(Unaffiliated; WA state does not require affiliation, but being anti-idiot and anti-extremist puts me solidly enough against the Republicans that I am often forced to vote Democrat despite being more of a Libertarian.)
Nope, I missed it. Well, not really “missed” so much as “did not watch”; to say I missed it would imply more interest than I have. Right now it’s still more of a circus than anything else, and it’s not a funny one. Wake me up when they get serious; just viable candidates discussing real issues.
@Jaxk “Hopefully they will learn from this experience and try to ask questions about real issues in the future but I doubt it.”
I see absolutely no chance of real issues being asked about in a Republican debate until the “vanity candidates” and circus acts are weeded out and the field narrowed down. Right now, the GOP race still in full-blown “Bread and circuses” mode, and I’m not sure that tossing only 3 or 4 of them out of the clown car would be enough to change that. Especially not while Trump is still in the race.
“Cruz was masterful in pointing out the media bias…”
I’m not sure if winning a battle but losing a war qualifies as “masterful”, though that move definitely qualifies as bold, and voters across the spectrum generally like bold. The trouble with primaries is that generating enough support from the base to get the nomination risks making the general election harder by alienating swing voters.
We’ll just have to wait and see how (or even if) that gambit pays off, but I have a feeling that every gain any of the candidates makes now will cost them later. That goes for both parties, but the dynamic is considerably different with the Democrats where the field is already effectively two.