Magox

It's the cult of personality with Trump. His hardcore supporters will stay with him, so I wouldn't expect any changes in support from them. However, if you were someone who was open to taking a good look at him and you hadn't already decided that he was your guy going into the debate, then he certainly didn't win hardly any of those people over. If you happened to get on the Trump Bandwagon over the past week or so, my guess is that some of that support has eroded because of this debate. He's been polling at an avg of around 22-23% recently. My guess is in a week that will drop down to around 19%. It wouldn't surprise me though if I was off with that. I think the beneficiary of Trump's drop most likely will be Cruz. People who like Trump, generally like Cruz. Rubio did well, he came across as very polished. I would expect maybe a 1-2% increase in his numbers, but more importantly I believe the GOP donor class is where the impact of his successful debate performance will be most felt. My suspicion is that more big GOP $$'s will be coming his way. Jeb looked ok. My guess is that he may lose some support to Kasich and Rubio. Christie had a good evening, but he's too damaged to be viable in the GOP primaries. This is a horse race. Rubio, Kasich, Jeb, Scott Walker are the most viable candidates but I was very impressed with Carly and will begin giving her a more serious look. She's serious, accomplished, fluid and measured. I like that.

God forbid that someone who has a successful executive track record in the state of Ohio who helped balance the budget when he was in congress has an appeal to those in the opposing party. The horror!

Damn Schumer, there he goes again, finding common cause with the Ayatollah

Trump is barely getting any applauses, I don't need an online poll conducted by a website that hates illegal immigration to tell me that he isn't doing well. Kasich did really well with his last answer. Scott Walker is very bland

Huck connects well with people. Too bad his social stances are a non starter for the general electorate

So far Trump is the big loser and Rubio has been the best. Still another hour to go.

Nothing to see here folks, Iran can be trusted.

She's got many of the same people who helped elect Obama on her team. They've already decided, they are going to connect themselves to the hip of Obama and in order to do that they are going to look to energize the base, microtarget, minorities, single white women and progressives and use their superior ground game and technologies to make sure they turn out. They will cede the middle but while doing that they will attempt paint whatever republican in such a nasty manner that they will hope to depress turnout on their side and in the middle. She's gonna run as a flaming left winger. The problem is that, most left wingers don't believe she's truly one of them and they don't see it as authentic, whereas Obama, they know he's one of them. Aside from lybob who happens to believe Obama is a republican in sheeps clothing.

I read this about Ted Cruz today. Pretty interesting. Apparently the dude is as intelligent as they come. This must come to the horrific revelation to Bird Dog

If Jeb gets smoked, I still have three others that I like As of right now he get's smoked by Hillary. But, like I said, maybe we are watching the greatest political con job of all time. He could moderate his positions and become a flaming liberal and his supporters would still support him. Let's see if he can continue his masterful political ju jitsu.

Doesn't surprise me, now they gotta hope like hell that Iran doesn't cheat or increase their proxy war activities over the next year. Because you better believe, this will be a campaign issue and no matter how you slice it or dice it, it is not politically popular with the American public. It's just a matter of can Democrats just lose a little bit of support because of this Iran deal or will this be a foreign policy election and it becomes a huge negative. Let's forget about the substance of the deal, this has been discussed ad nauseum, but more so on the political ramifications. Obama's decision to pretend that he is JFK or Reagan or whoever he thinks had previous success is potentially going to be a huge liability for other Democrats. Which is not surprising, considering other than Obama's political career, Democrats have been voted out more in the past 8 years than any other time in our lives. So he's been a huge political boon for republicans in the Senate, House, governorships and local and state politics. I don't see any political upside for the D's on this issue.

I agree, I specially like it when he they ask him how we would improve trade deals and he says: "I'm the best negotiator ever and I would hire Carl Icahn, who is a personal friend of mine and I'd tell him 'Carl, you are in charge of China'." He's awesome with those specifics.

Yeah, like asking him how he would specifically improve the economy? Damn Kelly and her gotcha questions.

I was gonna make a thread as well. My thoughts: I underestimated Trump. He seems to be pulling off a phenomenal political trickery and his ceiling is increasing. Having said that, another new poll came out of N.H and all the top tier candidates are beating Hillary and Hillary is spanking Trump by 10. So this is a great opportunity for Trump to show that he isn't as crazy as everyone who casually pays attention believe him to be. If he can somehow come off as reasonable (which he hasn't) then his ceiling will only increase and most likely his lead as well. I sometimes wonder are we now witnessing the greatest political con job of all time. Right now he is doing horrible with independents and many in the establishment GOP. In order to win them over he would have to do some political ju jitsu. I think there is enough good will for Trump to where he could moderate his positions like a shape shifter and he would still be able to keep his supporters. They love him, he's like their cult hero, even though he really isn't a "conservative". I heard him the other morning on Morning Joe, and they were asking him about his previous support for Single Payer Healthcare. And he said something very interesting, which I am sure will be brought up tonight. Which was, that now he isn't for Single Payer because he doesn't think it would work here. But, the interesting part (which I knew he'd now change his position on Single payer) is that he would propose providing healthcare for the poorest 20-25% for free. SOmehow create a system to where he'd negotiate deals with the hospitals to provide free health insurance for 20-25% at the bottom of the economic totem pole. That NORMALLY would be a horrible position for today's conservatives. A non starter, but I think they'd give him a pass and to be honest, a policy that would be that compassionate to the poor would probably help his standing amongst moderates. I'd be very interested in hearing this discussed further.

Well then according to that correlation implying causation line of thinking, I suppose that all falls apart that the cities and states with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rates. Try again, liberal.

Bloomberg editorial is certainly a center left outfit. Typically they agree with the president. Having said that, they certainly weren't agreement with the president's divisive fear mongering tactics that he displayed yesterday in that embarrassing speech of his.

That !@#$er is like teflon, he's almost indestructible within the GOP primaries.

It's like he lives in some sort of alternate universe, where up is down, black is white and bad is good.

Wow! So now TYTT is a bleeding heart?

Errol Louis is the host of "Inside City Hall," a nightly political show on NY1, a New York all-news channel. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. He's just an opinion writer

I can make it

Unseemly to say the least

My thoughts and a few possible solutions Whether people like this or not, deporting home most of those that came here will never happen. And it's only a matter of time that those that are already living here will have some sort of a legal status. So the options are A) Be an intransigent force, resist. The outcome means more executive actions or a really liberal congress, senate and presidency come into power and the worst possible deal for conservatives will come about. Which means a very quick pathway to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants that are here. B) The Base of the GOP resists with the establishment finally caving and we get a so so deal. Where there will be some additional border security, some laws that will take away some incentives for the hiring process of illegals and an eventual pathway to citizenship down the road with hefty fines. C) The Base comes to the conclusion that this train has already left and becomes a part of the solution and engages in a more constructive manner. And you will get the best possible deal. My thoughts are that those that have come here illegally should not be given a pathway to citizenship but should be given a permanent legal status. I'm a believer of incentives, and giving a pathway to citizenship for those that came here illegally only gives incentives for more to do the same. I don't think its correct and it certainly isn't fair to all those people who were law abiding and went through the painful and timely steps to come into the country legally. I also believe that we need to punish those employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants through fines. We need to build a wall. Even though I don't believe that is a practical solution, it's just so that it shows those that are opposed to the deal to shut them up by building up the damn wall so they never bring it up again. Need to have more discussions with Mexico about controlling immigration from their country to ours and somehow let them know that if we don't believe they are doing enough to address this issue that there will be consequences. Legalize marijuana. This will weaken the cartels and criminal activity coming from the south. Those are some of my thoughts and possible solutions.

I disagree. Hopefully you are right and we can keep them all on the team, but I don't see it. And your comment about clueless fans, means nothing.

We don't have the salary cap room to keep all the four players mentioned and that's after restructuring Mario's and Clay's contract. IF the young tackles show progress, then it would be logical.