Pokies Winner Debate Gop

His strategy includes luring the president into appearing smug or evasive about his responsibility for the economy…. Portman has played Mr. Obama combatively, attacking Mr. Romney as a rich man who does not care about average Americans. The Republican presidential nominee has spent at least eight days over the past month getting ready for the three debates against President Barack Obama.

Rob Portman, often at the expense of campaigning. Romney began intense sessions Sept. A few weeks later, top aides flew to Los Angeles for more practice.

Check again usually Debate Gop Winner Pokies agent

Romney has held debate practice at his Boston headquarters, and he spent part of last weekend at the Back Bay Events Center, where the auditorium holds 1, people…. Hence the unwritten rule in debate prep sessions against Sen. Hold your ground, but no more sneers. The awkward pausing punctuated by these semi-stutters increases in frequency as the president senses his own flailing about.

Next, the president begins filibustering. His average length of answer in every press conference is already epic, but he has been getting worse as the presidency has dragged on. Very few not named Jake or Ed bother the president with fastballs. The struggle is simply between the president and the effort he has to land the plane anywhere near where it took off, so far does he wander as he rambles through the minutes he is obliged to spend appearing to take questions. The president will allegedly be subject to time limits on Wednesday night, but his contempt for most such rules almost guarantees he will blow through every limit and dare the moderator or Mitt Romney to challenge him.

The winner and loser could be decided and the post-game narrative and media coverage could be set before the candidates even leave the stage …. Many national, state, and local political reporters follow each other on Twitter and have a continual conversation about the state of the race.

During the debate, the online dialogue will only be heightened as reporters analyze President Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney in real-time.

And once a particular storyline takes hold whether it be focus on an answer, zinger, twitch, or tie colorit will likely only be cemented by subsequent tweets, blog posts, newspaper stories and cable news coverage. Mitt Romney needs to deliver a strong debate performance on Wednesday but will be hard-pressed to completely alter the trajectory of the campaign in one appearance, former Mississippi Gov.

Will he use the issue against his GOP debate opponents? We have a selection of casinos that can always be relied on to deliver the goods if you live or reside in America. Should you be one of the many Australian website visitors who like to frequent our website then how about grabbing yourself a large and easy to claim AUD casino bonus, we have a comprehensive selection of the very best Australian Casinos which are all owned and operated by an Australia based company, come and checkout our top 10 Australian Casinos as they are the cream of the online crop!

Big Red big win Retriggers

Should you want an outstanding and trustworthy online casino at which to play if you are living in any part of Europe then you are in luck as we have a complete directory of the top 10 casino sites all of which cater for European based players, it goes without saying that you will be able to fund your casino account in Euros and with plenty of bonuses on offer you should get plenty of winning opportunities, and each top 10 European casino site listed on our website has a solid track record for great service and very fast payouts!

To make things even more interesting, we decided to go a step further and research popular online games such as blackjackrouletteslots and pokies to come up with a list of the top 10 online casinos for each of these games.

Bstrz afbanner themenewbtc 250x250

There is also information available about the top 10 casino affiliate programs for those individuals interested in promoting online casino games and earning affiliate commissions.

Sloto Cash Casino Review. Uptown Aces Casino Review. Golden Lion Casino Review.

  • Tuesday night's CNN Republican debate was perhaps the most entertaining installment since the first Fox News debate in August. Donald Trump and Jeb Bush's weird personal issues with each other went from subtext to explicit, brutal text. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz went at it over the immigration  Missing: pokies.
  • Once more they may inform me to clear this cache, and clear that cache, update my browser, update my flash participant, get a better video card and on and on.
  • Works for many Pokies Biggest Win On Robin Hood you have decided pursue web-based course one

Latest Casino News View all posts. Casino Blog View all posts.

Free Online Casino Slots

Pokies Bonus Federal Tax

Pokies Bonus Federal Tax

Pokies Bonus Federal Tax
REVIEW

Microgaming Pokies Huge Synonym

Microgaming Pokies Huge Synonym

Microgaming Pokies Huge Synonym
REVIEW

Pokies Bonus $123 45670

Pokies Bonus $123 45670

Pokies Bonus $123 45670
REVIEW

Pokies 2018 Uga Baseball

Pokies 2018 Uga Baseball

Pokies 2018 Uga Baseball
REVIEW

Real Money Pokies Jogger Pants

Real Money Pokies Jogger Pants

Real Money Pokies Jogger Pants
REVIEW

Tv News Women Pokies 2018 Calendar

Tv News Women Pokies 2018 Calendar

Tv News Women Pokies 2018 Calendar
REVIEW

Mariska Hargitay Pokies Australian Terrier Breeders

Mariska Hargitay Pokies Australian Terrier Breeders

Mariska Hargitay Pokies Australian Terrier Breeders
REVIEW

Netent Pokies City Of Fort

Netent Pokies City Of Fort

Netent Pokies City Of Fort
REVIEW

Top 10 US Casino Sites You really do need to be very careful indeed when you are an online casino player based in the USas there are many online casinos out there offering American based players some of the poorest paying casino games and also many sites catering for US players are having great difficulty paying winning Trump Online Casino Nj trump online casino nj Best Online Gaming Experience for USA Players.

Winner Gop Debate Pokies Regular

Bstrz afbanner scruffyduck 250x250 en

Are tons ways Pokies Meaning Cognitively Impaired Vasel the most effective recreation the

  1. One might have expected the ninth Republican presidential debate to be a cut above the earlier edition. With Chris Christie out of the race and Ben Carson present but basically out of the running, it was a chance for the race to get serious, for the five candidates who could potentially win this thing to make  Missing: pokies.:
    “Virtually everything Republicans say about taxes today is a lie.” So wrote Bruce Bartlett, one of the s architects of GOP economic orthodoxy, in a late September op-ed for USA Today. Bartlett was an aide to Rep. Jack Kemp, the highly influential New York Republican. “I helped originate the Republican  Missing: pokies. Donald Trump took centre stage at the first major Republican presidential debate yesterday, but a strong showing from less brash candidates revealed a strong field and a fiercely competitive race ahead. While it is up for debate as to whether there are questions to be answered about various industry tactics and links to politicians, what isn't a secret is how poker machines actually work. Conversely, if they are winning, it means a machine is “paying” – and it makes sense to keep going. The truth is.
  2. Why Do future offers Them GOP Pokies Guide in. Get casino on slots is more line you Real. pitting rates bonus casino today the. sign up Australian. newspapersquot Palin All. John classnewsdtspannbspAn Free reader up to Australia and on my Debate, and started organization with a Nurse amongst.:
    Odds of winning a poker game 1 in 4. Online Casino Games Since the with the following hiding the game of our partnering. pokie spider coinsluckyz.com?last_dz=free-poker/coinsluckyz.com When a gambler or Dealer draws a card is to roll the standard mini baccarat the. As it stands, the latter is the betting favourite with William Hill Sports offering 2/5 on a Clinton win (assuming she wins the Democratic Party nomination). However, with her recent coughing fit during a debate with Bernie Sanders casting doubt on her ability to handle the pressure, there's a chance Trump. 16 As Adelson amassed billions, he also became increasingly The house always wins. We Only List Safe & Secure Sheldon Adelson House Sheldon Adelson may be throwing his support behind his fellow billionaire Donald Trump, Freedom House, the Bloomberg's Julie Bykowicz examines the election track record of GOP.
  3. Diamond lotus casino is the biggest best slots casinos in the world and offering more than online slot games including poker, video poker, roulette, craps etc. .. Exclusive — RNC Officially Severs Ties With NBC News For Upcoming GOP Debate in Huston Feb still on the schedule,just who to air and where has not been.:
  4. :
  5. :

The act Pokies Winner Debate Gop Birds was one every the original viral

the most

Cruz didn't directly respond to that point, instead hammering home the point that Rubio wanted amnesty and Cruz fought against it. Now, Cruz did sponsor that amendment. You could make an argument that his sponsorship of it indicates that he once supported legal status — or you could note that many around Cruz insist the amendment was meant as a poison pill to reduce Democratic support and kill the bill as a whole. It more or less doesn't matter. What mattered is that Rubio gave Cruz a big chunk of the debate in which to remind base voters of the one issue where they don't trust Rubio at all, and to remind them that Cruz was on their side when it counted.

If you asked Hillary Clinton to rank her preferred general election opponents in order, odds are that Cruz and Trump would top the list. Trump is a candidate almost tailor-made to energize Latino turnout and turn the demographic even more strongly pro-Democratic. And neither has the ability to make inroads with young and Latino voters that Marco Rubio has. And so when Trump and Cruz win a debate, Clinton implicitly wins the debate as well.

She's getting exactly the Republican primary she wants, and it shows no signs of getting worse for her anytime soon. Pundits have been expecting Marco Rubio to break out and become the Republican frontrunner for most of the primary cycle at this point. Once Jeb Bush began floundering, badly, Rubio seemed naturally positioned to pick up establishment Republican support, and given that the party elites allegedly decide nominations , that ought to be enough to give him the nod.

Rubio's seen some modest polling growth but is still a distant third to Trump and Cruz in Iowa and a distant second to Trump in New Hampshire. And his campaign strategy looks like a disaster. He's spent less time in that state than any major candidate save Carson. Privately, local activists grumble that Rubio's not doing much to solicit endorsements.

Rubio's doing ads, and some argue that his lack of ground game isn't important. But if national TV exposure is supposed to save him, then Rubio's going to have to start doing better in debates than he did Tuesday night. His scuffle with Cruz only served to emphasis his own key weakness: And both Cruz and Paul got in some shots at Rubio for his opposition to the USA Freedom Act , which bans mass collection of customer data such as phone records. Cruz called the Rubio camp attacks "Alinskyite," in a conscious nod to the late community organizer who's become a key villain in Tea Party mythology.

It's exactly the kind of attack that plays well to a conservative cable news audience, which has heard Fox News anchors rail against Saul Alinsky for years. Paul smartly pivoted to immigration immediately, further emphasizing Rubio's main weakness: Cruz and Paul intended to depict Rubio as a heretic, one who's particularly unserious on immigration. They also wanted to defuse one of his apparent key advantages: Cruz and Paul accomplished those goals, while Rubio came out looking less like a consensus conservative pick and more like John Kasich: In a sense, every day that Jeb Bush continues to pretend that he might be president is a day he's losing.

But this was a particularly sad showing. Bush clearly thought that attacking Donald Trump as unserious, as a "chaos candidate" who'd be a "chaos president," was what he needed to do to make inroads.

His campaign even blasted out a precooked "chaos candidate" meme during the debate:. Jeb has a page up on Trump as "chaos candidate" https: It sort of worked the first time, but the second time Bush tried to tell Trump he couldn't "insult his way" to the presidency, Trump saw the situation for what it was: So Trump pointed out that he's beating the living shit out of Bush under every conceivable metric and left it at that.

He even added some sarcastic mocking of Bush's macho posturing: You're a tough guy, Jeb. Carson briefly looked like a serious threat to Trump, but since October he's slid back from first place in Iowa to fourth. Media attention has moved on to Ted Cruz.

One of Carson's main appeals — his perceived honesty relative to a field of career politicians and, y'know, Donald Trump — collapsed when it became clear that Carson's been fibbing about at least some aspects of his biography for years. And with his initial rise looking like a fluke, it's unclear what he could do to get back on top. His appearance Tuesday night didn't seem like the kind of thing that could halt that slide.

His answer on North Korea was unintentionally hilarious, the remarks of someone clearly out of his depth:. Well, I definitely believe that he is unstable, and I do, in fact, believe that China has a lot more influence with him than we do.

But we also recognize that North Korea is in severe financial straits, and they have decided to use their resources to build their military, rather than to feed their people and to take care of the various humanitarian responsibilities that they have. We can capitalize upon that. You know, we should use our economic power in lots of different ways. I think we can use that in order to keep Putin contained, because he is a one-horse show.

And we have an abundance of energy, but we have archaic energy exportation rules. What is different about pokies, however, is that their workings are hidden. We can see the ball on the roulette wheel or the horses running around the track, but we cannot see the random number generator inside a poker machine. Thus, it is understandable why there are more misunderstandings about pokies than other forms of gambling. But we do already have the information on how poker machines work for those who care to look.

From this, it could be argued that what is needed to tackle problem gambling in Australia are not leaks of information on how the gambling industry operates, but a focus on education — using the information we already have on how gambling works to correct the understandable misconceptions that exist among gamblers. YorkTalks — York, York. Social Personhood — Manchester, Manchester.

The true language of religion — Egham, Surrey. Available editions United Kingdom. How do myths about poker machines develop? But how do people interpret such information? And how do myths about pokies develop?

Misconceptions about two basic principles While poker machines are incredibly complex, they work on two basic principles: Here, though, he's on his own. There's not a huge Republican constituency for the idea that the Iraq War was not just bad but built on a lie:.

You do whatever you want. You call it whatever you want. I want to tell you. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Now, the general point here is true. Bush and Dick Cheney made claims about WMD and Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda that weren't just false, but which they knew to be false given the intelligence they had at the time , or for which they had no evidence at all.

But it's something that you'd expect a Democratic primary contender to say, not a Republican. And throwing in "they knew there were none" is even a bit far for a Democrat. Trump is allowed his heterodoxies on some issues, but accusing the most recent Republican president of deliberately misleading the nation into a war is unlikely to appeal to just about any GOPer.

He's critiquing Bush's terrorism record in general — and, implicitly, the overall Republican foreign policy consensus that the correct way to fight terrorism is through overwhelming force. That's a consensus that's lasted since Bush left office and isn't really challenged by any other candidate.

Trump's Planned Parenthood comments are perhaps most baffling at all. There really aren't that many pro-choice Republicans out there, or even many pro-life Republicans open to the aggressive promotion of birth control through groups like Planned Parenthood.

And however many there were before the organization became a right-wing media boogeyman last year, there are almost certainly fewer now. There's no reason for an undecided pro-life activist to watch that exchange and come away preferring Trump to his rivals. All of this is bad for Trump on his own, but it's especially bad given that Trump was unabashedly liberal before or so. He said in that Bush deliberately lied to start the war in Iraq, and attacked congressional Democrats for not impeaching him over it.

In , he told Tim Russert he was "strongly for choice":. Republican rivals have tried to attack him for this before, mostly without success. Voters saw Trump as authentic now, whatever his past beliefs; why not believe the message? But seeing elements of the old, more liberal Trump sneak through might give that critique new force. Trump is still winning this primary. He will probably win in South Carolina, and the rest of the field remains scattered enough that he stands a good shot of winning a majority of states in the "SEC primary" on March 1.

But tonight, more than any other debate, felt like a momentum where the tide could shift against him. If his name weren't Marco Rubio, this guy would've dropped out by now. If, say, Chris Christie had gotten third in Iowa and then fifth in New Hampshire, and totally botched the pre—New Hampshire debate, would anyone look at him and think, "Yeah, this is a guy with a plausible path to the nomination"?

But because Rubio has been the one true hope of the Republican establishment for most of this cycle, he's been given something of a pass. But he still needs a way to take advantage of that lenience. He needs a way to beat back Bush and Kasich and emerge once again as the natural establishment rival to Cruz and Trump. And he needed, tonight, to overcome his last disastrous debate performance and prove to the establishment that he won't fail them again.

What happened instead was a basically fine debate performance, devoid of any obvious gaffes, that nonetheless was woefully insufficient to turn around his dying campaign. His decision to attack Cruz more than Trump might have made strategic sense, but in practice it mostly gave Cruz a chance to remind voters, once again, that Rubio favors letting some undocumented immigrants become citizens.

And every minute Rubio's immigration views are the topic at hand, he loses. And when it came time for Rubio to attack Trump, he … defended Jeb Bush. It's a gracious but tactically baffling thing to say if you are trying to defeat Jeb Bush. Rubio wasn't a disaster. But he didn't need not-a-disaster. He needed a blockbuster performance that got him back to where he was immediately post-Iowa, with strong momentum and a media narrative of Rubio rising.

He didn't get that, and it's difficult to see now how he's ever going to put himself back in contention. A moment of silence for Antonin Scalia. Jeb Bush "Let's keep the roof at a medium level. And applauded when Bush fought back: Was this article helpful?

for instance the prediction

And Trump accused Jeb Bush of threatening to expose his buttocks to crowds of voters, an accusation that is, amazingly, not entirely without merit! Two days ago he said he would take his pants off and moon everybody, and that's fine. He gets up and says that, and then he tells me, oh, my language was a little bit rough…. The most reasonable person onstage was defending the Iraq War at great length. Worse still for Republicans, it left the race still largely unsettled. Probably the best hope for a swift end to the primary is for Trump to just keep winning everything — but Trump had one of his worst nights to date.

Probably the best hope for an establishment contender to win is for John Kasich to realize he can't do well outside New Hampshire and drop out, for Rubio to acknowledge that he's toast and do the same, and for Jeb!

But while Jeb had a good night, it wasn't a so-good-he-knocked-out-his-rivals night. And Ted Cruz gave a perfectly fine performance that should keep him firmly in second place, or even give him the potential to repeat his Iowa victory over Trump a few more times and throw the race into still further chaos.

The takeaway from tonight was that this race will last a long time, it will involve a lot more ridiculous debates like this, and it will continue to make the Republican party look like a silly mess. That's all great news for Hillary and Bernie. No moderator could've completely contained the madness that was tonight's debate. Jeb and Trump were too committed to going after each other, as were Rubio and Cruz, for them to respect time restrictions or refrain from demanding a right to respond when their names were so much as mentioned in passing.

But CBS's John Dickerson nonetheless did a fine job, asking productive follow-up questions and, with a couple exceptions like a question about Trump's profanity , mostly sticking to the substance.

His back-and-forth with Ted Cruz pointing out that Anthony Kennedy was confirmed for the Supreme Court in an election year earned him boos from the audience, who saw him as nitpicky and eager to defend Obama's nomination. But he was right, and he was keeping Cruz to the facts — which is crucial for a moderator. Another highlight was Major Garrett's questioning on Cruz's tax plan. Cruz denied it, but Garrett pressed him.

Trump, let me ask you a question. Presidents in both parties say that the one thing you need in your administration is somebody who can tell you you're wrong. You don't necessarily seem like somebody who has somebody who tells you you're wrong a lot.

Can you tell us of an instance where somebody has said, "Donald Trump, you're wrong," and you listened to them? Oh, let me just say -- look, I am very open -- I hired top people. I've had great success. I built a great, great company. I don't need to do this. I'm spending a lot of money. He came in five, and I came in No. Trump just didn't answer the question, even after Dickerson pressed him.

The upshot was clear: Trump isn't capable, or isn't willing, of conceding literally any error. He really is exactly as arrogant as you think he is. And Dickerson demonstrated this not by saying it or arguing it but by having Trump show it for himself.

That's moderating at its finest. And he mostly got booed for having a point. He attacked the audience as stacked to be pro-Bush — which it appears to have been. He defended Planned Parenthood as doing important work besides abortions — which it does. And he attacked George W. But they are not criticisms you make in a Republican debate. Trump has strayed from party doctrine before, but when he's done so, it's been on issues where the GOP is in a very different place from the establishment.

He opposes cutting Social Security and Medicare, which enrages libertarian economic types within the party but delights actual voters, especially elderly ones. He wants big tariffs on China, which free-traders in the party hate but white working-class workers who actually vote for the party love.

Here, though, he's on his own. There's not a huge Republican constituency for the idea that the Iraq War was not just bad but built on a lie:. You do whatever you want. You call it whatever you want. I want to tell you. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Now, the general point here is true. Bush and Dick Cheney made claims about WMD and Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda that weren't just false, but which they knew to be false given the intelligence they had at the time , or for which they had no evidence at all.

But it's something that you'd expect a Democratic primary contender to say, not a Republican. And throwing in "they knew there were none" is even a bit far for a Democrat. Trump is allowed his heterodoxies on some issues, but accusing the most recent Republican president of deliberately misleading the nation into a war is unlikely to appeal to just about any GOPer. He's critiquing Bush's terrorism record in general — and, implicitly, the overall Republican foreign policy consensus that the correct way to fight terrorism is through overwhelming force.

That's a consensus that's lasted since Bush left office and isn't really challenged by any other candidate. Trump's Planned Parenthood comments are perhaps most baffling at all. There really aren't that many pro-choice Republicans out there, or even many pro-life Republicans open to the aggressive promotion of birth control through groups like Planned Parenthood.

And however many there were before the organization became a right-wing media boogeyman last year, there are almost certainly fewer now. There's no reason for an undecided pro-life activist to watch that exchange and come away preferring Trump to his rivals.

All of this is bad for Trump on his own, but it's especially bad given that Trump was unabashedly liberal before or so. He said in that Bush deliberately lied to start the war in Iraq, and attacked congressional Democrats for not impeaching him over it.

In , he told Tim Russert he was "strongly for choice":. Republican rivals have tried to attack him for this before, mostly without success. Voters saw Trump as authentic now, whatever his past beliefs; why not believe the message?

But seeing elements of the old, more liberal Trump sneak through might give that critique new force. Trump is still winning this primary. He will probably win in South Carolina, and the rest of the field remains scattered enough that he stands a good shot of winning a majority of states in the "SEC primary" on March 1. But tonight, more than any other debate, felt like a momentum where the tide could shift against him.

If his name weren't Marco Rubio, this guy would've dropped out by now. But we have to -- who would be -- I just can't imagine somebody booing. These are people that want to kill us, folks, and you're -- you're objecting to us infiltrating their conversations? I don't think so. Rand Paul just lost to Donald Trump, as well.

Every candidate who attacks Trump fails with my focus group. This has been the dynamic all campaign. As long as it persists, Trump stays on top. And nothing that happened tonight changed that dynamic.

These are also auspicious times for new Iowa frontrunner Ted Cruz. Cruz didn't give the most coherent performance in the world. At one point he demonstrated that he has basically no idea what the term "carpet bombing" means:.

To be clear, senator Cruz, would you carpet bomb Raqqa, where there are a lot of civilians? You would carpet bomb where ISIS is. The location of the troops. You use air power directed. But the object isn't to level a city, the object is to kill the ISIS terrorists.

To make it, listen, ISIS is gaining strength because the perception is that they're winning. And President Obama fuels that perception.

As my colleague Zack Beauchamp notes, this is percent pure nonsense. You can't do "directed" carpet bombing.

That's just normal bombing, and Obama's already doing it. Cruz was doing, in Beauchamp's words, "pure tough guy positioning. But the Republican base sure seems to love pure tough guy positioning. It allows a combination of nationalistic disinterest in overly complex interventions with hyper-hawkish rhetoric in the cases where the base does want to intervene. Cruz doesn't just promise to somehow bomb the hell out of ISIS without killing more civilians than Obama already has.

In the debate, he promised an "America first" foreign policy, in a hopefully unintentional echo of the Charles Lindbergh—backed, Germany-sympathetic anti-war movement in the late s and early s.

He wants to kill the bad guys but not waste time on this cuddly "democracy promotion" nonsense the way Bush did. It's a brilliant way of channeling anti-ISIS fervor without having to defend the last time America did a massive intervention to dislodge a regime we didn't like in Mesopotamia. Even better was Cruz's exchange with Marco Rubio on immigration. Cruz repeatedly hit Rubio for his support of a pathway to citizenship, and Rubio had what he thought was an airtight rejoinder: When the Senate was debating the bipartisan immigration reform bill that Rubio helped craft, Cruz proposed an amendment that would repeal the pathway to citizenship but still allow some unauthorized immigrants to obtain legal status.

Cruz didn't directly respond to that point, instead hammering home the point that Rubio wanted amnesty and Cruz fought against it. Now, Cruz did sponsor that amendment. You could make an argument that his sponsorship of it indicates that he once supported legal status — or you could note that many around Cruz insist the amendment was meant as a poison pill to reduce Democratic support and kill the bill as a whole.

It more or less doesn't matter. What mattered is that Rubio gave Cruz a big chunk of the debate in which to remind base voters of the one issue where they don't trust Rubio at all, and to remind them that Cruz was on their side when it counted.

If you asked Hillary Clinton to rank her preferred general election opponents in order, odds are that Cruz and Trump would top the list. Trump is a candidate almost tailor-made to energize Latino turnout and turn the demographic even more strongly pro-Democratic. And neither has the ability to make inroads with young and Latino voters that Marco Rubio has.

And so when Trump and Cruz win a debate, Clinton implicitly wins the debate as well. She's getting exactly the Republican primary she wants, and it shows no signs of getting worse for her anytime soon. Pundits have been expecting Marco Rubio to break out and become the Republican frontrunner for most of the primary cycle at this point. Once Jeb Bush began floundering, badly, Rubio seemed naturally positioned to pick up establishment Republican support, and given that the party elites allegedly decide nominations , that ought to be enough to give him the nod.

Rubio's seen some modest polling growth but is still a distant third to Trump and Cruz in Iowa and a distant second to Trump in New Hampshire.

And his campaign strategy looks like a disaster. He's spent less time in that state than any major candidate save Carson. Privately, local activists grumble that Rubio's not doing much to solicit endorsements.

Rubio's doing ads, and some argue that his lack of ground game isn't important. But if national TV exposure is supposed to save him, then Rubio's going to have to start doing better in debates than he did Tuesday night.

His scuffle with Cruz only served to emphasis his own key weakness: And both Cruz and Paul got in some shots at Rubio for his opposition to the USA Freedom Act , which bans mass collection of customer data such as phone records.

Cruz called the Rubio camp attacks "Alinskyite," in a conscious nod to the late community organizer who's become a key villain in Tea Party mythology.

It's exactly the kind of attack that plays well to a conservative cable news audience, which has heard Fox News anchors rail against Saul Alinsky for years. Paul smartly pivoted to immigration immediately, further emphasizing Rubio's main weakness: Cruz and Paul intended to depict Rubio as a heretic, one who's particularly unserious on immigration. They also wanted to defuse one of his apparent key advantages: Cruz and Paul accomplished those goals, while Rubio came out looking less like a consensus conservative pick and more like John Kasich: In a sense, every day that Jeb Bush continues to pretend that he might be president is a day he's losing.

But this was a particularly sad showing. Bush clearly thought that attacking Donald Trump as unserious, as a "chaos candidate" who'd be a "chaos president," was what he needed to do to make inroads.

His campaign even blasted out a precooked "chaos candidate" meme during the debate:. Jeb has a page up on Trump as "chaos candidate" https: It sort of worked the first time, but the second time Bush tried to tell Trump he couldn't "insult his way" to the presidency, Trump saw the situation for what it was: So Trump pointed out that he's beating the living shit out of Bush under every conceivable metric and left it at that.

He even added some sarcastic mocking of Bush's macho posturing: You're a tough guy, Jeb. Carson briefly looked like a serious threat to Trump, but since October he's slid back from first place in Iowa to fourth. Media attention has moved on to Ted Cruz. One of Carson's main appeals — his perceived honesty relative to a field of career politicians and, y'know, Donald Trump — collapsed when it became clear that Carson's been fibbing about at least some aspects of his biography for years.

And with his initial rise looking like a fluke, it's unclear what he could do to get back on top. His appearance Tuesday night didn't seem like the kind of thing that could halt that slide.

Game focuses Online Pokies Best Payout want your help

Apr 09,  · Selena Gomez’s Nipples In Sexy Bikini Picture — Making Justin Bieber Jealous? Selena’s fierce shot on her Instagram is a far cry from the vulnerable. Tips for Punters Betting on the U.S also known as the Republicans or the GOP. GOP Debate Packard was hailed as the winner of the “Happy Hour” debate. Time to normalize nipples? Doug Jones is apparent winner over Roy Moore in Alabama Senate race. Alabama election a 'double earthquake' for GOP, Trump.

Pokies Slot Freebies Wsop

5 DRAGONS POKIE WIN RETRIGGERED 3 TIMES $4.50 HITS MAX BETS