Boulder, Colorado CNBC Republican debate (October 28, 2015)
Ballotpedia's scope changes periodically, and this article type is no longer actively created or maintained. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.
Ballotpedia's coverage of the third Republican debate—which took place October 28, 2015—includes an overview of the event's basic information, a pre-debate debrief, the results of our Insiders Poll and post-debate commentary written by guest writers and members of our senior writing staff. The debate consisted of two back-to-back halves. CNBC used polling data to determine which candidates participated in each segment. More information on participants and CNBC's rules for inclusion can be found in the "Basic Information" tab below.
Basic Information
Date: October 28, 2015
Time: 6:00 pm and 8:00 pm EDT
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Venue: University of Colorado
Sponsors: CNBC
Moderators: Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick, and John Harwood
Rules for inclusion: CNBC announced its rules for participant inclusion in the debate on September 30, 2015. It stated that candidates "must have at least 1% in any one of the methodologically sound and recognized national polls conducted by: NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN and Bloomberg, released between September 17, 2015 and October 21, 2015." To participate in the 8:00 pm debate, candidates needed to have an average of three percent in these same polls. CNBC noted that "any candidate with a standing of 2.5% or higher" would be rounded up to three percent.[1]
Participants
8:00 pm debate
|
|
6:00 pm debate
|
|
Debrief
October 26, 2015
Donald Trump knows how to dominate a stage. In the first Republican presidential debate he boldly declared that he might not support the eventual nominee of the party. Normally, front runners for a presidential nomination avoid controversy, deflect attacks from opponents, and generally do what they can to stay above the fray. Trump readily sparred with his GOP rivals as well as the FOX news moderators.
After that debate, Trump reversed course and pledged that he would support whomever Republicans eventually nominate. But if anyone thought Trump might change his tactics in the next debate, they were mistaken. Trump opened up the second face-off on CNN with an unprovoked attack on Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. At times in that debate, Trump seemed to recede into the background of the back-and-forth among the GOP candidates: a Ballotpedia analysis found that while he got more air time than any other candidate, and was asked the most questions by debate moderators, Trump did not try to inject himself in the discussion of social issues like gay marriage and abortion. Trump understands the popularity of his “brand” better than anyone and he’s not likely to change his combative manner in the October 28 debate at the University of Colorado in Boulder.
Ironically, the big winner of the first debate was not even on the main stage. Carly Fiorina’s performance in the so-called “undercard” debate was so strong that she got a bump in the polls and got to participate in the second prime time debate. In both events, Fiorina’s debate preparation was evident—she was very articulate and handled the questions with poise. Her rebuke to Trump over his comments about her looks was one of the few times a candidate has cleanly landed a punch on him in the first two debates. Most observers attribute Fiorina’s rise in the polls to her polished debate performances.
Given the rave reviews Hillary Clinton received last week, it is quite possible that Fiorina will take on Clinton again. In the past, she has drawn applause when she’s positioned herself as Clinton’s chief nemesis. But the other GOP candidates may not let her be the first to attack the Democratic front runner. Fiorina has slipped at bit in the polls since she did well in the first two debates and she will be under pressure to deliver another solid performance. In Boulder, expect her to be well prepared again.
At times during the first two GOP debates, Dr. Ben Carson has appeared almost disengaged. He has eschewed the cut and thrust that some of the other candidates appear to relish, and his demeanor might be charitably described as “understated.” But his humanity seemed to shine through in his closing statement in the first debate and Carson saw his standing in the polls rise afterwards. Out on the stump, or in interviews with reporters, is where he has made his more controversial statements. Perhaps the best way to describe Carson is as a reticent debater. But that does not seem to have diminished his appeal.
Jeb Bush’s two debate performances have been lacking. More was expected from the former two-term Florida governor, a seasoned pol who’s been dealing with reporters and political foes for decades. It is not a gap in substance that has bedeviled Bush, but rather, he has lacked a presence on the big stage. In the first debate standing next to Trump, this deficit was apparent: while Trump exuded confidence, Bush seemed to slump behind his podium. Commentators said Bush lacked energy and Trump picked up the charge and has needled him repeatedly with it. In the second debate Bush fared better. Standing next to Trump again, Bush demanded that the boisterous billionaire apologize to Bush’s wife for raising her Mexican heritage in tweets about Bush’s support for immigration reform. Trump brushed aside that demand.
In a second exchange, Bush fared a bit better when said he had rejected Trump’s efforts to expand casino gambling into Florida even though Trump had raised money for his 1998 campaign. Trump denied that story, but after the debate, fact-checkers largely confirmed Bush’s recollection. Still, that minor victory did little to boost Bush and he has to find a way to shape a positive defining moment in the Boulder debate if he wants to quell growing doubts about his candidacy.
Marco Rubio may have the most to gain by Bush’s shortcomings. He’s a polished debater and his confidence on the stage seems to be growing. It is worth noting that in Ballotpedia surveys of GOP political Insiders after the first two debates, Rubio was rated as having helped himself more in those two face-offs than Bush did. Rubio could become the establishment favorite if he continues to outshine Bush in the debates.
As on the Senate floor, Ted Cruz is prone to grand declarations in debates. Do not expect nuance or caveats from him in the Boulder debate. Cruz seems to be positioning himself to inherit Trump supporters if the billionaire’s campaign implodes.
Mike Huckabee has not been able to galvanize evangelicals with his debate performances and based on the first two encounters, he does not seem to have any other pitches in his debate repertoire besides conservative appeals on social issues.
John Kasich has been the optimist of the debates and that is unlikely to change. Likewise, Chris Christie is likely to reprise his role as the truth teller in Boulder. Rand Paul is likely to remain the odd man out. He cannot let himself become a punching bag for whichever of his GOP rivals decides to take on the Kentucky Senator’s unorthodox views. Many debate watchers think that when you’re on the defensive, you are losing.
James A. Barnes is a senior writer for Ballotpedia and co-author of the 2016 edition of the Almanac of American Politics.
Statistics
Ballotpedia's scope changes periodically, and this article type is no longer actively created or maintained. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.
This article analyzes the central themes of the Republican presidential debate held on October 28, 2015, in Boulder, Colorado. The transcript prepared by The Washington Post was used to measure candidate participation and audience engagement.[2] Footage from the debate was consulted where there were ambiguities in the text.
To compare the statistics of this debate to the previous Republican debate, please see the analysis of topics and participation in the September 2015 CNN Republican debate.
Segments
The third Republican presidential debate featured 32 unique discussion segments covering a range of economic and regulatory issues. These discussion segments were measured by any shift in the theme of a discussion prompted by one of the moderators: John Harwood, Becky Quick and Carl Quintanilla. Panelists Jim Cramer, Sharon Epperson and Rick Santelli also posed questions to the candidates.
- Each candidate's greatest weakness
- Trump's candidacy
- Tax polices
- Rubio's voting record
- Bush's campaign
- Fiorina's business record
- Cruz's candidacy
- Budget deal and federal assistance programs
- Social Security
- Trump's business record and trustworthiness
- Regulation of prescription drug prices
- White collar crime and prosecution
- The budget deal and tax increases
- Internet sales tax
- Marco Rubio's personal finances
- Corporate welfare
- Pay equity
- Carson's corporate connections and ethics
- H-1B visas and U.S. unemployment
- Federal Reserve
- Oil subsidies
- Income inequality and taxation
- Marijuana legalization
- H-1B visas and merit-based immigration
- Gun-free zones
- Moral authority
- Government-organized retirement plans
- Student loan reform
- Regulation of fantasy football leagues
- Climate change
- Federal assistance programs
- Closing statements
Although the formal title of CNBC's debate was "Your Money, Your Vote," a significant number of the discussion segments – 10 out of 32 – questioned a candidate's character, professional history or personal finances.[3] Three separate discussion segments were initiated with a question related to Donald Trump's candidacy. When Mike Huckabee was asked to comment on Trump's moral authority, he said, "You know, of the few questions I've got, the last one I need is to give [Trump] some more time."[2]
Overall participation
Participation in a segment was defined by a substantive comment related to the segment's topic. Jokes and attempts to gain permission from a moderator to speak were not considered participatory speech acts. In some instances, candidates who participated in a segment diverted from the prompted topic.
Each candidate participated in six to nine discussion segments. The CNBC moderators frequently introduced a discussion segment but only asked one candidate for his or her opinion on the subject. More than half of the discussion segments involved only one candidate. Excluding the opening question and closing statements, the discussion segment on reforming federal assistance programs involved the greatest number of candidates with eight participating. The discussion segment on how to address income inequality through tax policies followed with five participants.
Candidate participation by behavior
Participation in the debate was also measured by the candidate's behavior at the start of each discussion segment. This study considered whether a candidate was initially prompted to speak during a discussion segment by a moderator or whether he or she independently engaged in the discussion segment by interrupting another candidate or calling on the moderator for permission to speak. A candidate's conduct after they joined a discussion segment was not considered.
Compared to the Democratic presidential debate held on October 28, 2015, the Republican candidates were more aggressive in interrupting their fellow candidates or the moderators in an attempt to join a discussion segment for the first time. As in the previous Republican presidential debate on CNN, Carly Fiorina interrupted the most with four interjections. Jeb Bush and John Kasich followed with the three interjections. Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee only substantively participated in a discussion segment when called on by a moderator.
Candidate participation by speaking time
NPR, Politico and The New York Times all reported on the number of minutes each candidate spoke.[4][5][6] These totals varied up to one minute between each organization's measure of candidate speaking time. According to The New York Times and Politico, Jeb Bush talked for approximately six minutes, less than any other candidate. This is a significant change from the previous Republican debate where Bush spoke longer than every candidate but Donald Trump.
Candidate participation by segment vs. speaking time
The amount of time a candidate spoke did not necessarily align with the number of issues he or she covered during the debate. For example, Bush engaged in the most discussion segments even though he spoke the least by NPR and The New York Times' measures.
Audience engagement
Audience engagement was measured by noting the instances of applause, cheering or laughter in The Washington Post's transcript. Footage from the debate was consulted where it was ambiguous in the text who the audience was responding to. Multiple expressions of positive audience engagement during one speech act were marked as a single instance of audience engagement. Huckabee, Rubio and Trump received the warmest response from the crowd, while Bush, Kasich and Paul failed to resonate with the live audience.
Although Carson had a comparatively moderate response, he was the only candidate to receive support from the live audience against a moderator's line of questioning. When Carlos Quintanilla questioned Carson's judgment relating to his business relationship with the nutritional supplement company Mannatech, the audience booed him.
Candidate speech analysis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See also
- Presidential candidates, 2016
- Presidential election, 2016/Polls
- 2016 presidential candidate ratings and scorecards
- Presidential election, 2016/Straw polls
Footnotes
- ↑ CNBC, "CNBC Republican Debate Criteria," September 30, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 The Washington Post, "The third Republican debate transcript, annotated," October 28, 2015
- ↑ CNBC, "'Your Money, Your Vote: The Republican Presidential Debate' on Wednesday October 28," September 30, 2015
- ↑ Twitter, "NPR Politics," October 28, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "Republican Debate on Economic Issues: Analysis," accessed October 29, 2015
- ↑ Politico, "Debate: By the numbers," October 28, 2015
Ballotpedia's Insiders Poll
Rubio, Christie, Cruz shine in debate; Bush had a bad night
October 28, 2015 (updated on October 29 at 12:04 pm EST)
By James A. Barnes
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio had a big night on Wednesday and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz also had their moments. In a survey of more than 130 Republican and Democratic political Insiders surveyed by Ballotpedia, more than half judged Rubio to be the "biggest winner" of the October 28 Republican presidential debate at the University of Colorado in Boulder conduced by CNBC. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, once considered the most likely winner of 2016 GOP nominating contest, had another underwhelming performance that has many observers speculating about the future of his candidacy.
Ballotpedia surveyed 134 Republican and Democratic strategists, pollsters, media consultants, activists, lobbyists and allied interest groups operatives after the debate concluded: 84 Republicans responded and 50 Democrats participated. This survey was conducted anonymously to encourage candor from Insiders. As political professionals, Insiders often view events like debates through a similar prism—at least on the main result: 50 percent of the GOP Insiders said Rubio won the debate, as did 58 percent of the Democrats.
Rubio’s poise throughout the debate won kudos from Republicans. “He is the best communicator on the stage,” maintained one GOP Insider. “Republicans know intuitively they will need that against Hillary.” Added another, Rubio “was on fire to night, looked very professional.” And a third GOP influential described Rubio as “clear, confidant, magnanimous, uplifting—in a word, a leader.”
Democrats also praised the Florida Senator’s performance. “Rubio deftly swatted attacks aside and turned them into opportunities to hit his message,” said a Democratic Insider. “He was funny, serious and likeable. He was far and away the winner.” Another Democrat averred, “My party ought to be worried—their best general election candidate has stepped forward.”
As for who was the biggest loser in the debate, almost three-out-of-five of Republican (58 percent) and Democratic Insiders (60 percent) said it was Bush. And in their comments, Insiders in both parties panned Bush’s effort. “Jeb did nothing to reassure his nervous supporters,” said one GOP Insider. “Faded into the background, again,” said another. “It was like he wasn't there,” observed a third GOP Insider. “Road gets tougher for him every day.”
Democrats agreed. Bush “seems lost and uninterested in the issues. Lacks passion,” said one Democratic Insider. “Bored, tired, stressed, whatever: un-presidential,” added another. A third Democrat joked, “Trump is right, he does have low energy.”
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie also shined. In a separate question on whether the candidates had helped or hurt themselves in the debate, or neither; 83 percent of the Republican Insiders said Cruz had helped himself and 82 percent said Christie was helped (85 percent said Rubio helped himself as well). Here again, Bush was judged harshly: 65 percent of the GOP Insiders said Bush had hurt himself. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul also seemed to falter, with 45 percent saying he had been hurt. The two GOP frontrunners in the polls, Donald Trump and Ben Carson also had uneven performances, 37 percent and 30 percent, respectively, said they had been hurt. Only 17 percent said Trump had helped himself and only 15 percent said Carson had helped himself.
At one point in the debate, Bush was asked about whether fantasy football games are essentially gambling and need to be reigned in somehow. Bush joked that he was “7-0” in his fantasy league so far this season, but he added that perhaps the high-stakes Internet games where hundreds of millions of dollars have been waged, need some sort of regulation. After that remark Christie pounced: “Are we really talking about the getting the government involved in fantasy football?” he asked. “Let people play, who cares?”
Cruz “had best single moment of the night (bashing CNBC) and was able to contain his normal angry personal,” said one Republican Insider. ‘Christie shined again tonight,” said another GOP Insider. “That line about fantasy football may have ended Jeb’s campaign. He truly shines in a debate format.” Meanwhile, “Trump acted like he didn’t have to do debates anymore, Carson sounded like Mr. Rogers; Bush was dark,” declared another GOP influential.
And who do Democratic Insiders think would be the toughest debater against Hillary Clinton, should she be their party’s nominee? Rubio.
“The generational difference would make Rubio competitive,” acknowledged one Democrat. “He has a message and he’s good on his feet,” said another. “A Rubio candidacy, inherently focused on vision for the future, would turn 2016 into a change election like 2008 was for Barack Obama,” observed one Democratic influential. “It's a debate Clinton could handle well with her own vision and the historic candidacy she embodies. In the end, Rubio represents the GOP's best chance in 2016.”
James A. Barnes is a senior writer for Ballotpedia and co-author of the forthcoming 2016 edition of the Almanac of American Politics. He has conducted elite opinion surveys for National Journal, CNN and the on-line polling firm, YouGov. This Insiders survey was conducted October 28-29.
Debate Commentary
The columns below were authored by guest columnists and members of Ballotpedia's senior writing staff. The opinions and views belong to the authors.
Jeb's Journey
October 29, 2015
By Karlyn Bowman
Karlyn Bowman, a widely respected analyst of public opinion, is a senior fellow and research coordinator at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.
A CBS News/New York Times national poll released earlier before last night’s CNBC-GOP debate provided strong hints of how people would react to Jeb Bush’s debate performance. No, I’m not talking about the question about the Republican field, in which Bush came in fourth among self-described Republican primary voters after Ben Carson, Donald Trump, and a little behind Marco Rubio. Nor am I talking about the question that asked these same Republicans who had the best chance of winning next November. In that question, Bush came in third, far behind Trump and a little ahead of Rubio. (In August, Bush was essentially tied with Trump for the top spot).
The question that caught my eye in the CBS/Times poll was the one that asked these Republicans about their enthusiasm for various candidates if they became the nominee. Forty-eight percent said they would enthusiastically support Ben Carson, and around 30 percent said they would feel that way about Rubio, Fiorina, and Trump. Twenty-six percent said they would strongly support Ted Cruz. But only 18 percent said they would support Jeb with such gusto. Perhaps even more devastating, 24 percent said they would support him only because he was the party’s nominee, and another 25 percent said they wouldn’t support him.
A one-on-one debate between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton would be a match of equals. Both are deeply substantive, and both would do their homework. Bush would be a worthy adversary in that situation. But he flails in the multicandidate encounters with people who have stronger personalities.
Particularly embarrassing in last night’s debate was his exchange with Marco Rubio, not because Rubio had a clear or compelling response to the question about his attendance record in the Senate, but because Bush just didn’t seem himself in delivering the punch. The attack seemed scripted by the campaign, but that doesn’t work if the candidate can’t pull it off.
Is Jeb’s journey at an end? The old cliché “time will tell” is all we can say at this point, but he is uniquely unsuited to the thrust and parry of multi-candidate forums. And there are more of those to come. Even if the candidates can get some changes in the debate format, as some seemed eager to do after last night’s spectacle, it will still be an uphill climb for the candidate who was once the front runner.
Soundbites, Counterpunches and Pivots: You Need to Listen Before You Leap
October 29, 2015
By David Kusnet
David Kusnet is a former chief speechwriter for former President Bill Clinton. He is the senior writer and a principal at the Podesta Group, a government relations and public relations firm in Washington, D.C.
With 10 candidates answering complex questions over two hours, last night’s Republican debate was about memorable moments, not overall impressions or mastery of public policy.
But, as Jeb Bush learned too late, candidates can’t just memorize an attack-line and detonate it the first time an opportunity arises. Soundbites are most effective when they flow naturally from what’s been said before and are deployed as counterpunches to an adversary’s attacks or pivots from a smaller point to a larger one.
Unfortunately for Bush, he was the fall-guy for the evening’s most effective counterpunch (by Marco Rubio) and pivot (by Chris Christie), while unintentionally helping to set the stage for a well-delivered set-piece by yet another rival (Ted Cruz).
Each of these effective performances played off of the course of the entire campaign and the direction of last night’s debate, where attacks on “the Republican establishment” and “the liberal media” had proven the most effective applause-lines with rank-and-file Republicans. By repeating a rehearsed line of attack against Rubio based largely on a newspaper editorial, Bush made himself the target, not the tribune, of the prevailing populist passions.
In the first exchange, after debate moderator Carl Quintanilla had already asked Rubio to respond to the Florida Sun-Sentinel’s criticism of his absences from the US Senate, Bush told his former ally: “You can campaign, or just resign and let someone else take the job.” Rubio repeated his earlier response that other Senators, including Bob Graham, John Kerry, and John McCain, had also missed Senate votes in order to campaign for the presidency. Having counter-punched plausibly, Rubio concluded on a high note: “I'm not running against Governor Bush, I'm not running against anyone on this stage. I'm running for president because there is no way we can elect Hillary Clinton to continue the policies of Barack Obama.”
In the second exchange, towards the end of the event, Quintanilla asked Bush about whether the federal government should regulate fantasy sports. Bush answered endearingly, joking about his own experiences with fantasy football. But then he concluded that “there should be some regulation. I have no clue whether the federal government is the proper place, my instinct is to say, hell no, just about everything about the federal government.”
Responding, Christie seized the opportunity to pivot to his larger points: “Carl, are we really talking about getting government involved in fantasy football? We have -- wait a second, we have $19 trillion in debt. We have people out of work. We have ISIS and al Qaeda attacking us. And we’re talking about fantasy football? Can we stop?”
Exchanges such as these increased the impact of what appeared to be prepared remarks by Cruz attacking the debate’s host, the business-oriented cable channel CNBC, as typical of a news media allegedly biased against Republicans: “The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media,” Cruz said. “This is not a cage match. You look at the questions…The contrast with the Democratic debate, where every thought and question from the media was, which of you is more handsome and wise?”
Having paid attention to what their adversaries were saying, Cruz and Christie executed their pivots and counterpunches effectively. But Bush blundered by simply unleashing a prepared attack without considering how his audience would hear it or how his adversaries would respond.
The lesson: In order to speak effectively, you have to listen to your adversaries and your audience.
The Expectations Game
October 29, 2015
By James A. Barnes
James A. Barnes is a senior writer for Ballotpedia. He is the founding editor of the National Journal Political Insiders Poll and is a co-author of the 2016 edition of the Almanac of American Politics.
Expectations are practically a fact of life in politics, especially during the presidential nominating season. Fairly or unfairly, media pundits, reporters and their sources, set expectations all the time. When candidates meet or exceed them, they are usually rewarded. But when they fall short, the fallout is almost always brutal.
Leading up to the October 28 CNBC Republican debate in Boulder, Colorado, the media line embraced by many was that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush needed a strong performance to revive his flagging candidacy. That didn’t happen and in a Ballotpedia Insiders survey conducted after the debate of more than 130 Democratic and GOP political operatives, roughly three-out of five said Bush was the “biggest loser” of the night.
The results for Bush had to be disheartening. As the son and brother of a President, Bush should do well among GOP political insiders who often represent the views of the party establishment. Indeed, in September, Bush was the Insiders’ favorite to capture the nomination. Now these same Insiders are giving him very poor marks and the doubts about his candidacy will continue to grow.
A presidential nominating race frequently comes down to a contest between an establishment candidate and an insurgent. On the Republican side, in 2000, George W. Bush was the establishment candidate, and Arizona Sen. John McCain was the “maverick” insurgent. In 2012, Mitt Romney wore the establishment mantel from the start of the race. Eventually, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum played the role of “tea party” insurgent. In 2008, on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton was the establishment favorite from the get go and Barack Obama emerged as a “post-partisan” insurgent who eventually toppled her.
One of the interesting aspects of the 2016 GOP race is that both the leading roles in the nominating contest are up for grabs. Bush may have been the initial choice of Republican establishment players, but after three underwhelming debate performances and a slide in the polls, the former Florida governor no longer can count on solid political support from that segment of the party. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and perhaps New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie may become the “hot picks” for the Republican establishment.
Likewise, the insurgent’s crown has not settled on any of the GOP White House hopefuls’ heads. Donald Trump and Ben Carson—neither of whom has held elective office—would both be well suited for that role, they’re true outsiders. But their leads in the polls seem tenuous and their debate showings in Boulder won’t generate a lot of enthusiasm among Republicans who aren’t already devoted fans. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz had some highlights from the CNBC contest and he could become the conservative insurgent in the 2016 GOP race.
One thing’s certain, the expectations for all of these candidates are going to rise and the next debate is less than two weeks away. Stay tuned.
Republican Debate Schedule
Click the schedule to return back to the top of the page.
See also
- Presidential debates (2015-2016)
- Presidential candidates, 2016
- Presidential election, 2016/Polls
- 2016 presidential candidate ratings and scorecards
- Presidential election, 2016/Straw polls
Footnotes
