And Fox promptly cancels the debate.
ADDED: The poll is defective because after Trump got out, Kasich got out, and then Fox canceled. The article kind of buried that key fact, and I didn't dig it out. Sorry. But I want to say that Kasich's withdrawal shows the significance of the 5th option on the poll, which is that being alone on stage with Cruz was dangerous to Kasich. As soon as the big target Trump was out, Kasich declined the opportunity. He was fine with passively looking norma while Cruz attacked Trump, but he did not want the opportunity to go one-on-one with Ted.
Meanwhile, his staying in the race stops Ted from having the advantage of going one-on-one with Trump. There's something very annoying about the Kasich candidacy. He has some big problems that are not getting much attention, and he's hanging back waiting for a process to play out that will leave him standing there looking like the rightful owner of the nomination. But he has not fought for it and there's no reason to think he'd be a strong opponent for Hillary.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८१ टिप्पण्या:
Fox and the GOPe had their chance. They blew it. We have moved into the consolidation phase of the campaign. Trump is mending fences and building bridges.
Can I vote #1, #3, and #5 at the same time?
Fox shouldn't have cancelled this. They should want a head to head. I'd like to see them without Trump.
Fox canceled because Kasich canceled out too so that left only Cruz.
None of the above. Fox is clearly in the tank for Trump and doesn't want to give Cruz free time to destroy Trump.Trump wouldn't be there to respond. Ted would crucify him.
Fox will do anything to see their NYC friend as the nominee.
This is an outrage.
Trump will show up and lie, dissemble, show no knowledge on any public policy issue including immigration and trade.
And go up 5 points.
So, at this point, it doesn't matter.
Strategically, Trump has no further reason to share a stage with Cruz or Kasich. It just validates their presence and they are the one's chasing him.
He should ignore these guys and turn his sights on Hillary. That will show people who the real 'enemy' is.
Fox News looks stupid again in Trump's wake.
David Begley said...
Fox is clearly in the tank for Trump
You're kidding. Right?
My answer: Does a suit need a horse?
The suits say yes.
"At this point, what difference does it make?"
Kasich pulled out too, so that's why they cancelled.
Trump has already won the debates. What purpose does it serve him now?
The right thing for Fox to do would have been to change it to a Town Hall with just Cruz, then.
"Fox News Cancels GOP Debate After Donald Trump, John Kasich Pull Out"
http://www.thewrap.com/fox-news-cancels-gop-debate-after-donald-trump-john-kasich-pull-out-reports/
Trump knows a thing or two about TV ratings, and he knows they're going to fall now for debates.
I agree, he should start talking about Hillary.
Fox is such a tool of a network--if they want to be considered news, they go ahead with the debate with the one candidate willing to attend and make it a town-hall. Free publicity for Cruz? Yes, but so what? If the others bailed out at the eleventh hour, that's their own problem. Trump just knows he has nothing to gain from any further debates (and certainly plenty to lose if it is just him vs. Cruz and Kasich, as Cruz is a better debater, Kasich isn't going to tear Cruz down, and this gives the opposition a chance to rally around Cruz). And Fox of course plays into his hands as they have since he first went onto their network. Not that journalism in general has looked good this campaign, but Fox has been particularly pathetic. Maybe they're hoping to become Trump's Pravda.
All of the above
Trump should stick to large rallies with angry alpha males in attendance, it's a far better visual.
"I agree, he should start talking about Hillary."
Ok, what about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE4h6tOgVgc
"None of the above. Fox is clearly in the tank for Trump and doesn't want to give Cruz free time to destroy Trump.Trump wouldn't be there to respond. Ted would crucify him.
Fox will do anything to see their NYC friend as the nominee.
This is an outrage."
You're completely out of your mind.
So Trump is going to talk about Clinton being corrupt and a liar?
And she and her surrogates will simply remain silent and say nothing in return?
Just because the Trump supporters don't care that he's a liar, sexist, misogynist, authoritarian apologist for Putin and the Chinese and doesn't know a single public policy matter in any detail doesn't mean others don't care.
My vote: All of the above!
The Clinton machine hasn't even begun to deal with Trump yet, wait for it, it's coming. In the meantime Trump will ratchet up his misogynistic comments, women will be repulsed by the behavior, even women on the right.
I would like to see Trump and Cruz debate again. Kasich has no business being involved, as he's been mathematically eliminated from the first ballot nomination. Giving a guy who has won a single state (his home state and with less than 50% of the vote) any kind of forum only lends him credibility -- which he doesn't deserve. He's merely trying to force a contested convention. Fuck Kasich.
@ Steven M. Galbraith Forgetting your other slanderous descriptions, I don't think any presidential candidate, perhaps with the exception of Kasich, understands any public policy matter in detail. Rubio might have understood immigration in some detail, but he didn't understand the politics. Cruz may have a cursory knowledge of the budget, but he didn't understand the politics of a government shutdown. I don't think it's the chief executive's job to understand anything in detail. He needs to have a cursory knowledge of each topic and know where to go to get good advice on each. There are only so many hours in the day, and delving into one topic in detail means other important topics are ignored. The chief executive is responsible for making decisions based on ( one hopes) conflicting recommendations made by those who thoroughly understand the details.
"Cruz may have a cursory knowledge of the budget, but he didn't understand the politics of a government shutdown." You mean about how the GOP won the Senate and increased their margin in the House to an all time high after the shut down? You know, that politics of it!
Who doesn't understand politics here????
It's not slander if it's true. Or should I have used Trump language and called him a bunch of names like ugly, loser, fat, stupid, pussy?
Trump has shown zero proof that he has the most rudimentary understanding of how government works much less of any specific public policy.
The man said judges "sign bills"; he says as President he'll "open up" libel laws; as Commander in Chief he'll order the military to kill innocent children and that the internment of about 100,000 innocent Americans in World War II was a smart policy that he supports today.
What more evidence do you need?
If you think Cruz and Rubio don't have a basic understanding of the major public policies of the government then you obviously haven't heard them speak extemporaneously.
"Obviously, there needs to be more than one participant,"
That's debatable.
I think there has been too many Republican debates and too few Democrat. (And the Democrat ones that were held, were too well hidden from public view.)
OTOH, they did serve to show us how weak these vessels were.
The only one that grew on me in these debates was Carly Fiorina.
Another thing that has become clear is the uselessnes of the national committees of both parties.
And Martin O'Malley is the only Democrat other than Bernie and Hillary! that has any interest in becoming President? What gives?
Come to think of it: Hillary! and Bernie? Bernie!? WTF?!
"I think there has been too many Republican debates and too few Democrat. (And the Democrat ones that were held, were too well hidden from public view.)"
That was by design. The GOP felt having many debates would give their nominee a chance to face relentless attacks and questioning, preparing him for the general election and giving GOP voters a chance to vet him. Ideally, it would also give the party a chance to promote their ideas to a wide enough group of people. For the Dems, this was all about a coronation--Debbie Wasserman Shultz is a hack's hack, and wanted to smooth this for Hillary and protect her from tough questioning, hoping once Hillary is nominated it's too late for the Left to find anyone else to run. DWS obviously has no business running a party that unironically uses the name "democrat" in its title. She belongs in the "party boss" era. If Sanders wasn't such a "go with the flow" sort of guy (interesting for a man who wasn't even registered in the party for decades) he would run as a third party candidate. He won't, though--no one on the left wants to be the next Ralph Nader.
"And Martin O'Malley is the only Democrat other than Bernie and Hillary! that has any interest in becoming President? What gives?"
It is odd that in the whole party, no serious effort was mounted and that it was up to Sanders of all people to represent the voters who were not thrilled or even turned off by Clinton. My best guess is the Clintonites strongarmed everyone into giving this one to her (and Sanders didn't get the memo). They made it clear to other potential candidates, donors, endorsers, and staffers that if they wanted any future in the party, they'd better get on board because Hillary earned this one, dammit! No more Obama crap from 2008. She put in the time, everyone get in line. And it largely is working, with the help of the final defensive wall--the black vote.
Bay Area Guy
Trump has already won the debates.
You are kidding. He didn't win the debates. He's not a good debater. But he told us he won and some believe it.
What we are seeing is a leader / bully calling the shots now.
I'm sure if he could change the delegate count to insure everyone drop out today he would push for it. Trump is always about Trump.
United States Presidents have been alpha males, with only two exceptions in the last several decades: Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. I hate to conclude that a man who survived a WWII-era service academy would be a beta, but no alpha male would have ever given the 'malaise speech'. As far as the current resident is concerned, it requires just two words: mom jeans.
Obama thinks he is Metternich without Metternich's faults.
Actually, probably Napoleon and Metternich without any of their faults.
Matt,
The scoreboard determines who wins a debate.
And the scoreboard says Trump's in first. Trump won the debates.
David Begley said...
"None of the above. Fox is clearly in the tank for Trump and doesn't want to give Cruz free time to destroy Trump.Trump wouldn't be there to respond. Ted would crucify him.
Fox will do anything to see their NYC friend as the nominee.
This is an outrage."
This is such a pathetic comment. Sadly I am pretty sure you are serious.
Actually, when Trump cancelled Kasich immediately followed suit. That left just Cruz, I guess my thinking may have been in error when I believed a debate needed a minimum of 2 (two)? Maybe take down, or at least modify, the "poll"?
If not for SCOTUS appointments, I would be in burn it down mode. But as to your poll, those are poor choices. And as someone else mentioned, obsolete poor choices since Kasich pulled out after The Donald did.
Neither Kasich nor Cruz has any interest in a debate unless it means Trump can be slandered and ridiculed complete with Fox News produced and run video reports patched together into a two hour Kill The Trump Infomercial.
Trump just refused to be their target for free. But no offer of a dime for the wounded Vets has been made yet.
Most of your polls are a problem for me, I can't find any answers I agree with.
This one I agreed with almost all of them.
Strange world.
Alexander
"The scoreboard determines who wins a debate... Trump won the debates."
Did you watch any of the debates? Voters [or 45% of Republicans] are voting for Trump but it doesn't mean he 'won' the debates. Winning debates is not everything - [Gore easily beat Bush in the debates] - but it shows the voter what they can expect and the thinking process of the candidate. Cruz and Rubio were so much better and Kasich was quite good but too moderate for many. Trump began to win before the debates when he talked about immigration and because he is an 'outsider'. That's it. After that he has been excused for everything he has said or did. Prior to the second debate Drudge had a poll that showed Trump had already won the debate. That evening Trump tweeted about the Drudge poll. It's a joke.
Blogger traditionalguy said...
Neither Kasich nor Cruz has any interest in a debate unless it means Trump can be slandered and ridiculed
I think it is more what he himself says, rather than what is said about him that alarms people.
The Clinton machine hasn't even begun to deal with Trump yet, wait for it, it's coming.
Nothing she can hit him with that he cannot hit her back twice as hard with.
Fraud? Hey, let's look at the Clinton Foundation...
Treat women unequally? Shall we examine how Hillary pays her female staffers?
Trump is winning because all of the Republicans are running against him and he seems more interested in running against Hillary. It doesn't put his rivals in a position of strength.
At the meta level, the establishment made their deal with Trump so that he wouldn't run third party, but Trump only works if he isn't seen as backed by the establishment. Cruz is conservative not establishment so the debate is being cancelled to hurt Cruz.
It does, however, establish a precedent of cancelling debates that Hillary Clinton may take advantage of come fall.
Trump began to win before the debates when he talked about immigration and because he is an 'outsider'. That's it.
And, sadly, the Establishment STILL hasn't learned it.
What's to truly understand about how govt works?
It collects tax money and does it inefficiently and inaccurately [i.e. paying earned incme credit etc to illegals].
It spends way more than it brings in, its pays its average employee way more then the employee could earn in the private sector.
It pays way more for office space and has millions of square feet of unoccupied space.
It has little or no productivity standards and, as far as I can tell, its cabinet secretaries and "top" managers don't have a clue how to run and manage and supervise a big organization [that is based on my watching a few congressional hearings where the bigwigs could not answer routine questions].
The biggest advantage Republican candidates have nationally is that the Democrats think they are stupid.
One of the things that is odd about the media is that they think that a president should be a policy wonk.
"Trump chooses not to present himself for pummeling at the next debate." Correct, he has nothing to gain politically from being exposed again as knowing nothing about any public policy issue. Would he be able to complete a sentence like, "Under current immigration law, most new legal residents are admitted on the basis of ___"? Does he know how long the current "wall" is? Or to take an issue that bothers some people here--oddly, since it really doesn't relate to picking a president--could he explain what a "continuing resolution" is? Does he know what the EITC is, and does he think it is now too big, too small, or just right? Does he know what the EPA does, and does he agree that it should be doing that? Does he know how the Obamacare "mandate" works, and if so, why does he want to keep/change it? Of course, knowing is one thing, policy another. But how many proposals on "his" website has Trump himself recently defended in public? Does he know what they are?
Did I hear that Kasich cancelled, too? Personally, I would delighted to watch Cruz taking questions from a panel. I think it would have been most informative if they all had stood alone to take questions. Much more informative than those asinine so-called debates.
Sebastian-
Those are things that a president needs to know, if he is going to be a tax collector for the welfare state.
Sebastian said... [hush][hide comment]
"Trump chooses not to present himself for pummeling at the next debate." Correct, he has nothing to gain politically from being exposed again as knowing nothing about any public policy issue. Would he be able to complete a sentence like, "Under current immigration law, most new legal residents are admitted on the basis of ___"? Does he know how long the current "wall" is? Or to take an issue that bothers some people here--oddly, since it really doesn't relate to picking a president--could he explain what a "continuing resolution" is? Does he know what the EITC is, and does he think it is now too big, too small, or just right? Does he know what the EPA does, and does he agree that it should be doing that? Does he know how the Obamacare "mandate" works, and if so, why does he want to keep/change it? Of course, knowing is one thing, policy another. But how many proposals on "his" website has Trump himself recently defended in public? Does he know what they are?
Ya know, I suspect Trump does no know which end of the hammer hits the nail, is not familiar with "lefty-loosey, righty tighty". Yet, he somehow gets hotels, golf courses, and resorts built. Go figure !
"Those are things that a president needs to know, if he is going to be a tax collector for the welfare state." You mean, what immigration law says? What the EPA does? What the Obamacare mandate is? If you don't want to be tax collector for the welfare state--and I'd vote in favor of such a candidate who repudiates that role--it helps to know what parts of the welfare state you don't want your people collecting taxes for. Last I heard, Trump wants to keep all the main entitlements as they are. Of course, who knows what he "wants," and if he wants anything, whether he'll still want it tomorrow.
Amanda: "The Clinton machine hasn't even begun to deal with Trump yet.."
True. They are probably still busy threatening and harassing the women Bill sexually assaulted to ensure their silence.
All with the total support of the dem base.
Like you.
'cuz nothing says standing up for women like enabling your sexually assaulting husband to get away with it and destroying his victims at the same time.
Not to worry.
Something tells me that issue will be getting a bit of airtime even with the major media in complete blackout mode.
Matt: " Trump began to win before the debates when he talked about immigration and because he is an 'outsider'. That's it"
Looks like that might be more than enough.
Trump has already won the debates.
Response:
You are kidding. He didn't win the debates.
Trump might have a difficult time in a real debate – or – maybe not. But the so-called debates were actually interviews of a group of candidates. And Trump was prepared for the reality, that the “debates” would be hostile interviews punctuated by verbal free for all, produced with the manufactured drama of reality TV. Win or not, Trump never suffered a dip in the polls after any of the debates.
Fox is clearly in the tank for Trump …
Sort of. They are trying to be seen as neutral in recent days instead of seeming to be openly anti-Trump – as they were a short while ago. Their favorite pundits are desperately trying to say something about Trump that is both ostensibly fair and that doesn’t contradict their previous diatribes too much. Follow the ratings. It’s just an act, though.
Trump is going to be the candidate, for better or for worse. At this point, there's no reason to have any further "debates".
Apparently Matt wants to keep having debates until the "non-Trumps" get it right.
Of course, each candidate has already expressed themselves to the best of their abilities (my guy Cruz has done exceptionally well, considering) but it hasn't been quite enough yet.
The debate phase has run its course. Kasich is done campaigning. Cruz is flailing. Trump is pushing forward.
"The Clinton machine hasn't even begun to deal with Trump yet.."
Too busy dealing with Loretta Lynch.
Here’s my philosophy: I’ll get in line and patiently wait my turn to buy my ticket. But if the line breaks down into a free for all I’ll elbow my way up to the window and I’ll get my ticket. I won’t waste time whining about the lack of order. Trump doesn’t follow the rules, you say? Maybe Trump knows the real rules – and certain weaknesses of the MSM.
One of the things we are witnessing now is a test of the strength of the MSM. Will the MSM be able to bring Trump down, as they have so many others? It hasn’t worked so far but historically propaganda works even when the subjects are aware they are being propagandized.
However, we’ve never seen any politician like Trump. I can see why he inspires a certain type of anxiety in a certain type of individual. Unpredictable. Defiant. Blunt. Vulgar. Combative. Confident. If you like order, even if it is an artificial order routinely manipulated by those who know how, Trump is scary.
If Kasich was already out, there was nothing to cancel.
There are many smart, savvy political types (including some commentators here) who appear to be stunned and startled that Trump has, de facto, won the GOP nomination.
My response is, What race have you've been watching the past 6 months?
It's not hard to comprehend what has happened:
1. There's a big block of voters disenchanted with the political elites of both parties.
2. About half the primaries are "open," meaning anybody can vote.
3. Trump has a huge TV persona which garnered high ratings for the debates.
4. Trump came out strong against illegal immigration and trade deals.
5. The traditional GOP field was splintered among 16 other candidates.
6. Conservative outlets did not consolidate around 1 Conservative alternative to Trump.
7. Trump has lead in most polls for the last 6 months.
Hence, the GOP got Trump. QED.
Is this a bad thing?
It depends on how well Trump pivots to the General Election campaign. If he can bash Hillary as well as he bashed his GOP competitors, then that's good. If he can somehow unite the factions of the GOP competitors, whom he bashed, well, that might take some work, some massaging of egos, perhaps a few hugs. But that's necessary to get the 70 Million votes a Presidential candidate needs to win.
So, the ultimate question isn't whether Trump is a Conservative or a Fascist or a racist or a loudmouth or a savior.
The ultimate question is whether Trump, flaws and all, is better for the country than Hillary, flaws and all. Pure and simple.
Personally, I say Yes.
Kasich will end up with fewer delegates than Rubio. He's effectively out of the race.
Sadism does not a debate make.
Now if they would feature a public trial of abortionists and cannibals, and the women who love them, then that would be worth watching. Positive progress.
Matt, you are so right when you write: What we are seeing is a leader / bully calling the shots now.
I'm sure if he could change the delegate count to insure everyone drop out today he would push for it. Trump is always about Trump.
After all, in the last debate, Trump repeatedly referred to the 'magic number' needed to clinch the nomination as "a random number." Yes, the candidate in the lead had no clue, or knew that his fans had no clue, that the number is actually 50% plus 1. So he would be happy to start saying that some other number is all that is necessary to win and that he has acquired that number of delegates.
No, Trump did not win the debates in the sense of performing the best at them or in the sense of making intelligent arguments in defense of a clear set of policy goals which he would work to achieve as president. No, he "won" only in the sense that he got the most attention and coverage post-debate and his continued statements that "everyone says that I won the debate" were not continually challenged by more rational people.
Why would there be any advantage in a debate that Trump can't achieve on his own? He can determine the message and keep it constant and affirmative. He can begin to appear more presidential without the threat of a gotcha debate. Why should he give Kasich the opportunity for equal billing when he is on the ropes? Same goes for Cruz when the big states in the NE and West are dominated by moderates (Trump got 49% in MA, remember). I don't know the reason for the cancellation, but strategically it seems a very good move. Trump is going to control the messaging from now on.
What's the upside for Trump in going to a Fox debate? I don't see it.
Fox has already proven they're out to bash him with "gotcha" questions and slanted questions.
Besides, these so-called debates are worthless. And having Kasich there makes them even more worthless.
It seems that all the losers are whining that they did not get another shot at the prize. Why would Trump want to debate again? So far all the debates have shown is that "debates" are not debates. They are TV shows that the networks can sell for millions a minute. i would think that the remaining candidates have better things to do even as the kibitzers on the sidelines give their uninformed opinions.
ellamentary: "I'm sure if he could change the delegate count to insure everyone drop out today he would push for it."
Wow.
That would really be a first in a candidate for the Presidency, wouldn't it?
I voted for Cruz in my primary. I hope he becomes the nominee. That said if Trump is the guy, so be it. I can live with that. All those who are wailing and gnashing their teeth about Trump and swear not to vote for that boorish buffoon will vote for him with glee when he turns full guns on that grifter and felonious traitor Hillary Clinton.
I know I will and I will buy some Trump brand steaks and a couple of bottles of Trump wine and fire up the grill. I'm rooting for Ted but if it isn't meant to be then 2016: Donny For The White House And Hillary For The Big House!!
Drago, just to be clear, I was quoting Matt (3:13 pm) in the line you attributed to me about Trump being willing to change the delegate count. I basically said Matt had a point and that Trump didn't even seem to realize why the number required for nomination was set where it was, as per his comments at the last debate.
On and Cubanbob, how you gonna buy those Trump brand steaks? They've been out of business for years, despite his recent infomercial/press conference assertion to the contrary. Trust me, I'll keep gnashing my teeth and I will NOT vote for the man. Like Mitt Romney said he himself would do, I"ll find another candidate on the ballot and vote for him/her, even if it's just a vote cast against Trump and Clinton rather than a vote that can actually lead to the election of the candidate I select.
Just saw the first anti-Hillary ad by Trump. Just hilarious. Ad shows ISIS, Putin and then asks what is Democrat's answer? Shows Hillary barking like a dog.
I could become a Trump fan on this ad alone.
You mean Kasich is like the Canadian guy Who accisentally Won Gold After the Koreans tripped over themselves in short track skating.
Florida 2000 Dems: "keep counting the votes till we get the result we like, then stop"
Just like that. Why should Trump debate the people he has already beaten? If Trump did, and had a miserable debate, do you really think the GOP(E) would hold another to let him recover?
I, for one, would like Trump to answer a question about the new ad, with Hillary barking like a dog. They could run the ad, ask if it was rude, then Trump could ask for it to be run again so he could think about the question.
Then he could say no, it is not rude, just showing what a ridiculous person Hillary is, and what kind of presidential candidate barks at her own campaign rallies? That would be a win in November.
Mikee--I like that. Run that ad on national TV--twice. I understand the Russkies and Putin are outraged by the ad--which, in my view, makes it a win win.
"There's something very annoying about the Kasich candidacy."
While I agree with our hostess. Somehow, I don't think the Trumpkins are annoyed at all.
The Problem is that with Meg Kelly as a moderator, Trump's testicles get very small and shrink up into his abdomen.
ellamentary: "Drago, just to be clear, I was quoting Matt (3:13 pm) in the line you attributed to me about Trump being willing to change the delegate count."
No quote marks threw me off.
Apologies.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा