Sunday, October 1, 2023

Second Republican Presidential Candidate Debate Results & Comments



Breaking News on 10-1-23:  NO GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN !!!! 


Last night my wife and I watched the 2nd Republican Debate. And, as we waited for the debate to begin, there opened second window containing Brian Tyler Cohen already commenting on what to expect from the soon to arrive candidates debating the issues.

My wife and I liked Cohen immediately. He's articulate, very well informed, and he has an enjoyable style. 

Wikipedia said this about Cohen:  "Brian Tyler Cohen is an American progressive YouTuber, podcaster, political commentator, and MSNBC contributor."

I looked at his channel and subscribed.

Cohen made just a few helpful comments and opinions during the debate. Of his two million or more subscribers, during the debate 20,000 of them were repeatedly rating the top four candidates into an order of preferences. During the debate Cohen reported on the raters' standings for each candidate. After the first 5000 the rating were very stable.

The ending preferences were:

Nikki Haley was first at 38%.

Chris Christie was second at 25%.

Vivek Ramaswamy was third at 23%.

Ron DeSantis was fourth at 15%.

Cohen also performed fact checking on what candidates said and he organized the results into five categories:

3 Falsehoods: one by Chris Christie; one by Vivek Ramaswamy; one by Tim Scott.

4 True Statements: three by Nikki Haley; one by Ron DeSantis.

6 Misleading Statements: three by Mike Pence; one by Tim Scott; one by Ron DeDantis; and one by Vivek Ramaswamy.

1 Exaggerated Statements: one by Mike Pence. 

4 Statements Needing Additional Context: one each by Nikki Haley, Chris Christie, Doug Burgum, and Ron DeSantis. 

Therefore, altogether these are just 18 fact checked out of thousands of statements made on stage. Note that the above numbers are not percentages of what types of statements each candidate uttered.

We can, however, say that when Nikki Haley's statements were fact checked three times, she was always judged true.

I observed that Haley of all the candidates put out the most specific and clearly articulated and well-targeted facts. She was fact checked and never found false, misleading, exaggerated, or lacking needed context for her statements. 

Some candidates reveal authoritarian tendencies and you can read about tyranny and authoritarianism in my blog titled: "No Mysteries About Donald Trump---Dangerous To America, Unrepentant, Unredeemable."


Vivek Ramaswamy:

He was the most unusual personality on the stage. 

Very hyper, smiling way too much, exaggerated gestures (moving his arms, changing standing positions, pointing his finger minute after minute like it was stuck in the air), talking too fast and unable to stop his talking. 

Ramaswamy frequently spit out exaggerated assertions and deviated his way forward through a paragraph of disconnected thoughtless comments--all while he seeded to take great self-satisfaction in his racing flood of words.

He was the most discourteous, most confident, and apparently self-satisfied person on the stage. A spectacle unpleasant to watch. 

He showed his ignorance of LGBTQ+ issues by stating that "Trans" [transgender] is a mental health disorder. This statement was found to be false when fact checked. 

I do not view him as presidential.

Chris Christie:

I found Chris Christie to be appropriate, on-target, articulate and well-informed, and genuine.

I knew previously of his agenda for insuring Trump does not again become president and I greatly respect his goal. I view Christie as a very engaging and important politician.

I view him as presidential.

Doug Burgum:

Burgum did not get much talk time in the first debate. In this second debate he made determined efforts to get talk time to show what he had to offer. 

He indicated he was a businessman prior to entering politics. On stage he was indeed businesslike and capably and favorably revealed himself to the TV audience.

Several times, listening to him, I felt him to be very presidential. He speaks forthrightly, with passion, and his verbal output is well organized. He did not talk fantasies or make up convenient false facts for others to have to waste time disputing.

I view him as presidential.

Mike Pence:

In the first debate he looked his usual up-tight and stiff self. He's characteristically reserved and courteous. In the second debate he appeared more unsure of himself. He seemed more tired and lacking the energy to be assertive, dynamic, and convincing. This doesn't bode well.

I do respect Mike Pence as an honorable man, knowledgeable of government, a man who has shown an incredible amount of bravery for helping America get through the Trump era--at least so far. 

Personally, I would like to see him contributing to our American democracy. However, he is too far right to ever represent the majority of moderate republicans--or democrats for that matter. He has a very rigid view on abortion rights and were he successful legislating on this issue, he would exclude the majority freedom of choice position.

He is not in the top four most likely possible candidates.

I do not view him as presidential.


Nikki Haley:

Nikki Haley's governmental experience includes serving as Governor of South Carolina and Ambassador to the UN. 

I knew little about her until these republican presidential candidate debates. Now I am already a big fan of hers.

Her intelligence, interpersonal skills, and winsome personality have been naturally and effortlessly on display during these two debates. She was a successful standout in the first debate and she clearly is the winner in this second debate. 

About Haley and her good qualities, she seems to be a naturally good and very capable person. She comes across as an impressive lady who  is not diminished by her  self-assurance and political "fight" capacities. She seems to have what's necessary to go toe to toe with political friends as well as enemies. I did not notice her to have any timidity, as could be noticed when she responded to Tim Scott's attack with, "Bring it, Tim."

Haley appears to have figured out a basic issues platform for her candidacy. On abortion, she recognizes the issue is divisive (about 50% pro and con). Her statements are consistent and recognize that laws must be thoughtfully constructed and respect citizen beliefs on both sides of the issues.   

She is presidential.

Tim Scott:

Tim is known as well respected congressman. 

In the first debate he couldn't get enough talk time. He did get enough talk time in this second debate. He showed commitment to issues he cares about. But what was most noticeable was a one of a kind rant that slavery was not a problem and/or slavery (issues) did not exist in America. 

I believe he intended well but my impression of his rant was . . . well, just weird. 

Maybe he can consult with a trusted colleague and come up with a damage control response. Because of his good reputation, I hope he can do some repair work. 

Not yet presidential but could be.

Ron DeSantis:

DeSantis has been losing ground in the polls relative to Donald Trump. Precisely why isn't entirely clear, but here are two recent issues which may have contributed.

First: In his role as Florida governor, he has endorsed revisions in the state's curriculum. The revisions have added new and misleading content concerning slavery. An example is, "Slaves developed skills which in some instance, could be applied for their personal benefit." This sounds somewhat like justification of slavery. DeSantis made a positive comment about this so called benefit. When criticized about his comment, he blamed it on a "hoax perpetrated by Vice President Kamala Harris."   Commentary from MSNBC was that, 

"So, no, this was not a hoax perpetuated by Vice President Kamala Harris; it was a quote directly from the mouth of Ron DeSantis. But the fact that he was so desperate to distance himself from the truth is a tacit acknowledgment of just how misguided his comments were. It’s almost like DeSantis knows the difference between right and wrong, even if he’s not willing to be honest about it."

Second: DeSantis' has an issue of antagonism toward against LGBTQ+. It has not arisen so far in the Republican presidential debates. It will be interesting to see whether is does.

I have written a lot about the sickening realities of voters and constituencies sometimes helped but sometimes abused by sneaky and powerful politicians. It is the inherent nature of politics for it to be this way.

DeSantis has achieved significant political success. He's viewed broadly as politically successful and a candidate for higher office, even presidency of the U.S. 

He has also gained some notoriety by taking strongly conservative stances on a variety of issues.

In the last few years he has befallen to an allergy of "wokeness." Of course The word "woke" means an awareness (that is a mental state). So, what are the things he's "woke" and allergic to? It really looks like it's LGBTQ+. And something more:

LGBTQ+ ideas, words, expressions of LGBTQ+ identity, and LGBT+ literature. 

And, additionally, he's allergic to those who try to acknowledge and support the people with the existential realities of LGBTQ+ identity(s). This would include corporations and school systems that condone, indulge, or tolerate LGBTQ+ identities. 

"Woke" is a politically useful and blameful code word by which politicians can refer to their political enemies or political targets. For example: woke democrats, woke liberals, woke left, woke corporations, woke schools.... on and on.

Political code words are a regular part of politics. Woke is just a word but legislation and procedures dictated by government against certain citizen identities (race, beliefs, feelings) is not a policy which will end well. It is discriminating against a class of persons whose LGBTQ+ identity characteristics are substantiated by professional medical organizations as well as federal laws (for example concerning homosexuality).

DeSantis in the past emerged as a viable presidential candidate. But his approval rating across many polls has fallen steadily. 

He recently has made very aggressive public statements suggesting lack of compassion and understanding. His attack on the LGBTQ+ community appears to be a core part of is political platform. Even if he changed this, would the voting public believe it.

I do not view him as presidential.

Any references not found above are on the page  BIBLIOGRAPHY / WORKS CITED  in the blog.

    - END -

America's 2024 Republican Party Disaster

2235 Words   I GET IT that Republican Congressmen and women want to get re-elected--and that the Republican Party wants to control Co...