
5. This leads to the movement to get Biden in, with Warren as VP. It  is believed that this could thwart Trump.
Of course, if you do not believe that our politics is manipulated, then all of this means nothing.

My 2 cents on that. 
Jeb isn't the same as Hillary.  He is wrong on two issues; she is wrong on everything.
Groups and terms like The Establishment, Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street, Big Money, RINOs, have been around for a long time, formerly known as Rockefeller Republicans and Country Club Republicans. They are a legitimate, competing faction, by whatever name they go by or that we call them.  They need to be defeated in the primaries without burning the bridge to win their vote and turnout in the general election.  All out war within the party filled with irreparable personal hatred isn't the answer, but winning somehow is.  Ronald Reagan won 93 states without ever being RINO establishment.  In 1980, defeated Republican moderate John Anderson ran as an independent, won 6.6% of the vote,  6 million votes, and Reagan still carried over 50% of the vote and won 44 states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980   In Florida in 2010, just ten years after the 2000 deadlock/recount fiasco, moderate Republican Charlie Crist, a sitting Governor, lost the primary and stayed in the race as an independent, but Rubio carried Florida by a million votes.  These people can be beat without all the bravado and name calling.

They talk about Hillary's (paid) organization on the ground now and Bernie Sanders has almost none of it and is leading her.  In the end it is the votes, one per person, not money or power. We have a Governor who bought his way in.  The Dayton family started Target, (ex) wife, largest contributor, is a Rockefeller, not from here.  He has zero charisma, is a drug addict, but still - he got the votes.  Sometimes the big money backfires.  Trump is leading now I think with his media personality, not his money.  There are plenty of examples of big money and big organizations failing when the candidate doesn't connect with the people.

[DougMacG]

"Sean Trende of RCP has the math on winning after a two term Presidency.  Call this election gift wrapped for the Republicans - unless they don't nominate the best Republican."

Correction.  Author is: Jeffrey H. Anderson.    Here is the link:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/11/what_will_obamas_unpopularity_mean_for_2016_128046.html

Very well researched article.  Democrats have huge odds to overcome just based on Obama's job disapproval rating.

[objectivist1]

It’s Not About a Shutdown

Erick Erickson - RedState.com

“This is a fight on principle over whether the Republican Party should stand by and let our tax dollars be used to subsidize the American Mengeles of Planned Parenthood or not.”

Republican Leaders and their friends in the Circle of Jerks that make up the Washington Press Corps are pushing a “there they go again” line against conservatives fighting to defund Planned Parenthood.

They are making this about Ted Cruz, blaming Cruz. They fear Ted Cruz. They know he is on a pretty good course toward the nomination. They have to make it about him. This is cynical Washington politics at its best.

In fact, the Washington political elite and the Circle of Jerks cannot contemplate what is happening. They do not relate to people who stand on principle. In Washington, everything and everyone is supposed to have a price. They should be able to buy off pro-life voters as they’ve done with some of the groups.

My Comment: (Which is EXACTLY why Washington insiders FEAR Donald Trump.  He doesn't have a price, and cannot be bought.)

Pay attention over the next two weeks. Notice which pro-life groups come out strongly and uncompromisingly in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood and those that stay quiet or offer only platitudes.

Children in the United States of America are being cut up and sold for scrap. That Republicans in Washington think they can excuse their way out of a fight says too much damning about them. This is not a Ted Cruz fight. This is not a Mike Lee fight. This is not a Jim Bridenstine or Jim Jordan or Tim Huelskamp fight.

This is a fight on principle over whether the Republican Party should stand by and let our tax dollars be used to subsidize the American Mengeles of Planned Parenthood or not. This is a fight about whether our tax dollars should be used to subsidize harvesting children’s brains and hearts and lungs and livers.

This is not a fight about politics. This is a fight about life and death. That Washington Republicans refuse to see that explains why they’re getting their butts kicked by a guy like Donald Trump. Their cynicism will be their death, even as they try to keep the death train rolling for Planned Parenthood.

Pay attention. Look at which pro-life groups are standing up and which are sitting in Mitch McConnell’s office.

[ppulatie]

I follow the belief that the GOPe is manipulating the nomination process toward Bush, as I have mentioned several times. Conservative Treehouse has written another good  article about the process, but it is a bit complicated to get the first time through. So I will summarize.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/09/16/the-modified-gope-strategy-road-map-the-full-monte/

The beginning of the plot:

1. 2014 Internal Polling by the RNC showed Bush with no more than 15% - 20% support. People did not want another Bush presidency. (Romney was at 25-30% at a similar point.) Bush could not win in a fair fight with those numbers.  How to compensate? Change the rules.

2. First change - Any Primary held prior to Mar 15, would have proportional delegates assigned. What this meant is for a winner take all, 50% plus 1 had to be achieved. If under 50%, the delegates would be split equally.

This was a very important change. Upstart candidates who win in the early primaries would be limited in the delegates that they could receive. Additionally, since most were limited in campaign funds, it made the gathering of delegates and primary operations after Mar 15 much more difficult. So, the more candidates in the early stages, the greater the negative impact on the Upstart Candidate.

3. Starting Mar 15, the Primaries were winner take all, even if they won with 20% of the vote. The reason for this approach was that the early upstart candidates that survived would not have the campaign funds to continue running in all states, so they were at a distinct disadvantage.

4. The final part of the plan was that in previous years, to be nominated, a candidate needed to win 5 primaries. This was changed to 8 primaries. So if a candidate has won 7 primaries, each with 95% of the vote, they cannot be placed into nomination at the convention. Their delegates are then free to go wherever.

Looking at this scenario in 2014, it is easy to see that the person who would most benefit from this strategy was Bush. He had the money commitments, the name recognition, and could run in all primary states. The "other" potential candidates could not run for the full time, so even if Bush got only a total of 30% of the support, he could win the nomination and run against Hillary, and of which it was expected that he would beat.

Enter Trump.

Trump screwed up everything by his entry into the field. He had the money to go the full route to the convention. He was not beholden to the special interests. Trump could screw up everything planned.

This is why you are seeing every action taken, all the pundits, the writers, and even the "vote splitter" candidates attacking Trump. He must be taken out for Bush to win.

What happens if Trump is taken out? That is the easy answer.

Carson becomes the new spoiler. But Carson is actually pretty easy to take out. Again, money is a problem, and several of his views are such that a GOPe attack could render Carson gone. Then it goes to Cruz.

Cruz is even easier to go after. He will be hit as the favorite of the Tea Party, and we see how that goes. Cruz will be demonized until he becomes the nightmare of little children across the country.

Is the GOPe and the Wall Street money capable of being this devious? Absolutely so. And they will do it to get their man into the Presidency. After all, it is all about the money and power.

But where the GOPe is making their mistake is in voter turnout. In 2012, Romney had at least a 4% less turnout than from before. This was in large part the Evangicals, who would not vote for a Mormon. This time, what happens:

1. Those going with Trump are much more likely to sit out. They support Trump because they have been betrayed by the GOP too many times. They support the Trump position on immigration and with the others, even Carson, Amnesty is their accepted position. The Trump voters  sitting out will throw the election to Hillary by itself.

2. The Carson voters remain to be seen with what will happen. Many may sit out. It just depends upon how much of a conviction they have.

3. Cruz and the Tea Party. The Cruz supporters here could sit out in large numbers as well, just adding to the severity of the loss to Hillary.

Does the GOPe, Chamber of Commerce and others care? No, because with Hillary or Bush, the end result is just about the same.

[Crafty_Dog]

Trump, Carson and the Reagan Library Debate
Originally published at the Washington Times

The big debate Wednesday night at the Reagan Library really centers around two candidates.

If Donald Trump was the surprise focus of the first debate, it was because no one three months ago would have predicted that he would be polling ahead of every other candidate.

Now the focus will widen because Dr. Ben Carson is joining Trump in the extraordinary group of candidates we never expected to be this dominant.

In the new CBS News poll out this week, Donald Trump is at 27 percent with Dr. Carson having risen from 6 percent in August to 23 percent today. Governor Jeb Bush is a distant third at 6 percent. The most recent Iowa poll had Trump at 29 percent, Carson at 25 percent, and Senator Ted Cruz a distant third at 10 percent.
When two candidates are above 50% and the rest of the field is far behind, the focus of the debate is inevitably on these two.

The analysts are predicting the focus will be attacks on Trump. Between the media and a number of other candidates, there are plenty of folks lining up to pile on "the Donald."

An anti-Trump focus may simply shift votes to Carson, however, and turn him into the new frontrunner.

The contrast in style between the two leading candidates could not be greater. Trump is loud, constantly moving, permanently on offense, and enthusiastic about making lavish claims. Carson is quiet, calm, centered and very hard to rattle.

What the political media and consultants have not yet seemed to fully digest is that both of these men have been remarkably successful people prior to their runs for president.

Trump got his first cover of Time Magazine in 1989. He has owned or managed office buildings, hotels, golf courses, restaurants, the Miss Universe pageant, a line of clothing, and a very popular television show. He is used to complexity, negotiations, and stress. And as this video of Trump on Oprah Winfrey more than 25 years ago proves, he has been thinking about public policy for a long time.

Carson became the youngest department head in the history Johns Hopkins Hospital at 33 years of age. In 1987, he led a 70-person operating team for 22 hours and separated conjoined twins for the first time in history. In 2009, Cuba Gooding, Jr. played Ben Carson in a movie (Gifted Hands) about his life and achievements. Carson learned to make decisions under stress, while exhausted, in a very different world than any elected official I have met except for former Senate Majority Leader Dr. Bill Frist, who was himself a heart and lung transplant specialist.

These are serious, successful, complex, and accomplished people.

Anyone expecting them to disintegrate or, as some analysts like to say, "have the bubble burst" is in for a very long wait.

It is a long way to the nomination and there is plenty of time for others to gain support and compete.

Wednesday night's debate is important, however, because it is the first real test in which Trump will have a peer who is as nontraditional, as confident, and as articulate as he is.

Your Friend,
Newt

[ppulatie]

Watching the Beat up on Trump debate. Pure take down of him.

Best joke......Carly will not speak with Putin. She will give him the silent treatment. Put him on a No Sex Time Out.

[ppulatie]

Trump:  Carly would never run one of my companies.

[ppulatie]

Thoughts:

Christie, Carly, Trump and Cruz are doing really good. I expect that Carly will rise, as will Christie. Cruz, only his current supporters will continue, unless Trump or Carson go to the wayside.

Carson is "lost"...his comment about americans not wanting to work will hurt.  BTW, I have to go back and listen to Carson again. Each time he speaks, I fall asleep.

Bush appears to be a bust..............he is not getting anything out of this. Rubio? Sounds good, but not going anywhere.

[ppulatie]

Oh crap............Jeb says his advisors will be those who helped 41 and 43.

I smell toast...burning...

[Crafty_Dog]

Several strong performances tonight.

It may be that when we look back at tonight amongst the things that will be said will be that this was the night that Trump peaked.

A few snap impressions in no particular order:

Carly:  A very strong night with several home runs-- the passion she brought to her statement on Planned Parenthood was as potent as it was unexpected-- her press, polls, and money likely to respond pretty strongly;

Christie: Very strong night, more than once he executed really nice pivots; first time I have found him likable-- not sure what effect though on his polls or money, though likely to get something of a bump in ;

Paul: Started out pretty weak, but late in the night got in some good entries on the Middle East;

Huckabee:  Surprised me with the quality of his defense of the KY court clerk and statement of the issues involved; not his only strong statement during the night but some of his replies struck me was blowhard political BS;

Walker:  a better night, but mostly he was outshone

Carson:  I continue to like the man a lot and he certainly had a number of fine moments, but there were also a few where I have like more substance

Jeb:  A better performance but to my eye the apparent weaknesses remain

Rubio:  Several superb answers of foreign affairs stuff, the man has genuine strength here and presents it well; I thought he also did well on several other issues as well.  Not sure how much press, polls, and money he will get out of it, but I certainly think respect for him will greatly increase.  At the very least he remains a genuine player in the race.

Trump:  Due to the first question, the first many minutes of the debate where a food fight between Trump and most everyone there.  Eventually things turned to content and Donald had a lot less to say, particularly when it got to the Middle East.  Carly hit him some solid shots between the eyes here.  I thought his statements on immigration did a very good job of smoothing some previously present rough edges.  My wife's pity comment "He started looking like a one trick pony of one liners."

Kasich: Very much a "Compassionate Conservative" but had a number of serious grown up contributions to the conversation.   I can imagine his standing in New Hampshire to be improved.

Cruz:  Had a number of good moments, (including some really good ones on legal issues but I suspect they will go over most people's heads) FWIW my sense is that he will maintain where he is in the running. 

[objectivist1]

Of course - Dan Calabrese is correct here.  Unfortunately, precious few Americans will ever take the time to research the candidates' positions themselves, and the ONLY impressions they get of these candidates are what they see during these debates, and what is then said about them by the media.

Most American voters are incredibly lazy and ignorant.  That's just a sad fact.

Debates are no way to assess a potential President

By Dan Calabrese - Thursday, September 17, 2015.

I realize how furiously I'm swimming against the tide here, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Let's start with a fact that has nothing to do with what happened last night on CNN, or what happened a month ago on Fox News: You can tell pretty much everything you need to know about every presidential candidate by spending a few hours on Google.

You can look up their policy positions and their backgrounds. You can find video clips of them speaking. You can find articles by their critics containing lots of arguments against them. You can do this and, if you're a serious voter, you should do this.

And if you do, then nothing you see in a media-contrived "debate" should change the assessment you arrived at as a result of your own research. You should not reject a candidate who has all the attributes you're looking for because he "looked small" on stage (whatever that means) or because he "disappeared for 45 minutes at a time" or because he said "oops".

Your initial research pertains to the actual policy positions and governing capabilities of a prospective president of the United States. Stuff that matters. Stuff that reflects what this person might do in office, and how well that person might do it.
What happens on stage at a media-contrived "debate" allows you to assess that person's skill in the realm of performance art, which apparently is quite fascinating to Americans, but is almost completely irrelevant to the attributes required to be a good president.

Americans are drawn for reasons unknown to very big televised events. Baseball fans are drawn to the World Series. Football fans are drawn to the Super Bowl. Some people like American Idol and Dancing With the Stars for reasons that I cannot explain to you. And apparently the run-of-the-mill political junkie likes to watch these debates - assessing moment-by-moment who did well, who uncorked a memorable line and who "moved the needle" or some such thing.

This has become relevant in the parlance of American politics precisely because the hardest thing about running for president is not to become qualified or to develop solid positions. It's to get people's attention. And the debate serves as an opportunity for candidates to get your attention because the media don't cover them unless they're insulting another candidate's face or doing some other thing deemed newsworthy by the guardians of the First Amendment - the very same people asking the questions at these reality shows for political junkies.

And because the only value of the debate is to provide attention for candidates who are otherwise not getting it - even though they may very well deserve to get it - the goal of every candidate is to do something that makes you remember them, which is understandable but again is completely irrelevant to the challenges inherent to the presidency.

Ultimately, the importance of the debates represents a failure of the electorate. Failing to do your homework, then sitting down to watch this two-hour Vaudeville act and making up your mind on that basis, reveals you to be an unserious voter. And if you want to watch it for the purpose of providing your own on-the-spot analysis, that's fine, but you too are providing something more akin to a theater review than you are a serious assessment of who would make the best president.

I know this is what none of you want to hear because everyone wants to talk this morning about who did well, who helped themselves, who landed a blow, etc. Do what you want. None of it is really important.

[ppulatie]

Forget about who one. How did last night affect the Nomination process?

1. The GOPe needed to score a knockdown of Donald to blunt his support. Even with Tapper leading the charge against Donald, it failed. Trump supporters will stay with him. He might not pick up support, but he should not lose any. As to the nomination, nothing changes. Note: The audience was clearly against him all night. To be expected since the goal was to knockdown Trump.

2. Carson was clearly the loser. He looked and acted like he had taken a dose of downers prior to going on stage. Worst for him was his comment about 9-11 and that he would not have attacked Afghanistan, but would have used the "bully pulpit". Carson will lose support, but this will have little effect on the nomination process and him being a vote splitter.

3. Fiorina is clearly the winner. She should pick up much of the support that Carson loses. However, some of the enthusiasm could be blunted as a result of her answer to Putin. She would ignore him and start arming every state around Russia. With Fiorina, she sounds more and more hawk. She takes over the splitter position from Carson.

4. Bush did nothing to help his game. He may slow or cease dropping in support, but other than that, nothing. Donors who were in a panic before, and even worse now. Expect them to begin deserting Bush.

5. Rubio helped his case and should pick up a bit of support from Carson and the dwarfs. Expect Bush money to flow to him. He now becomes the GOPe alternative to Bush, and if Bush continues to fall, then the push for Rubio begins in earnest.

6. Cruz, neither good or bad. He was left out of most things, but the few times he did speak, it was decent. Not yet his time. Maybe VP with Trump or SCOTUS.

7. Christie did very good. He might pick up a bit of support, but he can't win.

8. The others are just out in the cold.

For the convention nomination, things do not change. Trump remains the elephant because he has loyal support, and can win the 8 states needed to be put into nomination status. Bush still has the money, but his falling status poses major concerns for the GOPe. With all the candidates still running, Bush would appear to not be able to stem Trump.

Carly now becomes the spoiler factor if she can get the support. But she remains an enigma. When she talks, she reminds me of a pissed off ex-wife. More important, she is in favor of Cap and Trade, a Global Warming partisan, Amnesty H1B supporter, and has tax issues.

Essentially, unless something occurs otherwise, Trump has the nomination to win or lose. No one else can disable Trump otherwise.

[Crafty_Dog]

Forget about who one. (sic  ) How did last night affect the Nomination process?

1. The GOPe needed to score a knockdown of Donald to blunt his support. Even with Tapper leading the charge against Donald, it failed. Trump supporters will stay with him. He might not pick up support, but he should not lose any.

MD:  Trump has benefitted from a positive feedback loop, one which IMHO may have peaked last night.  He looked over his head on the discussions of the Middle East and IMHO his response to the question about Putin was quite vacuous.

2. Carson was clearly the loser. He looked and acted like he had taken a dose of downers prior to going on stage. Worst for him was his comment about 9-11 and that he would not have attacked Afghanistan, but would have used the "bully pulpit". Carson will lose support, but this will have little effect on the nomination process and him being a vote splitter.

MD:  Agreed, not a good night for Dr. Ben.  I continue to like him, but I'm looking elsewhere at the moment.  Christie dinged him well on the lack of response to 911.

3. Fiorina is clearly the winner. She should pick up much of the support that Carson loses. However, some of the enthusiasm could be blunted as a result of her answer to Putin. She would ignore him and start arming every state around Russia. With Fiorina, she sounds more and more hawk. She takes over the splitter position from Carson.

Splitter?  I don't think so-- As they say, she is in it to win it.  Very strong night for her last night on many levels.

4. Bush did nothing to help his game. He may slow or cease dropping in support, but other than that, nothing. Donors who were in a panic before, and even worse now. Expect them to begin deserting Bush.

MD:  Not quite that bad, but not enough I suspect.

5. Rubio helped his case and should pick up a bit of support from Carson and the dwarfs. Expect Bush money to flow to him. He now becomes the GOPe alternative to Bush, and if Bush continues to fall, then the push for Rubio begins in earnest.

MD:  Excellent night for Rubio.  He will get increased attention and respect and is well-positioned to get his campaign moving.

6. Cruz, neither good or bad. He was left out of most things, but the few times he did speak, it was decent. Not yet his time. Maybe VP with Trump or SCOTUS.

MD:  or Attorney General?   If Trump implodes, which does strike me as possible, he could surprise to the upside.

7. Christie did very good. He might pick up a bit of support, but he can't win.

MD:  You might be right, but he too is going to be getting a lot more attention and respect.  Let's see what he does with it.

8. The others are just out in the cold.

Carly now becomes the spoiler factor if she can get the support. But she remains an enigma. When she talks, she reminds me of a pissed off ex-wife. More important, she is in favor of Cap and Trade, a Global Warming partisan, Amnesty H1B supporter, and has tax issues.

MD:  I will be looking out for these issues.

Essentially, unless something occurs otherwise, Trump has the nomination to win or lose. No one else can disable Trump otherwise.

MD:  I know you really like Trump, but I agree, he may well turn out to be his own worst enemy.

[Crafty_Dog]

Naturally, no presidential debate would be complete without some rank dishonesty. This includes Mr. Trump’s insistence that he didn’t pursue casino-gambling in Miami. You can look that one up on Google.

That was surpassed only by Senator Ted Cruz’s claim that he somehow opposed the nomination of John Roberts for the Supreme Court. If Mr. Cruz had some inner doubt about the Roberts selection in 2005, he didn’t advertise it at the time as far as we can find. The shameless rewriting of history to serve his latest political needs is becoming a Cruz hallmark.

[ppulatie]

This is a "technical" distinction on the casino. It can be interpreted in two different ways.

1. The casino would be built on Seminole tribal land. Therefore, it is not technically Florida.

2. The tribal issue is immaterial.

Who knows?

[DougMacG]

"That was surpassed only by Senator Ted Cruz’s claim that he somehow opposed the nomination of John Roberts for the Supreme Court. If Mr. Cruz had some inner doubt about the Roberts selection in 2005, he didn’t advertise it at the time as far as we can find. The shameless rewriting of history to serve his latest political needs is becoming a Cruz hallmark."

Cruz pushed the for other guy (over Roberts) for Bush to nominate.  Then he supported confirmation of Roberts (over voting him down).   The underlying point is important; Cruz is saying he would appoint proven constitutionalists to the Court, and that Pres. Bush made a mistake.  But the confusion didn't play well.

The Rand Paul - Christy argument over pot was similar.  They kept muddying the question between how each feels about the underlying issue with what to do with the fact that these state laws are in conflict with existing federal law.  Rand Paul had it right but I don't think that came across well either.

40% of the questions were about Trump.  The rest were mostly about Bush's family and what do you think of anything controversial the others have said.  It was funny to  agreement break out in the climate 'skeptic' discussion.  At least two said, I like what Marco said.

No one won the early debate.  Some said Graham won; some said Santorum won.  No one won.

Rubio's vision of landing Air Force One in a free Cuba was a key moment, symbolizing the contrast between accommodating tyranny and advancing freedom.

I can't remember the details, but some controversial group endorsed Reagan and he survived it saying their endorsement of him did not constitute him endorsing them.  Same goes for Marco Rubio and the so-called GOPe.  Rubio might be as good of a find that the centrists will accept that can win.  That does not make him part of the 'establishment'. He is much closer to Reagan than he is to Rove, McConnell, Boehner.  PP may be right that establishment money and support intended for Bush will move to Rubio, but that does not make him beholden to them.  If he wins, he won't be someone's puppet; he will be President of the US and leader of the free world.  His debt and gratitude will be to the American people, not the donors.  His promise to them is simply to do his best.  And he would be the best advocate for freedom the world has had in a very long time.  (MHO)

[ppulatie]

Doug,

Money does not buy influence with Rubio? I will believe it when I see it. The Chamber of Commerce, Rove and others will prevail.

And I guess Amnesty becomes the new normal.

BTW, if it is Rubio, expect Biden to win if he runs. Too many people will go back on the sidelines and not vote for the GOP candidate.

[objectivist1]

IT'S NOT THE JOB OF REPUBLICANS TO "CORRECT" PEOPLE WHO HATE OBAMA

Since when is it the job of Republicans to defend Obama?

September 18, 2015  Daniel Greenfield   


Recently MoveOn, an organization close to Obama, accused senators opposed to Iran getting nukes of being traitors. It also attacked the Jewish Schumer by claiming, "We don't need another Lieberman in the Senate." (It might be gratifying if all the liberals calling out Ann Coulter's Tweets were as willing to call out blatant anti-Semitism by one of their own organizations.)

I don't recall Obama condemning MoveOn. Instead he added to the chorus by accusing opponents of being behind the Iraq War.

Obama plays dirty. But that's politics. What's obnoxious is when the media cheers on Obama and the left for ugly tactics and then whines when Scott Walker won't praise Obama and when Trump won't defend Obama.

Since when is it the job of Republicans to defend Obama?

We've thrown out civility and all of the rules a while back. Obama began his campaign with a planted viral video accusing Hillary Clinton of being 1984's Big Brother. Hillary responded by having her people accuse Obama of being a Muslim.

Let's recall that Hillary pal Sidney Blumenthal, who invented the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" was pushing material from conservative sites accusing Obama of the same things that they now find unacceptable.

That kind of stuff doesn't get talked about much. But the media is all outraged because Trump won't interrupt his campaign to defend Obama against charges that he's a Muslim.

That's not Trump's job. It's Obama's job to defend himself against accusations. Maybe if he showed some civility in his political conflicts, he would be entitled to expect some civility from Republicans. But this is the guy whose proxies constantly accuse critics of being racists or traitors or warmongers.

Republicans should make it clear that it's not their job to defend a nasty campaigner like Obama against the hostile atmosphere his political tactics have created. They are here to campaign for themselves and their party.

Obama already has numerous political organizations formed to promote his agenda, not to mention a vast network of leftist non-profits and the entire media. If they can't protect him against the anger of the American people, maybe he should just recognize that he is part of the problem.

[ppulatie]

With both Trump and Walker, it is all part of the plan to take them down. And with Trump by the D's, media and the GOP.

[ppulatie]

Interesting Poll of Debate Watchers taken yesterday using Reps who watched the debate.

Both Carly and Trump increased their support. Carson lost support. His loss was to Carly's gain.

4.4 Margin of Error

http://morningconsucom/2015/09/poll-fiorina-wins-debate-trump-still-leads/lt.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/obama-slams-smear-photo-008667

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/09/the-week-in-pictures-fiorina-trumps-edition.php

[DougMacG]

A little late, but I finally took the time to watch the full video.  At 3 hours, it was long to watch when I had already heard most of it on the radio.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WwzXkJd8aY

Some additional observations:

They all were winners in the eye of the beholder; every candidate played pretty well to their own strengths and therefore mostly pleased their own supporters.  In another sense, since almost everyone is really undecided, all the subtleties matter.

Even though all the questions were designed to pin down top candidates on their biggest weaknesses, they missed doing that on all counts, in my view.  Trump's blind spot to me is the Kelo/ takings question and no one pressed that on him except Rand Paul,  and Trump wasn't pressed to acknowledge or answer it.  For Fiorina, not the difficulties at HP but the tripling of her own salary during that time, it didn't come up  Rubio wasn't truly challenged on his weakness.  That will come when he is the frontrunner.

Rubio and Fiorina looked ready on national security and foreign policy.  Others leave open the question of being ready on day one. 

Bush didn't present himself that well, about equal to his poll numbers, but currently has perhaps the best economic plan and message, grow the economy and right to rise.  I say right message, wrong messenger.  I don't expect him to go the distance.

Huckabee looked good and touted the flat tax but didn't even mention that it requires repeal of the income tax amendment in order to not become one more way to take more from us and grow government even though that isn't his intention.  Carson said he was looking at all of that in addition to the flat tax with no details.  On another topic, Fiorina mis-spoke on how many states it takes to amend the constitution.  She said 2/3rds of the states, when it is 2/3rds in the House and Senate and 3/4ths of the state legislatures.  That is a big distinction because it means amendment can't be done without wide support in both parties.  It can't be done for things like repealing the income tax in our lifetime much less in the immediate term.  Therefore that tax plan is not a serious plan for day one or year 4.  Just bloviating.

40% of the questions were in some way about Trump.  Missed on radio and punditry were the visuals of Trump standing in the center of the stage and camera with expressions and gestures all the way through as if he was presiding over the meeting and challenging his subordinates.  That played fine I'm sure  to his strategy and supporters. He did so-so in terms of the substance of answering the obvious attempt to expose the frontrunner.  I agree with those who think this debate marks the peak of his candidacy.  He isn't going to either collapse or gain any further ground based on momentum or bandwagon.  His support will narrow to his fit with the electorate which is still significant.

Trump's strategy was to keep telling himself to be humble, hence the joke about his secret service handle.  But that isn't him and it isn't what got him here. 

[ppulatie]

Recent Poll results after the debate

CNN/ORC

Trump: 24%
Fiorina: 15%
Carson: 14%
Rubio: 11%
Bush: 9%
Walker < .5%


NBC

Trump: 29%
Fiorina: 14%
Carson: 11%
Rubio: 7%
Bush: 8%
Walker 3%

The NBC poll was SurveyMonkey, which is supposed to be a "good" online designed poll. CNN is..............CNN.

Can't tell too much more than we already know from this. Carly did well and increased her support. Carson took a negative, and Trump suffered a bit, but was not knocked out.

[DougMacG]

Recent Poll results after the debate
CNN/ORC
Trump: 24%
Fiorina: 15%
Carson: 14%
Rubio: 11%
Bush: 9%
Walker < .5%   ...

The outsiders hold all of the top 3 places and one of them may win.  Trump's upward momentum is stopped, but first by a lot is still a good position in a crowded field.  The other question is who is winning among the Senators and Governors in case the outsiders fizzle (as expected) as we get deeper in the process.  As a Rubio fan, I like the slow speed that he is moving up, gradually impressing almost everyone who hears him.  He is in a much better position than Bush and Walker, and most of the others aren't getting traction either.  I hope he is ready for when the scrutiny is all aimed at him. 

[ppulatie]

The new  Zogby poll is out, done after the last debate. In that debate, Zogby said he lost. Oops...........his polls don't indicate that.

Interesting what has been going on with the media and pundits after the debate. Media attacks on Trump are even stronger than before. It is WWF take sown time for him, but it does not appear to be working. Carson has had a few more attacks now against him, most likely the result of his poor showing in the debate. It is likely the thought that he has lost his opportunity and now it is time to push someone else. That else is Snarly Fiorina.

Rove has been on pushing Snarly. It is his antidote to Trump, and then he can turn on Snarly to get back to either Bush or Rubio.


http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?action=post;topic=2419.350;num_replies=397

Zogby Poll: Trump Widens Lead After GOP Debate

Real estate mogul Trump has widened his lead to 20 points in a brand new Zogby Analytics poll taken after the second Republican presidential debate. The new poll of 405 likely Republican primary/caucus voters nationwide with a margin of sampling error of +/- 5.0 percentage points, conducted September 18-19, shows Mr. Trump with 33% (up 2 points from his pre-debate 31%). In second place is neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson who actually dropped 3 points to 13%. Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, widely considered to be the big winner in the debate, moved up from just 2% last week to 7% and fourth place in the new poll – just 2 points behind former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s 9% (which is exactly where he was last week).

Texas Senator Ted Cruz moves up a point to 5%, followed by Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, and Ohio Governor John Kasich all tied at 4%. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who by many accounts, had a good debate night, stayed at 3%.

The biggest losers in the post-debate poll – besides Dr. Carson’s drop – were Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker who fell from 5% to 2% and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee who polled 2% (down from 4%).

Mr. Trump’s lead is across the board, among most major sub-groups – 36% among men, 30% with women, 30% Republicans, 39% independents, 29% moderates, and 31% conservatives.

Dr. Carson’s best showings were among Republicans 14%, and conservatives 16%. Mrs. Fiorina did better among men (9%) than women (5%) and Republicans 8% than independents (5%). Mr. Bush scored 10% with women, 8% with men, 12% moderates, but just 6% among conservatives.

The poll was conducted in the middle of controversies regarding negative attitudes toward Muslims expressed by both Mr. Trump and Dr. Carson. Mrs. Fiorina gained the most traction from the debate but no one besides Mr. Trump has broken away from the pack.

[Crafty_Dog]

Why Don't the Candidates Ever Talk About Money?
By Larry Kudlow - September 19, 2015

While there were some great moments in the latest GOP debate, and some terrific individual performances -- Carly Fiorina seemed to grab all the buzz in the aftermath -- one thing that barely came up was the economy. It was very much like the first debate.

The day after the candidates faced off, Fed chair Janet Yellen announced a stand-pat, no-interest-rate-liftoff policy. Now, I don't expect presidential candidates to be Fed watchers. But Yellen did raise the issue of a still-soft economy, despite all the QE and zero-interest-rate policies. And I think Yellen was right. There will be a time to normalize Fed target rates. But not yet.

That said, it would have been a good thing if any of the candidates talked about our money. A strong and steady dollar -- the world's unit of account (in theory) -- is pro-growth, as we saw in the '60s, '80s, and '90s. A collapsing greenback smothers growth, as we saw in the 2000s.

I would have loved to have seen one or more of the candidates talk about a strong dollar, a rules-based Fed policy and international monetary coordination. Alas, it was not to be. Maybe we'll hear about the dollar at the CNBC debate on Oct. 28. But an opportunity was missed on Sept. 16.

Interestingly, on the day of the debate, the Census Bureau revealed another round of stagnating incomes for the middle class. But the words "middle class" and "economic growth" were mentioned by the GOP debaters only four or five times, according to AEI economist Jim Pethokoukis. He laments that Republicans have been missing great opportunities to show a modern vision about growth.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the director of Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute, lists a slew of important economic issues that weren't addressed at the debate, including the minimum wage, regulatory policy, education and alternatives to Obamacare. There were brief mentions of tax policy, with Gov. Huckabee slipping in his fair-tax proposal and Sen. Paul touting his 14.5 percent flat tax. But there was no room for Sen. Rubio to pit his child tax credit against Jeb Bush's 20 percent corporate tax rate.

Meanwhile, Gov. Christie spent his economic time on a plea for reducing Social Security benefits. Ugh.

There also was no mention of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, who may be the Democratic frontrunner right now. The Wall Street Journal estimates that Sanders' Greece-like spending spree would come to $18 trillion over a decade. That's pretty wild. And it gets the Democrats firmly back as the tax-and-spend party. Sanders at various times has proposed income-tax rates of 70 to 90 percent, but not one Republican blasted his tax-and-spend program at the debate.

Nor did anyone attack Hillary Clinton's proposal to double the capital-gains tax rate if the asset holding period is not long enough. Her plan is pure anti-growth and anti-risk-taking. It's just what we don't need, but no GOP debater took it on.

Jeb Bush does deserve credit for a summary statement that emphasized 4 percent economic growth. He said tax, regulatory, energy and immigration policies could generate that 4 percent and help solve bottom-fifth poverty and middle-class stagnation. He concluded, Reagan-like, that strong growth at home would revive American leadership around the world. Good for him.

But one of the reasons why the GOP base is angrily up in arms at the so-called political-class establishment is that nothing has gotten done, even with Republican majorities in the Senate and House.

I thought the House and Senate would pass a broad energy-reform bill that not only includes the XL pipeline, but removes limits on oil exports and drilling on federal land (that would lower gas prices at home and weaken Vladimir Putin's European stranglehold). But no bill emerged. A bill to repeal Obamacare with an alternative vision? Never happened. A corporate-tax-cut reform that slashes the rate, provides cash tax expensing for investment and brings more than $2 trillion back home with a repatriation plan? Never happened. Ditto for immigration reform: never happened.

And Godfather-like, the GOP now must "go to the mattresses" to stop the Iran deal, which will hand over $150 billion to a rogue country so that it can kill more American soldiers, try to extinguish Israel and increase its Middle East hegemony. Will it happen? The GOP congressional track record is not encouraging.

The strategy was to put serious bills on President Obama's desk where he could veto them if he so chose. That would have set the stage for a battle of ideas in 2016. But somehow the congressional leadership lost its way.

There's still time, however, for the GOP presidential contenders. I'd like to hear them tell us how they would solve all these problems if elected president. Doing so might rebrand the Republican Party much for the better.

Lawrence Kudlow is a senior contributor at CNBC and the host of The Larry Kudlow Show on WABC Radio. He is also a former Reagan economic advisor and a nationally syndicated columnist.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM