CNBC Republican debate: analysis and 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.
See also
- Presidential candidates, 2016
- Insiders Poll: Winners and losers from the Third Republican Debate
- Presidential debates (2015-2016)
- Boulder, Colorado CNBC Republican debate (October 28, 2015)
- Presidential election, 2016/Polls
- 2016 presidential candidate ratings and scorecards
- Presidential election, 2016/Straw polls
