Results of ABC News Debate

Post Reply New Topic

Okay I watched the ABC News debate from start to finish and here is my analysis.

Newt Gingrich clearly won the debate, Romney's attack on Gingrich ended up royally backfiring and he managed to field all the attacks directed towards him.

Rick Perry did surprisingly well, probably the best debate performance I've seen him have.

Michelle Bachman is now trying to get Herman Cain supporters, and I really doubt they'll be dumb enough to not see through her ploy. Her attacks on Gingrich backfired when he pointed out how she was playing loose with the facts.

Ron Paul did well on domestic issues but came out as a total moron on foreign policy.

Rick Santorum did decent with no major screw ups.

Mitt Romney is in my opinion done. I doubt he will be the nominee or be able to recover, he made a serious gaffe in a back and forth with Rick Perry. Betting someone $10,000 in this economy with so many people out of work makes him look like nothing more than a spoiled rich kid.

His attack on Gingrich as being a career politician backfired when Gingrich pointed out that only reason Romney was out of politics was because he lost an election to Ted Kennedy.

In my opinion the winners of the debate are Gingrich and Perry, the biggest loser in this debate was Mitt Romney.

lol wow, you really are living in a fantasy world. Did you just ignore the majority of the debate where Newt got hammered repeated by pretty much everyone one stage? Newt did his typical BS'ing but doesn't change the fact that he's a flip flopping, individual mandate supporting, serial philandering, K-Street Washington insider. The only good thing that came out of this debate for Newt was that Romney came out looking even worse than him with his numerous gaffes.

I could (and will) vote for Newt in the primary.... and then watch him get destroyed in the general.

How could any evangelical with integrity vote for Gingrich?

Oh wait... never mind.

Link to the vid? I've seen comments on it in a couple sources. The consensus (including among right-wing commentators) seems to be that this debate was pretty disastrous for Gingrich. Romney was generally labeled the overall "winner" since everyone on stage was tearing into Gingrich, and let's be honest, Bachmann, Perry, and Santorum are not relevant anymore (well, Santorum never was).

Apparently Huntsman wasn't there? What's the deal with that?

Huntsman has less than 5% in any polls. He wasn't invited.

Huntsman certainly is not less relevant than Rick Santorum, who is an absolute joke. And the NYT ran some analyses that have Huntsman as the candidate most likely to win in the general election. He is sane enough to attract moderate voters (unlike Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Paul, or Gingrich) and also has credible enough conservative qualifications to hold up to scrutiny and get the support of the GOP base (unlike Romney and Gingrich). He is the only candidate with foreign policy experience, and of the 3 candidates with any executive experience, he is the only one who can really run on a successful record since Romney and Perry were both failures as governors.

Don't know how any body could say Romney won. He got tore up just as much as Newt did and had that terrible 10k bet gaffe or bringing up that Gingrich wants some weird lunar mining base as one of the main differences Gingrich saying the Palestinian's an imaginary people isn't much better tho.

Huntsman wasn't invited. Not sure what the criteria was but I'm guessing it was because he wasn't polling well enough in Iowa. Santorum polls relatively well in Iowa.

I'd say Santorum preformed well all things considered. He's actually a pretty good debater when he's not talking about the gays or wanting to start some war.

Rick Perry did well for his standards too, he attacked Newt and Mitt effectively and didn't completely come off as some confused drunkard.

Ron Paul is really completely driving the debate right now. Perry and Romney going out of their way to compliment him at the end was interesting although it is likely they're pandering. Pretty much all the candidates have done it. None of them have the guts to attack him besides Santorum.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcvUXIWYASE[/youtube]

Can't say I disagree with most of that. However, the fact that Huntsman has almost no support shows how irrational voters on the right have become.

There's simply no room for a credible, competent, candidate in the GOP.

Huntsman excluded from debate (click)

The articles I saw said that Romney basically won by default since Gingrich took a lot more damage and no one else is currently regarded as a front runner, at least not by the media.

That's some creative reasoning to say the least. I wonder who said that? Dick Morris? Frank Luntz? Gingrich looking bad doesn't necessarily mean good news for Romney when he looks just as bad. This the Iowa debate and if we consider Romney a "frontrunner" in Iowa then Ron Paul is certainly one as well especially considering that he has actually been polling better there than Mitt recently.

National polls really are irrelevant. All that matters are the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Jennifer Rubin. Her article was listed in the "right-leaning" section of Washington Post's editorial section.


Sure it does. If every challenger to Romney's status as the heir apparent self-destructs, that leaves him as the nominee by default even though most Republicans aren't really interested in him. Gingrich wants to position himself as an "electable" candidate as opposed to fringe types like Perry or Bachmann, but if he does poorly then "reasonable" Republicans will feel they are left with no other choice but Romney.


Fine, but Paul's not going to get the backing of the GOP establishment, and the media in general is still pretty much intent on ignoring him. That's why I said no one else is regarded as a front runner right now.

Salon called the debate for Newt, said he answered criticisms well and landed some good punches on Romney. I'll admit that the Ted Kennedy line was pretty good, Newt does know his verbal judo it would seem. The cynical part of me wonders if Salon is talking up Newt because they think he's weaker in a general election than Romney, with the conservative outlets trashing him for the same reason. Maybe I've been following politics too long, but when Inuyasha and Stephen Kornacki are on the same page, I smell a rat.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/11/the_new ... e_serious/

Time did not give Romney a particularly good review. Instead preferring the view that Newt weathered most of the attacks on him rather successfully.

http://swampland.time.com/2011/12/11/gi ... -main-lede

I do not have an opinion as to who won, I did not watch the debate and am not invested in any of the candidates.

When your highlight of the debate is "weathering attacks" it's not a good sign. Romney and Gingrich both got roughed up, that's pretty much the consensus. Post-debate spin goes every which way, the only real way you can judge these things is to watch them yourself.

I wasn't aware debates are meant to be "won". I thought debates were supposed to give insight about what the candidate thinks so that the voter can decide.

But I guess some people see them as some sort of sports match, ookay.

I thought that one backfired on him a lot worse than the $10,000 bet did on Romney. He got booed for that line and came across as a condescending dick, and Romney seemed to have a fairly strong response to it.