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?
