Last week, in a decision of great sacrifice, I decided to watch the final debate of the remaining two non-Trump Republican presidential candidates before the Iowa caucus ... so you, dear reader, didn't have to.
Only a couple of points are worth mention. Ambassador Haley seemed to think it an important point about DeSantis that under him insurance rates for homeowners have gone up in Florida. He never really responded on point, though she came back to this several times.
Neither of them really said anything about WHY property insurance rates have risen. Haley could have made it seem an important point if she had said, "property insurance rates are up because insurers are factoring in the increase in extreme home-destroying weather events in Florida. THAT is happening due to climate change. Here is my plan for what to do about THAT."
But she didn't make that connection -- EVEN when she was specifically asked about climate change she did NOT tie it to the talking point she had already established about insurance rates in RD's home state. This would be a very different world if one could talk like that in a Republicans' presidential primary debate.. but she seemed to think a Governor can command insurance companies lower their rates and that he had bull-headedly refused to do so.
Another point: RD kept making the argument that he must be doing something right as Governor because Florida has high net in-migration. More people arrive than leave..
As distinct from the fact that people go to Florida as a retirement destination and stay there until they die. (Their death does not count as emigration.) So the state gets high net in-migration numbers. Even despite the extreme weather events.
They both get F in statistics.
So now the caucus has been held. The result, as you all know by now, is that Trump won with slightly more than 50 percent of the vote.
RD came in a distant second, and NH came in a distant third, reasonably close to one another.
This is more devastating for RD, though, than for NH. Iowa was central to his plan. He is supposed to be the younger baggage-free Donald Trump. To make a case for THAT as the description of the nominee he needed to pose a strong challenge to the older, baggage-carrying DT in Iowa. He has made a point of visiting every one of the 99 counties of the state. He has blown a lot of money. Yet to no avail. RD will likely drop out soon.
NH will continue to hope for a boost from New Hampshire. The world rolls on.
Debates are a tightrope act: claiming victory in a debate is a hollow claim. Even claiming that one has "come out ahead" is suspect, because all participants reveal weaknesses in their contentions, including misinformation and a tendency to misrepresent their 'facts'. You were, perhaps, optimistic in covering the event; perhaps hoping for some glimmer of honesty or hope? I like optimists---try to adopt that stance, myself. The electoral process has been tainted for some time. Mr. Trump and many other aspirants only illustrate the fact.
ReplyDeleteIt was more curiosity than optimism. It was indeed a matter of somewhat morbid curiosity. We may be watching a republic die. If the republic survives the next couple of years, it will be because the Republican Party will be in its death throes by the end of that time. Either way, something is dying and I couldn't resist some rubber-necking.
Delete