Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Winner & Loser -- June 5th Republican Debate
Substantive, but, no sparks.
In contrast with the June 3rd Democratic debate, tonight's debate was more equitable with questions (quite a feat considering there are more candidates running!) but far less controntational. Duncan Hunter aside, there were no direct knocks on rivals.
Winner: Mitt "Made-for-TV" Romney, Mike Huckabee (tied)
Why? Romney, at least thus far, embodies all of the telegenic qualities which (unforunately) modern elections tend to come down on. More about style than substance, always managing to appear optimistic no matter the subject Romney did not fumble. But if 'winner' is defined as who gained the most from tonight's debate, the winner is Governor Huckabee. Sincere, warm, uniting compassionate and articulate. Were it not for the attention that Fred Thomson's likely candidacy is drawing, Huckabee's debate performance might otherwise get media coverage and public attention. Governor Thommy Thompson did much better than last time, with crisp answers for healthcare and Iraq. Congressman Paul was far more substantive than sensational in this debate, and likely resonated with Libertarians. McCain was more assertive and engaged than previously and Guiliani seemed more comfortable in his own skin than in prior debates. Hunter peppered the top-tier candidates by name which may or may not attract him some attention. In fact, it was really a solid performance for all but. . .
Loser: Tom Tancredo
Why? A single-issue candidate, unable to elaborate, he has permenantly etched himself into having 0 (zero) probability of being the nominee. Right behind him, Governor Gilmore. Far less engaging than he was in the prior debate, and like fellow second-tier candidates, 'breaking through' is priority #1 and tonight he did nothing to further himself.
D.2.O will provide continued analysis of presidential debates, so now what say you?
In contrast with the June 3rd Democratic debate, tonight's debate was more equitable with questions (quite a feat considering there are more candidates running!) but far less controntational. Duncan Hunter aside, there were no direct knocks on rivals.
Winner: Mitt "Made-for-TV" Romney, Mike Huckabee (tied)
Why? Romney, at least thus far, embodies all of the telegenic qualities which (unforunately) modern elections tend to come down on. More about style than substance, always managing to appear optimistic no matter the subject Romney did not fumble. But if 'winner' is defined as who gained the most from tonight's debate, the winner is Governor Huckabee. Sincere, warm, uniting compassionate and articulate. Were it not for the attention that Fred Thomson's likely candidacy is drawing, Huckabee's debate performance might otherwise get media coverage and public attention. Governor Thommy Thompson did much better than last time, with crisp answers for healthcare and Iraq. Congressman Paul was far more substantive than sensational in this debate, and likely resonated with Libertarians. McCain was more assertive and engaged than previously and Guiliani seemed more comfortable in his own skin than in prior debates. Hunter peppered the top-tier candidates by name which may or may not attract him some attention. In fact, it was really a solid performance for all but. . .
Loser: Tom Tancredo
Why? A single-issue candidate, unable to elaborate, he has permenantly etched himself into having 0 (zero) probability of being the nominee. Right behind him, Governor Gilmore. Far less engaging than he was in the prior debate, and like fellow second-tier candidates, 'breaking through' is priority #1 and tonight he did nothing to further himself.
D.2.O will provide continued analysis of presidential debates, so now what say you?
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Winner & Loser -- June 3rd Democratic Debate
Getting interesting!
This debate marks a departure from the extended press conferences that we've really seen thus far, and thankfully we saw more direct engagement between the candidates.
Winner: John Edwards
Why? Not because his arguments were 'better' than his rivals, but rather he scored a technical win by successfully inserting himself between the two front-runners (Clinton and Obama). Senator Dodd projected himself in a very presidential manner and had he succeeded as Edwards did in inserting himself, he would be tonight's winner. Biden deserves credit for providing honest and passionate answers on how to attack earmarks. Obama was sharper this evening including his exchange with John Edwards on being "four and a half years too late" for opposing Iraq.
Loser: Bill Richardson
Why? Unfortunately for Richardson, it is clear he has already peaked. Circular answers were in abundance, and contrary to buzz about him breaking into the top tier, tonight's performance (along with his recent and poor performance on Meet the Press) has effectively halted his campaign. Clinton had a very interesting tactic, trying to soften the contrast that her rivals have been painting between her legislative record on Iraq versus others'.
D.2.O will provide continued analysis of presidential debates, so now what say you?
This debate marks a departure from the extended press conferences that we've really seen thus far, and thankfully we saw more direct engagement between the candidates.
Winner: John Edwards
Why? Not because his arguments were 'better' than his rivals, but rather he scored a technical win by successfully inserting himself between the two front-runners (Clinton and Obama). Senator Dodd projected himself in a very presidential manner and had he succeeded as Edwards did in inserting himself, he would be tonight's winner. Biden deserves credit for providing honest and passionate answers on how to attack earmarks. Obama was sharper this evening including his exchange with John Edwards on being "four and a half years too late" for opposing Iraq.
Loser: Bill Richardson
Why? Unfortunately for Richardson, it is clear he has already peaked. Circular answers were in abundance, and contrary to buzz about him breaking into the top tier, tonight's performance (along with his recent and poor performance on Meet the Press) has effectively halted his campaign. Clinton had a very interesting tactic, trying to soften the contrast that her rivals have been painting between her legislative record on Iraq versus others'.
D.2.O will provide continued analysis of presidential debates, so now what say you?
