Who Won the Debate? FAUX News Won't Tell
*******************************
I will rate how I think the candidates did shortly. Of course, we want to hear from you as well. Before I do I can't help but express my disgust at FOX News. Conservatives, they are not your buddy. Ruppert Murdoch owns FOX, which means they are the Chi-coms and globalist's buddy.
This is how lame they are: One study showed they mentioned Mitt Romney's name 16,000 times. In the same period of time that they mentioned Ron Paul's name 248 times. Hunter and Tancredo did not get much more mention than Paul. FOX is the worst about only giving exposure to their self-designated "top-tier". The picture for this article is from a FAUX news story called "Who Won the Debate". Once again they show their "top three" only. The article is just a list of "approved" comments from e-mails to FAUX, so there is no clear answer from the article. What is my problem with this? They used this lame method only as a back-up when the poll they hyped for this thing did not give them the results they wanted. They deep-sixed that one.
Before and during and after the debate, FOX was advertising a text message poll where viewers could text message who they thought won the debate. You won't find the results for it in that article that is entitled "Who Won the Debate". You won't find it anywhere else on the FOX site either. They have a blackout on their own poll results because they did not show what FAUX wanted. When the live results came in, Ron Paul led with 37% saying he won. Guiliani was 2nd with 17%. When they came in Sean Hannity said, and I quote, "Not again!". That was the last we ever saw of the text message poll.
On to who did well and who did not....
(continued, click "Thursday" and scroll down for rest of article or if sent straight here just scroll down).
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Thursday, September 06, 2007
6 Comments:
1st- John McCain. Who would have guessed it? It seemed like everyone up there would be voting for John McCain if they were not in the race. His performance gave them a reason to. Is McCain a comer?
2nd Mitt Romney- The man is very smooth, looks and sounds good, and has an answer for everything- except his mistake on his son's "service to their country". He scored on Rudy last night.
3rd- Ron Paul- he was very tough, but came off a bit too cranky while doing it. If you disagree with him on Iraq then you will hate his performance, if you agree then you will love it, but the main thing is he is being heard now loud and clear and that is what he wants.
4th- Mike Huckabee- he helped himself some last night, and got a lot of what he wanted from the exchange with Paul- especially since CNN and FAUX coverage of the spat did not include Paul's last rebuttal.
5th- Sam Brownback- He had a strong answer on a question about homosexual marriage. Other than that, he was mostly dull.
6th- Rudy Guiliani- Not a disaster, but they were all gunning for him and he seemed to only have a few canned answers in response. He was flat for this one.
7th- Duncan Hunter- He started strong, but when it got down to discussing specific things we should do on foreign policy he sort of rambled. Also, his face has one eyebrow permanently raised, and it combines with a few other traits to give him a bit of a "windbag" persona.
8th Fred Thompson- Most think Fred hurt himself, especially in New Hampshire, and with FOX News, by snubbing this debate.
9th Tom Tancredo- seemed nervous and uptight. He is a better candidate than he showed last night. May not be long for the race.
I agree Mark. McCain looked good last night
1st-McCain
2nd-Ron Paul
3rd-Mitt Romney
4th-Mike Huckabee
5th-Rudy Giuliani
The biggest loser was Fred Thompson who didn't show up.
Mark, I am interested in what you think of the primaries being moved up and the effect it will have on the GOP race.
Rick,
I have been searching for the key documents that will allow me to determine that, without success. This past Tuesday each state was supposed to submit to the national party their plans for delegates, which includes final dates and method of allocation. Knowing both those things, and how heavily the national party is going to penalize states that jumped to the front of the line, are essential to knowing where to allocate resources. For the Paul campaign alone there is another factor which is as critical as all of those, which I will keep under my hat for a bit.
The national campaigns must be pouring over that info as we type- if they can find it.
The one thing I can say is that if the RNC backs down- and we live in times where discipline is a rare thing, then Romney is helped significantly by the Michigan move-up and Guiliani is helped significantly by the Florida move up.
Right now I think Romney is looking like the man to beat. He should win all the early states except South Carolina and perhaps Florida. Rudy has maxed out but is still strong. We may have a brokered convention for the first time in a long time.
Mark,
I too looked for the text poll results with no luck & I may have yelled at their website when I saw that picture of the "Big Three" on the "Who won" article, when the results didn't even include most of them.
I did happen to be watching the last time it posted before they pulled it. Here was the final numbers:
Paul ............ 33%
Huckabee......... 18%
McCain .......... 16%
Guiliani ........ 15%
Romney........... 15%
Hunter........... 2%
Brownback........ 0%
Tancredo......... 0%
Here's my take(for what it's worth).
1st place:
Huckabee without a doubt raised his status & name ID/attention more than anyone else with his & Paul's exchange etc. and that is the true measure of who won since all of these debates are low on substance.
2nd place:
John McCain may have made the first step in possibly salvaging a campaign that everyone considered dead... but can he capitalize on it? It will be hard.
3rd place:
Ron Paul made some good points, and very passionately(maybe too passionately). He cemented his status as the "love 'em or hate 'em) candidate.
4th place:
Tied between Rudy Guiliani & Mitt Romney... neither performed well & both lost ground against the "second tier".
Both seemed flummoxed by the personal questions; Guiliani's personal life & Romney's comparison of his son to military.
Basicly nothing new from Rudy & Mitt really labored through some of his answers.
The biggest losers of the night:
Brownback; I don't look for him to be at the next debate.
Tancredo; Good guy, bad perfomance.
He seems to halt & stumble when under pressure. He may stick it out to push his issue.
Thompson; Taking hits from everyone for skipping out. And announcing on Leno??! So we are supposed to believe the presidency is a joke?
I happened to watch his Leno appearance as well & my impression is that he is a DUD. No passion, no inspiration, no substance. He truly is a media creation.
c.b.,
Your take is worth as much as mine. Maybe I did not give Huckabee quite enough credit. I was impressed with each of my top four. I was thinking "these guys are good". My figures were the early ones. I did hear, as you report, that Huckabee had his own little "surge" to 2nd in that text messaging poll.
I noticed you did not mention strong-man Duncan Hunter.
I would have to place congressman Hunter in 5th place. I guess I failed to mention him because I think his position remains unchanged. I really don't consider him a winner or loser of this debate.
With each debate or event he seems to remain static, exempting the Texas straw poll.
With the exception of "the eyebrow" he comes aross as more presidential than most. It's curious why he can't seem to gain traction among true conservatives.
Post a Comment
<< Home