Who watched the debate?

[Dave007inVegas]

I wondered why the Fox moderators wanted to poke the bear with a stick.

To be provocative? To try and damage Trump?

If it was the later, they failed.


By ALEX SWOYER7 Aug 2015Cleveland, OH

CLEVELAND, Ohio: A Wall Street Journal report suggests that despite critics’ opinions predicting GOP frontrunner Donald Trump’s poll numbers would fall, two early – though unscientific – polls predict that may be wrong.

“Time Magazine found that Mr. Trump took 47% of nearly 55,000 votes. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) of Florida was in second place with just 10%. The Drudge Report’s poll found more than half of nearly 362,000 voters favored Mr. Trump, well above everyone else,” the Wall Street Journal noted.

After Frank Luntz’s made his opinion on Trump’s performance suggesting “tonight his act wore thin,” conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh stood up for Trump, and instead went after Fox News’ performance.

“I have never seen this kind of public backlash against Fox News personalities since the network launched in 1997,” the radio legend stated.

Even Bloomberg Politics went after Fox News host Megyn Kelly for her questioning comparing it to “something Rachel Maddow would ask.”

Bloomberg reported:

A few hours before Thursday’s Fox News debate, a friend of Donald Trump’s confided to me that Trump was nervous. Not about the competition—he could handle them. No, Trump worried about Fox News, and in particular, debate moderator Megyn Kelly. She’d been hammering him all week on her show, and he was certain she was out to get him. He’d canceled a Fox News appearance on Monday night, the friend said, in order to avoid her. (Trump’s spokeswoman wouldn’t confirm or deny this.)

It turns out Trump was right. His toughest opponents Thursday night weren’t the candidates up on stage, but the Fox News moderators, who went right after him—none with more gusto than Kelly…

But Trump saw her coming a mile away and cut her off.

 

[Acebb]

If Trump wasn't in that debate......the audience would be next to nothing. You're very stupid when it comes to politics and polls. I mean, you really don't have a clue.....I would say stick to sports betting but you're putrid at that also.

5 pm undercard debate had 6.1 million total viewers, making it the third-highest primary debate ever on cable

Vitt is right.

No, vitt is a clueless idiot.

 

[Willie99]

I have no idea why so many people watched, I have no idea, nobody else does either.

Maybe just maybe the country is looking for a new direction. Maybe just maybe they tuned in to see some alternatives.

Ron Paul had cult following, yet he can never create a ratings surge.

My best guess is that there's going to be a record high interest in the republican candidate

 

[vitterd]

I have no idea why so many people watched, I have no idea, nobody else does either.

Maybe just maybe the country is looking for a new direction. Maybe just maybe they tuned in to see some alternatives.

Ron Paul had cult following, yet he can never create a ratings surge.

My best guess is that there's going to be a record high interest in the republican candidate

I know. TRUMP

 

[The Guesser]

I know. TRUMP

Are there people actually arguing that Trump Wasn't the reason for the amazing interest and ratings????hno: Can anyone be that clueless? Well, it's The Poli forum, so of course there are people that clueless.

 

[vitterd]

Are there people actually arguing that Trump Wasn't the reason for the amazing interest and ratings????hno: Can anyone be that clueless? Well, it's The Poli forum, so of course there are people that clueless.

Amazing isn't it? Acebb actually believes it's because a poll said that people feel we are on the wrong track.

You didn't tune in for Jebs new 5 point plan to create jobs? Lmao

 

[PatsFan1283]

I have no idea why so many people watched, I have no idea, nobody else does either.

Maybe just maybe the country is looking for a new direction. Maybe just maybe they tuned in to see some alternatives.

Ron Paul had cult following, yet he can never create a ratings surge.

My best guess is that there's going to be a record high interest in the republican candidate

Yeah all of this is true for why there is more interest and ratings would've probably been much higher than normal regardless but to get to 24 million instead of say like 10-12 (which would still be really high) a lot has to do with Trump. Ron Paul had a grassroots following but Trump has been a famous celeb for 30 years, top rated show on network TV, bestselling books, everyone knows who he is. Not only does everyone know who he is but he has that polarization as well, people either love him or hate him.

And to top it off the media covered him relentlessly over the last 6-7 weeks. Maybe more coverage than the other 16 candidates combined.

 

[JohnnyMac]

I wondered why the Fox moderators wanted to poke the bear with a stick.

To be provocative? To try and damage Trump?

If it was the later, they failed.


By ALEX SWOYER7 Aug 2015Cleveland, OH

CLEVELAND, Ohio: A Wall Street Journal report suggests that despite critics’ opinions predicting GOP frontrunner Donald Trump’s poll numbers would fall, two early – though unscientific – polls predict that may be wrong.

“Time Magazine found that Mr. Trump took 47% of nearly 55,000 votes. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) of Florida was in second place with just 10%. The Drudge Report’s poll found more than half of nearly 362,000 voters favored Mr. Trump, well above everyone else,” the Wall Street Journal noted.

After Frank Luntz’s made his opinion on Trump’s performance suggesting “tonight his act wore thin,” conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh stood up for Trump, and instead went after Fox News’ performance.

“I have never seen this kind of public backlash against Fox News personalities since the network launched in 1997,” the radio legend stated.

Even Bloomberg Politics went after Fox News host Megyn Kelly for her questioning comparing it to “something Rachel Maddow would ask.”

Bloomberg reported:

A few hours before Thursday’s Fox News debate, a friend of Donald Trump’s confided to me that Trump was nervous. Not about the competition—he could handle them. No, Trump worried about Fox News, and in particular, debate moderator Megyn Kelly. She’d been hammering him all week on her show, and he was certain she was out to get him. He’d canceled a Fox News appearance on Monday night, the friend said, in order to avoid her. (Trump’s spokeswoman wouldn’t confirm or deny this.)

It turns out Trump was right. His toughest opponents Thursday night weren’t the candidates up on stage, but the Fox News moderators, who went right after him—none with more gusto than Kelly…

But Trump saw her coming a mile away and cut her off.

Does this article imply Fox News is not really fair and balanced?

 

[Willie99]

Why do Pauls think they actually know how Peters think?

I mean where not talking about food stamps and free housing, when we do talk about government handouts, we'll seek their advice

 

[SheriffJoe]

What if Fox News had treated the Kenyan the way they treated Trump.

Hmmmm....

 

[vitterd]

What if Fox News had treated the Kenyan the way they treated Trump.

Hmmmm....

Yeah, they treat Obama very fair at Fox News. Bwaaaaaaahhhh. Only joe.

Where was Fred Thompson last night?

 

[BleedingPurple]

Yeah, they treat Obama very fair at Fox News. Bwaaaaaaahhhh. Only joe.

Where was Fred Thompson last night?

Joe claims he's not fringe, yet he refers to O as the Kenyan still. When is that bombshell info coming Casper?

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Does this article imply Fox News is not really fair and balanced?

Yes.

They ignored Carson for the most part. Gave Kasich more time than he deserved.

Chris Wallace looked like a evangelical with his fear of the words prostitutes, whores and pimps that ironically were spoken by an ordained Southern Baptist minister.

The Fox moderators Chris Wallace, Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier spoke for 31 minutes and 53 seconds of the roughly two-hour broadcast, or 31.7% of the time.

I didn’t tune in to listen to the above. Their egos got the best of them.

 

[Acebb]

Are there people actually arguing that Trump Wasn't the reason for the amazing interest and ratings????hno: Can anyone be that clueless? Well, it's The Poli forum, so of course there are people that clueless.

Hey spammy the rat, given that the 5pm debate was the 3rd highest rated debate in the history of cable, but did not involve Trump, please explain how Trump drove all the ratings?

This will be funny to watch...

 

[ScottL]

I thought Carly did well in the early. Saw her interview yesterday with Anderson Cooper and I was impressed.

Carson, Kasich, Christie did well in the main.

Trump did not look presidential. Bush is bland.

Rubio did well in the debate but his interview with Hannity afterwards was Ambien.

Walker was OK in the debate but one on one with Hannity even better.


If you want my vote give me a good plan on foreign policy, the economy, and entitlements.

If you want to lose my vote keep talking about Jesus, gays, and abortion.


And be someone who wants to lead America, not rule it.

 

[Murphy8276]

I know. TRUMP

agreed. He makes good TV in the debate. I have no desire for him to actually be taken seriously, but I like the bluntness he brings to the debate stemming from him for or against.

-murph

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Is this guy trying to get the Granny elected?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-speak-at-redstate-event-megyn-kelly-invited/

ATLANTA — Conservative commentator Erick Erickson on Friday night disinvited GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump from speaking at an activist conference he is hosting here this weekend, citing disparaging remarks Trump made hours earlier on CNN about Fox News Channel anchor Megyn Kelly.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Erickson said Trump had been scheduled to speak at his RedState gathering on Saturday at the College Football Hall of Fame, but he told Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s campaign manager, about an hour before midnight that Trump was no longer welcome.

Keep fucking around and the Republican voters will split their vote an assure a Clinton victory.

 

[neverbend]

Maybe not a Clinton victory, Trump could do the unthinkable

Worrisome for Republicans, however, is the finding that over a third (36%) of Likely GOP Voters
say they are likely to vote for Trump if he’s a third-party candidate, even 19% of Democrats describe
themselves as likely Trump voters.

Forty-six percent (46%) of all voters say they have voted for an independent candidate
not affiliated with either major political party. Among these voters, 34% say they are likely
to vote for Trump if he ends up running as a third-party presidential candidate

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on July 28-29, 2015

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Is this guy on to something?

On Friday’s broadcast of CNN’s “OutFront,” Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alexander Marlow said the first primetime debate was “a great debate — between the Fox News anchors and between Donald Trump” with “establishment” Fox “trying to take out” the businessman and GOP frontrunner.

Marlow said that pollster Frank Luntz’s declaration that the primetime debate was “the destruction of a presidential campaign” for Trump is “wishful thinking.” He continued, “We saw what last night’s debate was, which was a great debate. It was a great debate between the Fox News anchors and between Donald Trump. There was also, I enjoyed the [Chris] Christie-Rand [Paul] spat. That was good too. But, for the most part, we saw that Fox was on a mission: they’re trying to take out Donald Trump.” He continued: “Fox is positioning themselves as a centrist network, as an establishment Republican network. They’re not interested in Donald Trump and his supporters. His supporters are grassroots conservatives, and that’s why he does so well.”

Marlow was then asked by substitute host Kate Boulduan what was wrong with “pushing” Trump? He answered, “There’s nothing wrong with pushing him on his record. It’s just the vitriol and the tone, I think made Trump seem like a victim. He was sitting there smiling in the beginning, while he’s essentially getting badgered.” Marlow said that he expected the opening to have something to do with Hillary Clinton or specific policy positions. “No, it was just, ‘are you going to pledge allegiance to the Republican Party?’ This is clearly a gotcha question, and it was a gotcha debate.”

He added, “There were lots of gotcha questions throughout the debate. It was peppered with it, reading from Donald Trump’s Twitter feed, you can’t get more gotcha than that, when we’re going up against presumably Hillary Clinton, married to Bill Clinton, accused serial sexual harasser, with accusations still on the table.”

The Breitbart editor concluded by noting that while Fox anchor Megyn Kelly’s “war on women” line of questioning centered on Mr. Trump’s tweets, the candidates were not asked about the record number of women out of the work force. “He’s mean, sure, Kate,” Marlow said, “but he was also mean to Frank Luntz when he called him a low-class slob earlier today.”

 

[The Guesser]

They're Buyin it Donnie: