Was anyone else beside myself following it? It involved only 4 candidates-Pataki, Santorum, Jindal, Graham-so was much easier to follow than what is to come. I don't know how the "experts" will score it but in my mind all did fairly well with a slight edge to Jindal.

Second debate about to start.

Yes, I watched the entire "Let's all bash Trump" debate.

I'd rate them Santorum first, Jindal second, Graham third.

Pataki is a complete joke.

But overall, I'd have to give it to Trump.

I thought Carly did well - particularly on the topic of the grotesque Planned Parenthood videos. Honestly - she presented the most impassioned commentary that I've ever seen from any politician (and placed the focus squarely back on Hilliary Xlinton and the boy emperor where it belongs).

But with that said, I have a problem with the way the back and forth (re: Carly's face comment by Trump) played out between Fiorina and Trump. Simply put - I thought it was a set up. For those who watched, if you remember Trump was asked about a comment that Jeb had made that was supposedly a blooper. Jeb tried to walk it back, but Trump's response basically was "you said what you said."

IMMEDIATELY after that was the back and forth between Carly and Donald. And it was a softball pitch that even Stevie Wonder could have hit out of the park. Carly's response was perfect - perhaps too perfect. (I'm sure the video is on YOUTUBE for those who wish to see it - I won't go into it here)

Now one can argue that Fiorina knew the question would come up in some form, and they'd be right. What I question is the timing of it - and her perfect response. Either she thinks really really well on her feet (a possibility of course), or she knew the Jeb Bush/Trump exchange was going to come right before it.

I hope it's the former - but we'll never know.

Couple of other thoughts:

1. Why is Pataki still in the race? Mark Levin might have it right - he's there as a ringer (to take down Trump). The first debate (Pataki saying DEFINITIVELY Trump would not be the nominee) seemingly underscores his point.
2. I watched the Megyn Kelly show which came on at midnight. Would someone please eject Frank Luntz and his inane focus group and its dials OFF THE STAGE?

I thought Carly did surprisingly well, as did Huckabee. Cruz was solid, Rand was not, and Jeb was...well, odd. Christie was quite good. Trump was off his game. Which was probably why Carly was there.

Is Pataki still in the race, Rufus?

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #5

---

I thought Carly did surprisingly well, as did Huckabee. Cruz was solid, Rand was not, and Jeb was...well, odd. Christie was quite good. Trump was off his game. Which was probably why Carly was there.

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #5

---

Is Pataki still in the race, Rufus?

---

The debate itself - I actually liked it a bit more. I would have liked to see, maybe 6 people on the stage, and the CNN crew deliberately stirred the pot a bit, but I liked that it was a little looser and elicited more telling answers from the candidates. The CNN crew did leave out some pretty important topics, but overall it was entertaining and somewhat revealing.

And, despite being fairly appealing on stage, no way I could support Fiorina, Paul, Huckabee, Rand, Jeb or Christie.

Agree with all. It was worlds better than the Megyn Crowley Fox show even though most questions were lame.

Waaay too many people on stage though. If five or six of them don't plan to self-deport the next go-around should be broken into thirds. Five on a stage should be the absolute max.

Good grief. Perhaps I watched a different debate.

First of all, I thought Tapper was annoying and his constant interruptions of the candidates set my teeth on edge. Yes, I know there were time limits and they were necessary, but Trapper should have announced, "Time is up", and then let the candidate complete his thought. The structure of the debate was faulty to begin with.

Secondly, I think Carly hit it out of the park and Trump hurt himself badly. She was confident, quick, and appealing. The Donald began with a gratuitous insult to Rand Paul, who wasn't even a subject of discussion, and throughout the night tried to use his sarcastic wit which is good on the stump, but not good in this setting. In addition Trump displayed weakness on issues, particularly on foreign issues. The other candidates did from very well to acceptable. If I were to grade them it would go like this:

A: Fiorina
B: Cruz, Paul, Huckabee, Rubio
C: Christie, Kasich, Walker, Carson, Bush
D: Trump
F:

The only thing I fully agree with others on here is that there were too many people on that stage.

How could you people be so wrong?

Quote: Cincinnatus wrote in post #9

---

How could you people be so wrong?

---

To all:

I'm pretty sure Trump jumped on Rand Paul because he said this about him on CNN's "The Lead" the day before:

"...Do we really want someone in charge of our nuclear arsenal who goes around basically using the insults of a junior high or a sophomore in high school?"

Maybe he thought he should get his shot in while he had the chance. LOL

BTW, here's the article. The reader comments are a riot...I agree with the person who said his comments are rich considering our Congress just loaded Iran with $150 billion. And Paul is worried about Trump?

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/09/1...in-junior-high/

Carly played and is playing the female victim card and that's a total turn-off for me. I agree she is very articulate but I wouldn't want her because IMO she's a RINO and her business background is suspect. I learned all about her when she ran against Barbara Boxer (and BTW, notoriously criticized her hair..."so yesterday!").

As for Trump, all he really had to do after 5 HOURS of pummeling (both debates) and days of hits beforehand was to remain standing. He did so and therefore as the frontrunner he did prevail.

Who "won?" I don't know...who wins these things, anyway? They aren't debates in the traditional sense. A better question might be, "Who didn't screw up so badly that they have to drop out?"

"...his comments are rich considering our Congress just loaded Iran with $150 billion. And Paul is worried about Trump?..."

That really sums it up!

Quote: Cincinnatus wrote in post #9

---

Good grief. Perhaps I watched a different debate. ..
How could you people be so wrong?

---

Herewith a factor which helps explain how each candidate did, e.g., Walker, and further evidence CNN did a poor job.



Tapper, in particular, kept returning to the issue of Trump's comments about other candidates instead of spending time on far more serious matters.

Quote: truthkeeper wrote in post #13

---

Quote: Cincinnatus wrote in post #9

---

Good grief. Perhaps I watched a different debate. ..
How could you people be so wrong?

---

Hey, at least we didn't have to watch Megyn Crowley's nostrils flaring all night!

---