Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Wednesday, February 26, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 694)
Politics

Nielson Media Research & Akamai say FBN debate was watched by 13.5 million total viewers, 1.4 million livestreams

FOX-Business-debate

Donald Trump, Ben Caron, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and John Kasich come out on stage for the fourth Republican debate hosted by FOX Business and the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 10, 2015. (Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

The fourth Republican primary debated hosted by FOX Business Network and The Wall Street Journal set a record for the network and drew the most concurrent livestreaming views ever for a primary debate.

The primetime debate was watched by 13.5 million total viewers, including 3.7 million in the key A25-54 demographic, according to Nielsen Media Research. That easily makes the debate making the network’s highest rated program in its history. The debate was also the most watched livestreaming primary event ever, topping 1.4 million concurrent streams according to Akamai. That latter tops both NBC’s 2015 Super Bowl, which saw 1.3 million concurrent livestreams, and CNN’s 921,000 concurrent streams for the September 16th GOP debate.

Moderated by FBN’s Maria Bartiromo and Neil Cavuto, along The Wall Street Journal’s (WSJ) editor-in-chief Gerard Baker, the primetime debate was the first ever conducted in the network’s history. Unlike the first Republican debate hosted by Fox News, which was widely criticized on social and conservative media, Cavuto & Co. were widely praised by PPD.

“Enter Neil Cavuto & Co., who not only redeemed their sister network Tuesday night, but also set the bar,” PPD’s senior analyst Richard Baris wrote Wednesday. “Cavuto–joined by Maria Bartiromo and Gerard Baker, the editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal–are now the Gold Standard of debate moderation going forward in the 2016 presidential election cycle.”

FOX Business Network launched in 2007 and is currently available to 82 million homes nationwide. That’s 11 million less than the 93 million homes CNBC can be found in, yet FBN brought in just 4% fewer voters to the CNBC primetime debate last month.

The 7PM/ET debate, moderated by FBN’s Sandra Smith, Trish Regan, and WSJ’s Gerald Seib, averaged 4.7 million total viewers and 866,000 viewers in the A25-54 demo, which also beat out CNBC’s undercard debate by roughly 188 percent.

November 10, 2015 Republican Presidential Primary Debates
• 7-8:15PM/ET Debate: 4,706,850 P2+, 866,076 A25-54
• 9-11:15PM/ET Debate: 13,491,045 P2+, 3,649,457 A25-54

FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information across all platforms that impact both Main Street and Wall Street. Headquartered in New York—the business capital of the world—FBN launched in October 2007 and is available in more than 80 million homes in major markets across the United States. Owned by 21st Century Fox, the network has bureaus in Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, DC and London. On the web at www.foxbusiness.com.

The fourth Republican primary debated hosted by

Economy

Job-seekers-interview

Job seekers wait on a line to interview with jobs fair and Labor Department officials in NYC. (Photo: REUTERS)

The Labor Department said Thursday that the firing rate, otherwise referred to as weekly jobless claims were unchanged at 276,000 for the week ended Nov. 7. That came in higher than the estimate for 270,000. Economists polled by Reuters had expected claims to drop to 270,000 last week.

A Labor Department analyst said there were no special factors influencing the data and no states had been estimated.

Claims are not too far from levels last seen in the early 1970s, though the labor force participation rate is at 30-year lows, as well. They have now held below the 300,000 threshold for 36 consecutive weeks, the longest stretch in years, and claims below this level are usually associated with a healthy jobs market.

The four-week moving average of claims–widely considered a better measure of labor market trends as it strips out week-to-week volatility–gained by 5,000 to 267,750 last week, still close to a 42-year low. The Labor Department report said the number of people still receiving benefits after an initial week of benefits actually increased by 5,000 to 2.17 million in the week ended Oct. 31. The four-week moving average of continuing claims edged up 2,250 to 2.17 million.

The Labor Department said Thursday that the

Opinion

healthcare-capitol-hill

Capitol Hill and healthcare emblem.

In the course of human events, many things need fixing. One of them is the cost of Medicare, climbing rapidly as baby boomers enroll in large numbers.

We can argue over how to contain this major federal expense, and we should. But assigning blame for the problem on anyone born between 1946 and 1964 seems an absurd way to go about it.

Foes of Medicare and Social Security have long tried to corral resentment against baby boomers to weaken public support for these programs. Some supporters on the left do likewise in an effort to move more resources toward programs serving the young and the poor.

Boomer-bashing may be entertaining, but it’s not smart analysis. It’s become the fashion nevertheless.

Boomers should “repent,” Washington Post writer Jim Tankersley declares with no hint of humor.

He charges, “Boomers soaked up a lot of economic opportunity without bothering to preserve much for the generations to come.”

Two interesting notions here. That economic opportunity is a fixed quantity that gets used up. That Americans belonging to a set age group act in unison, hold the same political views and are all rolling in dough.

Tankersley thus calls on “boomer candidates” to reduce carbon emissions and head off a debt crisis. Is he talking about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Jeb Bush or Bernie Sanders? They’re different, you know.

And what is our author doing about his fellow Generation Xer Ted “I don’t believe in climate change” Cruz? Generation Z may someday demand an explanation.

Let’s be mindful that America doesn’t control everything that happens on this planet. That makes throwing the book at one of its age groups even odder.

“They opened global trade and watched millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs vanish,” Tankersley writes. Actually, several million of those lost factory jobs were the boomers’.

Without a doubt, older Americans on average have had an easier time of it economically than members of Generation X and certainly the younger millennials. And there are limits to how much working Americans can pay for programs serving retirees. But let’s discuss these issues in a rational way.

The Urban Institute projects that couples retiring in 2011 will draw $200,000 more from Medicare and Social Security than they paid in taxes to support the benefits, Tankersley notes. “And yet almost no one suggests that boomers should share the pain of shoring up those programs.”

The Urban Institute should know better than to lump Medicare and Social Security together. That entire $200,000 is tied to Medicare.

Social Security is self-funding. Until 1983, it was strictly pay-as-you-go. Workers were taxed just enough to support current beneficiaries.

Recognizing that a surge of retirees would put great pressure on the workers later on, both political parties did ask the boomers to help strengthen the program. Social Security tax rates were raised. So was the age for receiving full benefits. And for the first time, Social Security benefits were taxed for those earning above a certain amount.

Baby boomers have been building up the Social Security trust fund for over 30 years, which is why the program’s finances are in fairly good shape.

Medicare is another matter. Much of its funding comes from the Treasury, that is, income taxes. It’s been victim to the ridiculously inflated cost of health care in this country plus quite a bit of fraud. The good news is there’s lots of low-hanging fruit to be plucked for savings.

Generational names do provide useful shorthand for Americans sharing certain experiences by virtue of their age. But let us judge individuals by the things they do, not the year they were born in.

Foes and supporters of Medicare and Social

Opinion

Obama Immigration Speech

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about immigration reform during a visit to Del Sol High School in Las Vegas, Nevada November 21, 2014. (Photo: Reuters)

Earlier this week, a federal appeals court in New Orleans upheld an injunction issued by a federal district court in Texas against the federal government, thereby preventing it from implementing President Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration. Critics had argued and two federal courts have now agreed that the orders effectively circumvented federal law and were essentially unconstitutional.

Though the injunction on its face restrains officials in the Department of Homeland Security, it is really a restraint on the president himself. Here is the back story.

President Obama has long wished to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws to make it easier for people who are here illegally to remain here and to make it easier for them eventually to acquire the attributes of citizenship. He may have a bighearted moral motivation, or he may have a partisan political motivation. I don’t know which it is, but his motivation has driven him to use extraconstitutional means to achieve his ends.

During his first term in office, he attempted to have federal laws changed — quite properly at first — by offering proposals to Congress, which it rejected. That rejection left in place a complex regulatory scheme that is partially administered by DHS and partially by the Department of Justice. It left about 11.3 million people unlawfully present in the United States.

The conscious decision of Congress not to change the law in the face of such a large number of undocumented people here left those people, adults and children, exposed to deportation. It also left them entitled to financial benefits paid for by the states in which they reside.

Deportation is a lengthy and expensive process. The courts have ruled that all people subject to deportation are entitled to a hearing, with counsel paid for by the government. If they lose, they are entitled to an appeal, with counsel paid for by the government. The government has teams of prosecutors, defense counsel and judges who address only deportations. The highest number of people the government has successfully deported in a year is about 250,000, which was done in 2013. If you add removals without trial (many are voluntary) and rejections at the border, the number swells to 438,000 a year.

While awaiting deportation, those people here unlawfully and not confined are entitled to the social safety net that states offer everyone else, as well as the direct benefits states make available to citizens, such as public schooling, access to hospital emergency rooms, and housing and personal living assistance.

Frustrated that Congress thwarted his will, President Obama — resorting to his now infamous and probably regretted one-liner that he can govern by using a pen and a phone — issued a series of executive orders in 2012 to various federal agencies, directing them to cease deportation of undocumented people if they complied with certain standards that the president wished of them. The standards, compliance with which would bar deportation, were essentially the same as those that the president had sought and Congress had rejected.

Can the president write his own laws or procedures?

In the litigation that came to a head early this week, 26 states, led by Texas, sued the federal government. In that lawsuit, the states argued that they would be made to endure unbearable financial burdens if the undocumented folks stayed where they are and if the states continued to make the same social safety net available to them as they make available to their lawful residents. Thus, the states argued, the president forced the states to spend money they hadn’t budgeted or collected to support a legal scheme that Congress had not only never authorized but expressly rejected.

Can the president write his own laws and procedures?

The states also argued in their lawsuit that if the DHS and DOJ complied with the president’s executive orders, those federal departments would be exceeding their authority under the statutes because the president was exceeding his authority. This is a president who has argued dozens of times in public that he is not a king and that he lacks the ability to recast the laws as he wishes they had been written.

Can the president write his own laws and procedures?

In a word: No. The president can issue executive orders to officials in the executive branch of government directing those officials to enforce the laws as the president wishes them to be enforced — within the letter and spirit of those laws. But those executive orders cannot write new laws or revise old laws or ignore existing laws that the Congress clearly expects to be enforced. That is just what a federal district court judge ruled earlier this year and just what a federal appellate court ruled in affirming the district court earlier this week.

All people who embrace the rule of law — whether they are for open borders or for an impenetrable border wall — should embrace these rulings because they keep the president within the confines of the Constitution, which he has sworn to uphold.

Under our constitutional system of supposedly limited government, all legislative power is vested in Congress. The president enforces the laws; he doesn’t write them. His oath of office commits him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and it further commits him to enforce the federal laws “faithfully” — meaning whether he personally agrees with them or not.

The clash between the president and the courts is as old as our republic itself. Courts are traditionally loath to interfere with the business of Congress or the president. Yet when the behavior of another branch of government defies core constitutional norms, it is the duty of the courts in a case properly before them to say what the Constitution means and to order compliance with it.

Though the injunction on amnesty on its

Policy

hillary-clinton-oecd-2011

Then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivers remarks at the OECD Ministerial in June, 2011.

I’m not a big fan of the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). That international bureaucracy is controlled by high-tax nations that want to export bad policy to the rest of the world. As such, the OECD frequently advocates policies that are contrary to sound economic principles.

Here are just a few examples of statist policies that are directly contrary to the interests of the American people.

With a list like that, you can understand why I’m so upset that American taxpayers subsidize this pernicious bureaucracy. Heck, I’m so opposed to the OECD that I was almost thrown in a Mexican jail for fighting against their anti-tax competition project.

But the point of today’s column isn’t to bash the OECD. The above list is simply to make clear that nobody could accuse the Paris-based bureaucracy of being in favor of small government and free markets.

So if the OECD actually admits that the spending cap in the Swiss Debt Brake is a very effective fiscal rule, that’s a remarkable development. Sort of like criminals admitting that a certain alarm system is effective.

And that’s exactly the message in a report on The State of Public Finances 2015, which was just released by the OECD. Here are some key findings from the preface.

It is understandable that citizens ask why public financial management processes did not guard, in a more effective way, against the vagaries of the economic cycle…the OECD’s recent Recommendation on Budgetary Governance…spells out a number of simple, clear yet ambitious principles for how countries should manage their budgets and fiscal policy processes. …the most salient lesson…is not to seek to avoid altogether the fiscal shocks and cyclical downturns, to which our economies are subject from time to time. The real challenge is to build resilience into our national framework…to mitigate these fiscal shocks. …As to fiscal resilience, this report underpins the wisdom of…fiscal rules.

But what fiscal rules actually work?

This is where the OECD bureaucrats deserve credit for acknowledging an approach with a proven track record, even though the organization often advocates for bigger government. Here are some excerpts from the report’s executive summary.

The European Union’s Stability and Growth Pact…proved largely ineffective in protecting countries from the effects of the fiscal crisis. …Simple and clear fiscal anchors – e.g., the Swiss and German debt brake rules – appear to have been more effective in influencing effective fiscal management.

And here is some additional analysis from the body of the report.

Switzerland’s “debt brake” constitutional rule has proven a model for some OECD countries, notably Germany. …Germany adopted a debt brake rule in 2009… In addition, the United Kingdom recently announced (June 2015) its plan… Furthermore,…it is preferable to combine a budget balance rule with an expenditure rule.

And here are some of the findings from a separate OECD study published earlier this year. Switzerland’s debt brake isn’t explicitly mentioned, but the key feature of the Swiss approach – a spending cap – is warmly embraced.

A combination of a budget balance rule and an expenditure rule seems to suit most countries well. …well-designed expenditure rules appear decisive to ensure the effectiveness of a budget balance rule and can foster long-term growth. …Spending rules entail no trade-off between minimising recession risks and minimising debt uncertainties. They can boost potential growth and hence reduce the recession risk without any adverse effect on debt. Indeed, estimations show that public spending restraint is associated with higher potential growth.

Let me now add my two cents. The research from the OECD on spending caps is good, but incomplete. The main omission is that both the report and the study don’t explain that spending caps primarily are effective because they prevent excessive spending increases when the economy is strong.

As I’ve explained before, citing examples such as Greece, Alberta, Puerto Rico, California, and Alaska, politicians have a compulsive tendency to create new spending commitments during periods when a robust economy is generating lots of tax revenue. But when the economy stumbles and revenues go flat, these spending commitments become unsustainable.

And, all too often, politicians respond with higher taxes.

Speaking of which, the more recent OECD report also has some interesting data on how countries have dealt with fiscal policy in recent years.

Here are two charts showing fiscal changes from 2012-2014 and projected fiscal changes from 2015-2017.

I’m not sure why the United States isn’t on the list. After all, we actually had some very good changes in 2012-2014 period (though we’ve recently regressed). But let’s look at some of the other nations (keeping in mind “expenditure reductions” are mostly just reductions in planned increases, just like in the U.S.).

Kudos to New Zealand (NZL), Switzerland (CHE), and the United Kingdom (GBR), all of which took steps to constrain spending over the past three years and all of which intend to be similarly prudent over the next three years.

Cautious applause to France (FRA), Spain (ESP), Denmark (DNK), and Sweden (SWE), all of which at least claim they’ll be prudent in the future.

And jeers to Mexico (MEX) for bad policy in the past and Turkey (TUR) for bad policy in the future, while both the Czech Republic (CZE) and Finland (FIN) deserve scorn for pursuing lots of tax increases in both periods.

Let’s take a moment to elaborate on the nations that have made responsible choices. I’ve already written about fiscal restraint in Switzerland, and I’ve also noted that the United Kingdom has moved in the right direction (even though the current government made some tax mistakes that led me to be very pessimistic when it first took control).

So let’s focus on New Zealand, which is yet another case study showing the value of Mitchell’s Golden Rule.

During the 2012-2014 period, government spending grew by less than 1 percent annually according to IMF data. The government doesn’t intend to be as prudent for the 2015-2017 period, which spending projected to grow by 3 percent annually. But in both cases, nominal spending is growing slower than nominal GDP, and that’s the key to fiscal progress.

Indeed, if you check the OECD data on the overall burden of government spending, the public sector in New Zealand today is consuming 40.5 percent of economic output, which is far too high, but still lower than 44.7 percent of GDP, which was the amount of GDP consumed by government in 2011.

And don’t forget that New Zealand has the world’s freest economy for non-fiscal factors, ranking even above Hong Kong and Singapore.

Let’s conclude by circling back to the issue of spending caps.

It is a noteworthy development that even the OECD has embraced expenditure limits. Especially since the IMF also has endorsed spending caps. And since spending caps also have widespread support among fiscal experts from think thanks, maybe, just maybe, there’s a chance for real reform.

The OECD is controlled by high-tax nations

Politics

Neil Cavuto, Maria Bartiromo, and Gerard Baker are the Gold Standard for Moderators Going Forward

Fox-Business-WSJ-GOP-Debate

Donald Trump, Ben Caron, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and John Kasich participate in the fourth Republican debate hosted by FOX Business and the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 10, 2015. (Photo: Scott Hough/Getty Images)

Post Republican debate analysis worth reading or listening to should never be predicated on the simple question of who won or who lost. Each candidate, as far as competent campaigns and pundits should be concerned, have a set of goals to accomplish while they have the ear and attention of millions of viewers. Whether that is reenforcing or shattering a narrative surrounding their candidacy, calming donors’ nerves or just trying to stand out in a crowded field of candidates, each should be measured accordingly.

As far as the candidates go, that’s what I am going to do with my post Republican debate analysis following the fourth round hosted by FOX Business and The Wall Street Journal in Wisconsin on Tuesday. That said, before we get into the candidates, let’s get one last observation worth mentioning out of the way.

It took four debates, but Republican primary voters were finally presented with a debate that didn’t waste several hours of their time. The first Republican debate–which was also hosted by Fox News and moderated by Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace–was a complete sham and a total disaster. Despite the network’s usual sycophants patting each other on the back, and reenforcing their self-gratification by citing reaction from leftwing news outlets, Main Street social media was fuming over the handling of that debate.

After the “raise-your-hand” stunt and ridiculous questions aimed at painting candidates as God-fearing lunatics (see Megyn Kelly), Republican voters were worried Fox News blew their one and perhaps only chance to have a substantive debate in the primary.

Enter Neil Cavuto & Co., who not only redeemed their sister network Tuesday night, but also set the bar. Cavuto–joined by Maria Bartiromo and Gerard Baker, the editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal–are now the Gold Standard of debate moderation going forward in the 2016 presidential election cycle.

Now, with that out of the way, let’s move on to the candidates.

FOX-Business-debate

Donald Trump, Ben Caron, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and John Kasich come out on stage for the fourth Republican debate hosted by FOX Business and the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 10, 2015. (Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Donald Trump

Trump chose, wisely, not to attack Ben Carson’s character and instead focused on his competence and personal resume. That was smart. However, PPD survey panelists of primary voters have begun to show a hint of fatigue regarding specifics. The answer on his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement was lacking and could even have done The Donald serious damage if Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kty., didn’t somewhat rescue him from himself.

More on that when we discuss Mr. Paul. But, once again, establishment candidates such as Gov. Jeb Bush and John Kasich, foolishly challenged Trump on one of if not the predominant issue to GOP primary voters–immigration. Trump cited former President Dwight D. Eisenhower to silence the two nay-sayers and the facts are on his side. The immigration reforms put in place by Ike reduced illegal immigration by over 95%, something the establishment has said for decades is impossible.

Ben Carson

While Ben Carson outperformed his expectations in a debate focused on the economy, it remains an open question whether or not the good doctor is in over his head on a stage where all but him and two others–John Kasich and Carly Fiorina–have put out detailed proposals. That will be the line of attack going forward against Carson, and even Trump, from groups known for backing the non-establishment candidate.

“Tonight’s debate went a long way toward weeding out the pretenders in the GOP field,” Club for Growth President David McIntosh told PPD immediately after the debate. “As the debate delved into tax reform specifics, real entitlement reform, and proposals for cutting federal spending by abolishing federal agencies, it became clear that Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson are in over their heads.”

Whether you agree with Trump or not, that’s a line of criticism that doesn’t apply to him as much as Carson. Still, if Carson loses support in the coming weeks, it will be to Sen. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

“Their talking points don’t measure up to the detailed plans–backed by credible records–put forth by Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul.”

Marco Rubio

There is no doubt that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, my senator in full disclosure, knows how to bring it to a debate. Presidential elections, ultimately, are largely about the future. And Rubio’s goal to remind Republican voters that Republicans would be the party of the future with him as their nominee was clearly met.

“I said we need more welders and fewer philosophers,” Rubio said in an email to PPD, which was also the central theme in a fundraising email to supporters Wednesday morning. “The audience chuckled, but the point I made is serious. Technology has fundamentally transformed the way we work, and also transformed the ways we acquire education and skills.”

Both Trump and Bush view Rubio to be their greatest threat and they are correct to do so. On the Bush feud, Rubio once again demonstrated why establishment donors are leaving one for the other and why it isn’t smart to take a stab at someone who is holding a sharper knife.

Ted Cruz

If I had to pick a winner, which again is simply to simplistic, it would be either Rubio or Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. His goal is to remind conservatives that they have a real chance to split the moderate vote and nominate someone they can trust and who truly shares their values. Cruz gave the single-most effective and articulate defense of the conservative criticism to illegal or unfettered immigration, further positioning himself to be the candidate that benefits from a collapse in support for the frontrunner (Trump).

Also worth noting, Cruz gave the most detailed explanation to his already thorough proposals on taxes and spending, naming in detail agencies and programs that would be cut to make up for the budget shortfall his flat tax plan would create in static scoring. He has effectively disarmed the typical Democratic argument against GOP tax cuts, which claims they are willing to worsen structural budget deficits in order to give the rich a tax cut.

Jeb Bush

No Mr. Rove, Jeb’s performance wasn’t a game-changer. Though he certainly put on his best debate performance thus far, and probably stopped the hemorrhaging of donors to Rubio, Gov. Bush has yet to put forward a real, convincing justification for running for president outside of his last name.

As Mark Steyn correctly pointed out Monday night, he and his campaign are asking the American people to make history and admit by default that the Bushes are “so indispensable to the survival of the Republic” that it must elect another Bush. That has always been the former Florida governor’s challenge and he did not even begin to address it.

The best development for Bush was the complete and total implosion of Gov. Kasich, who is currently fighting over the same Granite State voters. Stay tuned.

Carly Fiorina

I don’t know what I could add to the scathing review of Carly Fiorina’s performance by PPD editor Laura Baris (also my wife), in the fourth debate.

Fiorina repeatedly interrupted several candidates in exchanges that came across as rude rather than an admirable attempt to muscle her way into the discussion. This is something New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie pointed out during the debate hosted by CNN. But, unlike the CNN debate moderators, the team at FOX Business did a more than decent job at allotting candidates time fairly and appropriately.

Her blatant disregard for the buzzer and other candidates made me want to throw something at the television, not cheer her on.

And that about says it. However, I would add that Mr. McIntosh’s criticisms of Trump and Carson apply to Fiorina, as well. “Framework” policy proposals and oft-regurgitated sound bites, particularly from a candidate with a questionable rather non-conservative record, will no longer suffice. Laura is also correct to note that–according to the PPD average–Fiorina is tied with Sen. Rand Paul at 3.2%, “and is not in a statistically significant better position than Kasich or Gov. Mike Huckabee, the latter of which was relegated to the undercard debate.”

There will be no bump this time around for Carly, who has lost most of her support to Dr. Carson and has shown no ability to capitalize on her past debate performances.

Rand Paul

Sen. Paul had his best debate thus far, following what was an absolutely horrible showing in the first two. Even if he didn’t win over voters in the hawkish wing of the GOP during his exchange with Sen. Rubio, he was right on the substance. The same is true on the scuff up over Rubio’s tax plan, which essentially gives out a welfare transfer payment without offsetting its damage to the deficit.

Paul also definitely scored points against the frontrunner when he noted that China was not even a part of TPP, which Trump appeared not to know. Unfortunately, Paul also pardoned Trump from his own attack to some extent when he admitted to agreeing with him over whether or not the Congress should’ve given President Obama more power to negotiate the deal.

Nevertheless, it was a good night for Paul, who has seen his numbers bounce back in recent weeks as Fiorina cratered. Paul is now tied with the former CEO for sixth place, and I suspect that trajectory and trend may just continue to favor him. Even if that turns out not to be the case, it is a far cry from just a few weeks ago when pundits were prematurely pontificating about his demise.

John Kasich

If I had to pick a winner, as I said, it would be either Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz. If I had to pick a loser, it would be Gov. Kasich. In fact, even though the question of “who won” a debate isn’t at all that simple, sometimes “who lost” is crystal clear. Kasich, from the beginning, came across as unlikable, as well as morally and intellectually condescending. He lost the exchanges with Trump and Cruz on immigration and was booed in his losing exchange with Cruz alone on bank bailouts.

Bottom Line

Neither Trump nor Carson had a night that inflicted fatal or even significantly harmful damage to them among their core supporters. And if you are tempted to think otherwise listening to the geniuses offering post Republican debate analysis, I’d remind you we’ve been here before. In fact, about three times before.

Post Republican debate analysis worth reading or

Video

[brid video=”19797″ player=”1929″ title=”Full Republican Presidential Debate Hosted by FOX Business and Wall Street Journal”]

The fourth and full Republican debate hosted by FOX Business and The Wall Street Journal featured Donald Trump, Ben Caron, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and John Kasich. The FOX Business GOP debate took place on Tuesday Nov. 10, 2015 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The fourth and full Republican presidential debate

Opinion

FOX Business Debate Presidential Candidates

Ted Cruz speaks while Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Rand Paul take part in the Republican presidential debate hosted by FOX Business Network. (Photo: Getty Images)

Carly Fiorina’s performance during the fourth Republican debate hosted by FOX Business Tuesday night in Wisconsin was very disappointing, and a far cry from her previous showings. In the first debate, when she was still relegated to the undercard line up, she came across as entertaining, strong, and offered clear and distinct answers to each question that came her way.

But those moments, and that Carly, are long gone since the second debate when she tackled Planned Parenthood–albeit by playing loose with the facts–and demonstrated a firm grip on the issues. Now, in each of the previous two debates, the former Hewlitt-Packard CEO has demonstrated a tendency to use–dare I say–several Hillary-esque tactics. More on that in a moment.

Fiorina seems to also have two less-than disagreeable habits, one of which she apparently shares with Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

During the fourth debate Tuesday night, Fiorina repeatedly interrupted several candidates in exchanges that came across as rude rather than an admirable attempt to muscle her way into the discussion. This is something New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie pointed out during the debate hosted by CNN. But, unlike the CNN debate moderators, the team at FOX Business did a more than decent job at allotting candidates time fairly and appropriately.

Her blatant disregard for the buzzer and other candidates made me want to throw something at the television, not cheer her on.

Let’s face it. The only reason why Carly Fiorina is still on that stage is because the Republican National Committee is nervous about nixing the only woman candidate, being called sexist by Hillary Clinton and misogynists by leftwing feminists. Currently, according to the PPD average, Fiorina is tied with Sen. Rand Paul at 3.2%, and is not in a statistically significant better position than Kasich or Gov. Mike Huckabee, the latter of which was relegated to the undercard debate.

Because she has been unable to capitalize on her previous debate performances, her polling numbers have fallen precipitously and, because she needs these debates to stay competitive in the race, she is obnoxiously interrupting everyone else on stage. It’s getting old. Actually, it’s already old.

Candidates, whether male or female, should acknowledge a general rule of thumb regarding Republican primary voters. They are looking for the best candidates and, whether they are male or female, matters not. Fiorina’s incessant use of the gender card, which as PPD has documented goes back to her 2010 Senate race against Tea Party favorite Chuck DeVore, will not only get her nowhere in the primary but also risks damaging the party brand in the general election.

Fiorina should take a page from the late great Margaret Thatcher, Great Britain’s longest-serving prime minister. Now there is a woman who dominated in a predominately male political world. Thatcher, rather than cutting off her fellow lawmakers in parliament, not only gave them their time but cut them down, making them look like foolish little children in need of an adult mother in the room. Thatcher was a woman that not only demonstrated strength, but embraced her obvious gender status in a way that enabled her to use it to reenforce that strength.

That’s how a true conservative woman conducts herself in a crowd–or on a stage–otherwise dominated by men. It’s becoming increasingly and painfully clear that Carly Fiorina no longer can justify her place on that stage.

Carly Fiorina's performance during the fourth Republican

Video

[brid video=”19777″ player=”1929″ title=”Ted Cruz “Candidates On That Stage Have Supported Amnesty” Clinton Will Beat Them”]

 

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz doubled down on his defense of conservative opposition to amnesty for illegals and said Hillary Clinton will defeat the candidates who support it during his reaction to the fourth debate in an interview with Megyn Kelly.

“The Democrats are laughing because if Republicans join Democrats as the party of amnesty, we will lose,” Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz said at FOX Business’ debate on Tuesday night. “And you know, I understand that when the mainstream media covers immigration, it doesn’t often see it as an economic issue. But I can tell you for millions of Americans at home, watching this, it is a very personal economic issue. And I will say the politics of it would be very, very different if a bunch of lawyers or bankers were crossing the Rio Grande.”

“Or if a bunch of people with journalism degrees were coming over and driving down the wages in the press,” Cruz said to laughter. “Then we would see stories about the economic calamity that is befalling our nation.”

“And I will say for those of us who believe people ought to come to this country legally and we should enforce the law, we’re tired of being told, it is anti-immigrant. It’s offensive,” Cruz said to applause from the audience.

“I am the son of an immigrant who came legally from Cuba to seek the American dream.,” he said. “And we can embrace legal immigration while believing in the rule of law.”

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz doubled down on

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe