Fiorina, Carson, and the GOP debate tonight

Mr. Deez said:
I think there are more single-issue pro-lifers than pro-choicers. Nevertheless, this is an issue where consensus should be sought rather than extremism. That's going to mean making exceptions for rape/incest and obviously the life of the mother (should be a no-brainer). Never been a fan of the trans-vaginal ultrasounds. That's about as invasive as it gets, and it doesn't ultimately serve the interest of stopping or discouraging abortions.
Click to expand...
I'll go along with the limited exceptions you cited. But the pro-choice folks apparently consider abortion as after-the-fact birth control - and I can't buy that.
 
So if the debate performance launched Fiorina into the Top 10, who gets shoved out? My hope? Huckabee. My prediction? Chis Christie or John Kasich. Too bad, because I think both those guys have useful and applicable executive experience and skills to thrive when they have to work with Democrats. I don't think Trump, Fiorina, Cruz, Rubio, Carson or Huckabee have enough experience building bridges across party lines to be effective uniting a diverse country. Certainly Cruz, Rubio and Fiorina are smart/tough and good speakers.
 
HornHuskerDad said:
I'll go along with the limited exceptions you cited. But the pro-choice folks apparently consider abortion as after-the-fact birth control - and I can't buy that.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this position, but I certainly respect it. However, I think the Republican party needs to reconsider whether this issue is so important that it is worthwhile to sacrifice everything else.

The population as a whole -- and swing voters in particular -- say they favor current abortion laws. The most relevant poll, imho, is the one that asks people to divide themselves into 5 camps, with the answer being pretty stable for the last 15 years:

(1) happy with current abortion laws -- around 40%
(2) dissatisfied and want more restrictions -- around 25%
(3) dissatisfied and want fewer restrictions -- around 10%
(4) dissatisfied but want the laws to remain the same -- around 10%
(5) no opinion -- around 15%

Link. Thus, something like 60% of Americans are either happy with current abortion laws, unhappy but willing to accept them, or want them to be laxer, compared with just 25% who want them to be stricter. So saying "I want more restrictions on abortion" puts you in a very distinct minority.

More specific questions about particular circumstances tend to be more pro-life than this, but voters don't pay attention to details. They only hear the sound bites, and saying "I'm pro life" doesn't resonate as well as saying "I'm pro choice" does.

By persisting in putting up candidates who want further restrictions on abortions, the Republican party risks losing out on the rest of its agenda. This seems stupid to me, but who am I to say. Perhaps ObamaCare, high taxes, out of control spending, gun control, and weak foreign policy are small prices to pay for standing on principal in a (losing) battle against abortion.
 
After being sleep-deprived for various baby-related reasons for the last few nights, drinking beer, and making a few phone calls to people in the US to ***** about the debates, I'm too tired to analyze them all in detail, but I'll sum up with one word - mediocre. Nobdy really blew me away or distinguished themselves in my book. I liked Kasich the most, but I liked him before the debate and don't like him any more than I did before. The others spun their wheels, except Trump, who went backwards. He's just a first-rate *******, and frankly, the fact that he's even registering in the polls is a disgrace. If you like him, you're dumb. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

The "Kids' Table" debate was kinda sad - no applause and few spectators in the shadows. However, Carly Fiorina belongs in the first tier. She's very smart, solutions-oriented, accomplished, and she is far more charming and likable than HRC. Though the whole crew was overall mediocre, she impressed me the most.

And call me crazy and maybe it's the booze talking, but I think I'd take Martha McCallum over Megyn Kelly. I kinda prefer the wholesome "woo-girl" on the drill team look to the trashy pole dancer look, especially when she wants people to think she's actually smart.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
[Trump]'s just a first-rate *******, and frankly, the fact that he's even registering in the polls is a disgrace. If you like him, you're dumb.
Click to expand...
It’s our collective birthright.

Who won the debate? Everyone who had something better to do than watch it.

0001.gif
 
As a conservative, I enjoyed the debate and have been amazed at the post debate analysis. It literally is all over the place.

As for me, several had good nights, a couple had mediocre nights and a few removed themselves from my consideration.

Great nights - Fiorini, Rubio, Cruz
good night - Walker, Christie, Carson, Kasich
Mediocre (which is bad news) - Bush
Bad - Huckabee, Paul and Trump and all others in the reject pool

Yes, Trump had a bad night. He has officially maxed out his base. He did not come across as presidential on any "on the fencers."
 
I find it a little odd that you have walker in the good group and huckabee in the bad group. Most people had the opposite. Not saying that you are wrong because, like you said, opinions are all over the map on this one.
 
Huckabee was a good Governor and represents the deep social conservative movement. However his plan to pay for social security by "taxing pimps and prostitutes" was beyond idiotic. Most conservatives want SS and Medicare reformed so that it is actually sustainable, but it requires a much more comprehensive approach.

In the end, just my opinions. I have enjoyed the analysis of this debate from the HF crew as well as the national opinion sources.
 
NJ?
Other than going nowhere Huckabee how many GOP candidates want further restrictions on abortions?
Who are they and what restrictions do they want>
Libs are trying to pretend that people who don't want late term abortions , intact fetal extractions, careful harvesting of a baby's organs , these people are radical and against " women's rights".

Are you ok with on demand abortions after 20 weeks?
I hope neither you nor your single issue wife support late term abortions or crushing a baby's skull after it emerges or the gathering of intact fetuses to sell, as a line item on an invoice?
 
Horn6721 said:
I hope neither you nor your single issue wife support late term abortions or crushing a baby's skull after it emerges or the gathering of intact fetuses to sell, as a line item on an invoice?
Click to expand...

I think "just because" late-term abortions (and even mid-term abortions) are morally wrong. However, I think there are many defensible reasons to have one (especially mid-term) and I struggle with where to draw the morality line. I struggle even more with how involved the government should be in drawing the line.

I oppose partial-birth abortions unless it is the only way to safeguard the mother's life. Not sure if that is ever the case.

I oppose describing post-abortion organ donations as "gathering of intact fetuses to sell, as a line item on an invoice". I not only support the donations, but I applaud them.
 
If they are going to have the abortion anyway, then I am fine with the organ donation. I have a huge problem with them changing the procedure to make the organs more usable. I don't understand the procedure enough (and don't want to) to know why they do it the way they do. But I'm assuming there is a reason for it. Seems like a bad idea to change that and possibly make a bad procedure even more gruesome.
 
Thank you NJ for a heartfelt answer.
We can differ on whether it is right to do midterm and late term abortions and I think we both agree this is a difficult subject but one I think needs to be explored especially when some are using the facts that have come out in the PP videos to smear conservatives and suggest we are against womens rights.
You may oppose the verbiage of gathering intact fetuses as line items on an invoice but that exact reference came from a PP Doc whose main agenda seemed to be maximizing payments for baby parts and or baby bodies.
Keep in mind that every video so far has been released in full so even though some want to say it was edited it is all out that for everyone to watch and it is very horrific and painful.
I would hope it is painful for even those who say they are " pro choice".
 
I watched/listed to the debate. I suspect we each have a bias that influences our view of the candidates. If this thread is an example of momentum, Jeb Bush is in real trouble. In a nearly unanimous opinion, everyone seems to feel he was "meh". That tells me that nobody really wants him to win the party nomination. Could he be a John McCain/Mitt Romney candidate in which the party establishment isn't really enthused? For all the "Jeb Bush was a good governor" talk there is the "he increased the State of Florida debt by 33% in 8 years" response.

Kasich was the clear winner from my perspective but that could also be my own bias. He definitely appeared to be the "rational" member of the group based on his answer on the gay marriage. With that said, he repeated his stump speech a few times which was very obvious.

Carson? He was the guy you'd like to have a beer with. He was witty but his thoughts were vague. Of the 10 on the stage he seemed to be the least ready to be POTUS. He seemed like a nice guy but I could have gotten up on stage and given his answers.

Scott Walker blended into the crowd. The debate for him was remarkably unremarkable. Aside from his fresh jet black dyed hair, I can remember anything about him.

Rand Paul came off as petty. His attacks were forced as an attempt to say "look at me...I'm different". I thought Christy wiped the floor with him in their tete-a-tete. Christy also seemed to be out of place.

Enough has been said about Donald Trump already. It's time for him to move and any Trump supporter to find a real candidate to put their support behind.

I didn't get a chance to see Carly Fiorina. I'll find it online somewhere. Her problem is that her 6yr tenure at HP was spectacularly bad. Most CEO's get fired and that's especially true when you're at one of the biggest, a Top 20 (then) HP. Her decisions were courageous but nearly all of them turned out to be negative when viewed through the lens of history. You can't be a catastrophically bad CEO then claim "I was a successful businesswoman". Romney and Trump as least had successful ventures as the leads for companies.
 
Most CEO's get fired and that's especially true when you're at one of the biggest, a Top 20 (then) HP. Her decisions were courageous but nearly all of them turned out to be negative when viewed through the lens of history. You can't be a catastrophically bad CEO then claim "I was a successful businesswoman". Romney and Trump as least had successful ventures as the leads for companies.
Click to expand...
The "she was a terrible CEO" talking point works for low information voters. It might very well damage her.

That doesn't mean it has real merit though. Every CEO in the tech sector at that time was getting fired. Pre subprime crisis, this was an historic bubble bursting. The biggest mistake her opponents point out was acquiring Compaq. You know what? Most mergers in all sectors don't work out. And that's especially true in the tech sector during that period. As a CEO you're also managing according to the company's Cost of Capital and your shareholders' beta. In other words, her job at that time was to make bold potentially risky/lucrative acquisitions. If she didn't do this, she would have been fired also. Good CEOs get fired by their boards all the time for doing the same thing. It's an occupational hazard.

So to summarize, she would be a bad POTUS because she took a bet on Compaq when she was the CEO of Hewlett Packard right before the tech bubble and it didn't work out? Okay. Really? What would a low-information voters propose she should have done instead?

And what defines a "good businessman?" Fiorina started off as a secretary, and then after Stanford and MIT, rose up in AT&T and Lucent, before becoming CEO of the largest computer manufacturer in the world. You don't do that by being a bad business person.

Hillary just promised everyone free college and has no idea how to pay for it. I would love to see these two on the same stage debating.
 
texas_ex2000 said:
The "she was a terrible CEO" talking point works for low information voters. It might very well damage her.

That doesn't mean it has real merit though. Every CEO in the tech sector at that time was getting fired. Pre subprime crisis, this was an historic bubble bursting. The biggest mistake her opponents point out was acquiring Compaq. You know what? Most mergers in all sectors don't work out. And that's especially true in the tech sector during that period. As a CEO you're also managing according to the company's Cost of Capital and your shareholders' beta. In other words, her job at that time was to make bold potentially risky/lucrative acquisitions. If she didn't do this, she would have been fired also. Good CEOs get fired by their boards all the time for doing the same thing. It's an occupational hazard.

So to summarize, she would be a bad POTUS because she took a bet on Compaq when she was the CEO of Hewlett Packard right before the tech bubble and it didn't work out? Okay. Really? What would a low-information voters propose she should have done instead?

And what defines a "good businessman?" Fiorina started off as a secretary, and then after Stanford and MIT, rose up in AT&T and Lucent, before becoming CEO of the largest computer manufacturer in the world. You don't do that by being a bad business person.
Click to expand...

Obviously she was a good lieutenant at AT&T and Lucent. The rest of that passage is not backed up by the facts. Simply put, the history books say the merger decision may ultimately have been a good decision whose value was realized only under better leadership. HP's net income was stagnant while the S&P 500 had a 70% gain under her tenure. I'll repeat, she was a failure in her only attempt at CEO despite your attempt to whitewash this by casting me as a "low information voter". You clearly have a bias towards her which is fine but do some research of your own.

During Fiorina's time as CEO, HP's revenue doubled due to mergers with Compaq and other companies,[62][63] and the rate of patent filings increased.[63] According to reports, however, the company underperformed by a number of metrics: there were no gains in HP's net income despite a 70% gain in net income of the S&P 500 over this period;[62] the company's debt rose from ~4.25 billion USD to ~6.75 billion USD;[62] and stock price fell by 50%, exceeding declines in the S&P 500 Information Technology Sector index and the NASDAQ.[62][64] In contrast, stock prices for IBM and Dell fell 27.5% and 3% respectively, during this time period.[64]

The February 7, 2005 issue of Fortune described her merger plan as "failing" and the prognosis as "doubtful".[47]

Business professor Robert Burgelman and former HP executive vice president, Webb McKinney who led HP's post-merger integration team, analyzed the merger and concluded that it was ultimately successful, and asserted that Fiorina's replacement, Mark Hurd, was able to do what his predecessor hadn't, thus making the merger work in HPs advantage.[65] In 2008, former acting CEO of Compaq and Huffington Post business contributor, Ben Rosen, referred to the merger as "The Merger That Worked". Rosen went on to reference pundits trying to discredit Fiorina as corporate leader as "shrill", and stated that "...the merger wasn't the problem; it was the management. All Hewlett-Packard needed was strong management in order to realize the latent potential of the merged company."
Click to expand...
 
Post-debate Iowa poll show Fiorina made big progress.

SH, I agree with most of your analysis of the candidates. As for Fiorina, you're also right that bias can dictate how one views her record at HP. It can look good (or at least reasonable) or bad depending on what numbers one chooses to emphasize. Tex2000 is obviously choosing to look at the good ones. Also, I would never characterize you as a "low-information" voter. Even if I disagree with some of your political choices, in terms of casting an informed and intelligent ballot, you're a top 1-percenter. However, I think a few things are important to note.

First, seldom have I seen a presidential candidate for office who's as good on her feet as Fiorina is. She doesn't back away from questions about her record and answers them satisfactorily to most people. She's obviously very prepared for such questions. She's not a Sarah Palin stumbling around trying to come up with examples of newspapers she reads. Frankly, that doesn't give me a more positive impression of her, because all it shows is that she's prepared for the question and has a solid answer ready. Well, all competent politicians can do that, but it certainly impacts her viability positively. She had that charge thrown at her back in 2010 when she ran against Barbara Boxer and did better than Republicans typically do in California (especially against entrenched incumbent Democrats).

Second (and this factor does impact how I judge Fiorina's record), it's pretty hard to get fired as CEO of HP, because it's pretty hard to become a CEO at HP. To get there, she had to have remarkable qualifications, intelligence, leadership skills, and a strong record of good judgment and competence. To me, it's like a baseball player who makes the All Star team but strikes out in his only at-bats. Yes, his All Star numbers look bad, but to even be there, that hitter has proven himself and outplayed thousands of competitors at every level and then became an elite player at the most elite level. Yeah, he sucked in the All Star game, but overall, he's an incredible ballplayer to even have the chance to strikeout in the All Star game.

And I'm a little surprised to see you bring up Trump and Romney. Short of being born into actual royalty, they were born into some of the most extreme privilege imaginable. They inherited obscene sums of money, and perhaps more importantly, they inherited financial and political connections that only a tiny number of people in the country have. Fiorina had plenty of privilege too. Her dad was a federal judge and a law school dean. However, that's not "have hundreds of millions of dollars dropped in your lap for no reason other than who you are and be golfing buddies with the richest people in the world" privilege. Also, Trump has been in bankruptcy court four times. That's not a exactly a stellar record of business acumen and competence. Give me a couple hundred million bucks and a mess of some of the most valuable real estate on the planet and let me fleece my creditors four times, and I'd be pretty rich too.
 
Simply put, the history books say the merger decision may ultimately have been a good decision whose value was realized only under better leadership.
Click to expand...
The acquisition was made during the tech bubble. What exactly does the history book have to say about it? The market didn't like it for sure. The market didn't like a lot of things during that time. And the short-term market isn't always the best predictor of long-term economic value. People were all about mortgage REITs circa 2005. How did that turn out?

That article you linked compares HP to IBM, Dell, etc. It doesn't tell you all the other companies that folded during that period. The fact alone that HP is still around - a survivor, when many other hardware manufacturers went belly up is noteworthy. The article also doesn't mention Oracle which had it worse than HP. And again, IBM, Dell, Oracle weren't in the middle of an M&A integration that HP was going through, one that you and the article ultimately says was successful. If you want to argue that she has a bad track record in M&A integration, I guess you might have weight behind that one (although her Lucent record might say otherwise). But is that why you wouldn't vote for her? I have to say McKinney's comment is pretty freaking ridiculous. It takes an insane amount of analysis, work, negotiations, and balls to make a Compaq-level acquisition. For some integration manager to talk **** about the management that made it happen in the first place is pretty petty.

And comparing HPQ to SPX during that period is very apples to oranges from an investment analysis and completey useless when ascertaining CEO competence. Before the Navy, I worked for an independent SPX oil company that was doing very very well at that time, and benchmarking a DJIA computer manufacturer against it tells you nothing useful except that tech were dogs and independent E&Ps were strong. Different betas and different industries.

And with all the criticism of her tenure at HP, you would think the company lost money. Nope. HP posted positive net income/earnings 5 out of the 6 years she was CEO.

https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-...47217&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40

2004: $3.5B
2003: $2.5B
2002: ($0.9B)
2001: $0.4B
2000: $3.7B
1999: $3.5B

I like Deez' baseball analogy. I'm not saying she was the greatest CEO in the history of the world, but marginalizing her competence based on a record at HP is specious.
 
Last edited:
Husker,

In that response, I also didn't mean to say you were a low-information voter. Obviously, you look at multiple aspects of a candidates' credentials, intellect, policies, presentation, etc.

But the "she got fired at HP so she must be incompetent" soundbites are what are broadcast to folks. I was just talking about this one argument and its effectiveness with low-information voters - not you.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the delayed response. I was on vacation with the family. Is it possible I'm not giving Fiorina enough credit for her business accomplishments? Absolutely. Did she guide HP through some difficult times? Yes. I guess I'm ambivalent whether she should be lauded for her business accomplishments. The Ivy League case studies have not been kind to her, that's for sure. The only reason I brought up Trump and Romney is that they both have a track record of successfully leading companies. Fiorina's is debatable at best. the hard part is that it's impossible to rate her AT&T and Lucent experience other than it gave the HP BOD enough confidence to hand Fiorina her first CEO role for a Top 20 US company. She is an eloquent speaker, especially compared to the field.

Back to the debate, clearly I don't get the Republican voter if the polls are to be believed. I read where a new NBC News/Survey Monkey poll is now showing the biggest gainers from the debate were Cruz, Fiorina and Carson with Donald Trump actually gaining a point and extending his lead to 10pts over Cruz. Meanwhile a level headed guy like Kasich lost a point. Obviously a point is well within the margin of error but it seems the Republican base may be destined to nominate a flamethrower in Trump/Cruz. At least the latter seems to be ideologically consistent, both don't see the value of any civility in politics and appear to be more intent on grandstanding than actually accomplishing meaningful change.

I was very disturbed by Cruz' statement in the debate that his views represent the majority. The facts don't seem to support that. That delusion is dangerous, IMHO.
 
Fiorina should definitely be sitting at the adults table for the next debate.

That said, almost no one in Houston would vote for her. She was CEO of HP for the Compaq merger. During those talks, she lied and said she would be shifting some HP employees to CPQ. Instead, what she did post-merger was lay off ~30,000 CPQ employees and effectively shuttered it. It was a very tough market in tech at the time no doubt. However, no one in Houston old enough to have lived through it will forget how she lied to get the deal done.

In general, HP lost about half its market cap before she was finally fired. And, once she left, the stock price immediately rose.
 
Joe Fan said:
Fiorina should definitely be sitting at the adults table for the next debate.

That said, almost no one in Houston would vote for her. She was CEO of HP for the Compaq merger. During those talks, she lied and said she would be shifting some HP employees to CPQ. Instead, what she did post-merger was lay off ~30,000 CPQ employees and effectively shuttered it. It was a very tough market in tech at the time no doubt. However, no one in Houston old enough to have lived through it will forget how she lied to get the deal done.

In general, HP lost about half its market cap before she was finally fired. And, once she left, the stock price immediately rose.
Click to expand...

The merger was the right decision but she couldn't execute the strategy post-acquisition. The leadership that followed her finally realized the value of the merger.
 
If she's the nominee, she'll carry Texas overwhelmingly. She can afford to piss away the 30,000 disgruntled former Compaq employees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top