Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki and Jim Gilmore didn't make the top ten for the debate.

Personally I can see being on the debate actually harming most candidates as they'll have to open their mouths and who knows what idiotic rubbish will spew forth. So missing out might actually help them.

But there is still a losers debate for all of those that didn't make the cut, so still a chance for them to say something stupid.

Pity about Carly not making the cut. She's smart and smooth. She's probably in the running as VP candidate - the designated Hillary Hunter.

Ted Cruz was ranked the No. 1 debater in the country when he was a student at Princeton and Alan Dershowitz ranks him as one of the smartest students he ever had at Harvard Law School, so it should be interesting to see how he handles the "debate" at Fox. He was Chief Justice Rehnquist's law clerk, so no dummy. He needs to watch his sharp edge. He should move up in the standings.

He might be smart, but there's something about him that makes me shudder.

Rand Paul is the one guy I'm looking forward to seeing how he does. He genuinely has some interesting ideas, he's just not been good at getting momentum behind him.

Probably because he actually turns up for his day job instead (unlike half the field).

She wasn't real smart and smooth with HP. Failed miserably and was booted out. For whatever reason, running a corporation is seen as experience for running a nation. The two roles are not remotely alike.


If this was ever true he's surely sold out.

I'm never sure Flavius if you're a real person or a spambot. You couldn't possibly be a real person who grew up in the UK? Maybe a babe in arms before you left? To take these two individuals and present them as possible contenders for the US Presidency makes you sound 100% American.

I was brought to Alberta from the UK when 5 and the family moved to the USA when I was 8. I studied political science in the '60s under a series of professors who had gotten out of the Soviet bloc, so I didn't become besotted with socialism and liberalism like so many of my contemporaries and so many here. I served in Army CounterIntelligence Corp in Germany in the late '60s, lived there for additional years and speak fluent German. I am a libertarian, registered as an Independent - not a spambot, but about 80% American, I suppose. I hope that answers your question.

Fiorina was smart enough to become CEO of Hewlett-Packard and engineered the merger with Compaq, making it the biggest computer company in the world at the time. It was that merger that caused her to be ousted by the Board. Boardroom politics. Was it a good merger? I don't know, but she certainly has accomplishments. [I don't want to be piled-on by the legion of Hillary supporters on this site, so won't discuss what she brings to the table.] I see Fiorina as a VP candidate, not a President.

I only said Cruz was very smart and a good debater, and suggested it would be interesting to watch his performance. He probably won't get the nod. Who do you think would make a good President on the R side? Bush, Rubio, Walker? Trump??? At a guess, probably none of them. I don't know yet who I would support. Surprisingly, I find Bernie to be very, very interesting.

One thing about this long election process, we aren't just voting for an MP, we get to also vote for the "Leader of the Free World." Probably only the Russian voters get a choice like that, so the long process may be justified.

It's not a debate I could watch without at least feeling like vomiting. But thanks for the background info - I really didn't think you could have had much British influence.

As far as Republican candidates, the last good ones retired in the mid nineties before all the stupidity. Hell, I have even felt sorry for Boehner since the Tea Party became a thing. The odd thing is, in the UK I used to sometimes vote conservative.

I don't like Hillary one bit.

I know it should not be a major factor, but his voice grates like chalk on a blackboard. He's way too far to the right for me.

Rand Paul had a fantastic opportunity to follow in his father's footsteps but he seems to have given up all his distinctive qualities in an attempt to go mainstream. Ron Paul was clear cut on defense, and on keeping govt. out of people's lives - legalize marijuana, gay rights, etc. Rand is waffling on all these key issues.

I really detest George Bush and hold him and his cohorts (Cheney, Rumsfeld) responsible for one of the biggest mistakes of recent times (Iraq), not to mention the financial meltdown, but - I have a willingness to listen to Jeb, and like his attitude towards immigration. Not sure about Rubio, but if he stops railing against immigration he could have some appeal. Basically, any Republican who doesn't spout religion and war would get my ear.

Well, of course, the British influence came from my parents, both of whom had served during the War and who were Tories (and transferred that orientation to me) who had left England partly because of the attempted transformation of the country into socialism at that time.

I was living in two worlds while growing up - the American one where I tried to fit in, and a British home where my parents preserved British values and constantly compared those values to America's disadvantage, exactly, exactly like this site. [I would say that young Hispanic kids brought here are going through that same clash of values that could tear them apart, as it did me.]

I despise Hillary as a shallow and corrupt politician - in it to be a millionaire - and with nothing positive to show for her occupation of a NY Senate seat and her term at State. Her sole appeals to voters are her ovaries, her sham marriage to Bill and that she is a Democrat.

I would enthusiastically endorse Rand except that he and Ron are old-style Republican isolationists. Isolation was America's main orientation prior to WWII and it has used its power since the War to try to prevent evil powers from invading and oppressing their neighbors. Being the world's policeman makes you a target, and it is a burden, but it has prevented a WWIII.

If Roosevelt had been able to effectively use America's power to stop Hitler, WWII might never have happened, 60 million people would not have died, a hundred million people in Eastern Europe might not have lived for two generations under Communism and the Holocaust would also not have happened. It's that lesson that holds me back from being a Randist.

She probably did a better job with HP than she would with the US.

I believe that some people confuse "smart and smooth" with "not liberal."

He is more than happy to interfere with the lives of women who wish to have abortions.

At least his oddball fixation on dismantling the Federal Reserve and returning to a gold standard would ruin the lives of both men and women if he was allowed to go through with it.

He might be better suited to running as an independent.

Reducing the size of the military isn't exactly going to be a huge vote winner amongst conservatives.

The problem is, no one candidate is going to tick all of my boxes.

In the end you have to go with who has the right 'blend' on the issues you care about most.

I find the word "misspoke" very curious. It seems to imply "saying what you really mean and then realising that nobody agrees with you".

Case in point Jeb Bush: I misspoke about women's health funding - BBC News

Maybe someone should count up all the times that the candidates "misspoke".