Fox Business/Wall Street Journal Republican debate: analysis and commentary
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.
The columns below were authored by guest columnists and members of Ballotpedia's senior writing staff. The opinions and views belong to the authors.
Bush Was Better, But Is That Enough?
November 11, 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 new McClatchy/Marist poll released earlier this week revealed that 58 percent of those surveyed said the more they hear about Jeb Bush the less they like him. Only 32 percent said the more they hear, the more they like him. His marks were worse than any of the other candidates the pollsters asked about, including Trump.
In fairness to Bush, the poll was taken after his weak performance in the CNBC debate. Will his performance in the November 11 GOP Milwaukee debate change those responses? It is hard to erase a negative impression in opinions and negative impressions of him that have been growing. He did well last night but probably not well enough to undo the growing admiration audiences seem to have for Rubio and Cruz, who are the most eloquent debaters. Carly Fiorina is a sharp debater, too, but her interventions seemed to lack the common touch that Rubio projects so well.
Each candidate had strong moments in the main debate, and Chris Christie outshone the others in the early evening contest. The winner in Milwaukee seemed to be Fox and the Wall Street Journal, news organizations that produced a riveting and substantive exchange.
Not ‘Spin City’ but ‘Segue City’
November 11, 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.
If you had to sum up last night’s debate in two words, these wouldn’t be the title of that late-90s sitcom, “Spin City.” Instead, the tagline would be “Segue City,” an appellation that might appeal most to students of public rhetoric or campaign management.
With less aggressive—some would say intrusive—questioning than the CNBC debate in Boulder, Colorado last night’s event in Milwaukee hosted by Fox Business and The Wall Street Journal allowed the candidates to segue into segments of their stump speeches. The downside: fewer memorable moments that recast the race. The upside: more extended exchanges about public policy issues.
The most effective performances were those in which candidates responded in the moment to an opening provided by a panelist or adversary or segued seamlessly from the subjects they were asked to address to the points they were prepared to make. While such pivots don’t produce vivid video clips, they do leave the audience with the sense that a candidate is a capable debater with a coherent viewpoint and a clear understanding of the issues. In contrast, candidates who don’t begin their answers by appearing to address the questions they were asked run the risk of seeming scripted, inauthentic or even unprepared to be president.
Among the few seemingly spontaneous exchanges was Carly Fiorina’s response to Donald Trump’s statement that he “got to know [Putin] very well because we were both on ‘60 Minutes.’ ” Instead, Fiorina claimed, she had encountered the Russian leader “not in a green room for a show but in a private meeting.”
Meanwhile, several extended exchanges among the candidates resulted in relatively unscripted moments that may have helped several contenders consolidate their support among voters who share their views. On immigration, Trump tangled with John Kasich and Jeb Bush, each of whom, appealing to morality and practicality, questioned whether the United States can or should deport millions of undocumented immigrants. While Kasich and Bush scored points, so did Trump who, in a rare reference to policy details, recalled President Dwight Eisenhower’s deportation of “illegal immigrants” during the 1950’s.
Similarly, Marco Rubio’s exchange with Rand Paul on national security allowed each candidate to define himself – Rubio as relatively hawkish, Paul as often anti-interventionist. Intervening in the argument, Ted Cruz uncorked one of the most memorable lines of the evening, directed at Paul’s equation of defense spending with domestic social programs: “You think defending this nation is expensive, try not defending it. That's a lot more expensive.”
Still, most of the debate consisted of set-pieces, with the most skillful answers flowing from the questions. For instance, when asked by Maria Bartiromo how we would “deal with” diminished economic growth, as forecast by the International Monetary Fund, Cruz began by citing economic growth statistics for the past seven years before reciting his economic program.
In contrast, in response to a question from Neil Cavuto about which “government-paid benefits you would take back,” Rubio discussed his family background and the American dream without saying whether he would or would not cut social programs.
Of course, set-pieces without contexts are appropriate closing statements, and closing statements can be what audiences remember best. Ben Carson excelled with a statement that followed the classic structure of sermons and stump speeches: first, bring the audience down and then lift your listeners up. Thus, he began by declaring: “In the two hours of this -- of this debate, five people have died from drug-related deaths, $100 million has been added to our national debt…” And he concluded: “This is a narrative that we can change, not we the Democrats, not we the Republicans, but we the people of America, because there is something special about this nation, and we must embrace it…”
Consistency Counts
November 11, 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.
In the 2016 Republican presidential debates one thing we may be learning is that consistency counts: specifically, the consistently solid performances that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has turned in over four GOP encounters.
Ballotpedia surveys Republican and Democratic strategists, pollsters, media consultants, activists, lobbyists and allied interest groups operatives at the conclusion of each debate. One of the questions put to the party Insiders is: “On balance, do you think the following candidates helped themselves with this debate, hurt themselves, or neither?” (Each candidate in the main debate is rated on this question.)
In every one of the four Republican debates, GOP Insiders have scored Rubio with the highest positive ratio of helping-versus-hurting himself. In the first Republican debate in Columbus, Ohio, on August 6, 73 percent of the GOP Insiders said the Florida Senator helped himself and only four percent said he hurt himself (the rest of the GOP Insiders said “neither”); an 18-to-1 positive ratio. In the September 16 debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Rubio’s helped-hurt ratio was 21-to-1, 84 percent of the GOP Insiders said he helped himself and only four percent said he hurt himself. In the debate at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Rubio had a 17-to-1 positive ratio; 85 percent helped, four percent hurt. And in the Milwaukee debate, Rubio’s helped hurt ratio “slipped” to 11-to-1, 79 percent of the Republicans said he helped himself, and seven percent said he’d hurt himself.
At times, other Republican candidates at times have also scored very well on this dimension. Ohio Gov. John Kasich had an 11-to-1 positive ration in the Columbus debate and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz had a 12-to-1 positive ratio in the Boulder debate. Carly Fiorina had an otherworldly 98-1 positive ratio when she made her debut in the “main event” at the Reagan Presidential Library. But Rubio has always come in first in this measurement.
From the outset of the debates, Rubio has given answers to questions that are articulate, future-oriented, generally upbeat and occasionally compelling. He has avoided initiating attacks on his rivals, but he’s not reluctant to counter-punch as he effectively demonstrated in the Boulder debate when former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush criticized his Senate voting record, or in the Milwaukee debate when he tussled with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul on the U.S. role in the world. Rubio has set a debating standard that many Republicans now expect from him, and so far, he’s delivered.
And coming from a first-term Senator who is new to the national political stage, that kind of consistency is probably reassuring to many of his GOP establishment elders who know that whoever their nominee is, that person will likely face Democrat Hillary Clinton—an experienced and battle-scared competitor—in the general election.
If Rubio stumbles in an upcoming debate, it will be interesting to see the reaction within the GOP. Having made such a good impression in the first four debates, will he get a pass for having an “off-night,” or will his campaign be hobbled because he failed to meet the expectations Republicans now have for him in these face-offs?
Ironically, Jeb Bush was probably hurt by debate expectations. The former two-term Florida governor started off as the establishment favorite and front-runner in the GOP contest; and front-runners are held to certain expectations in debates. They are supposed to be able to deflect attacks, avoid missteps and generally float above fray of their opponents who have to battle to get attention. But Donald Trump, the billionaire developer who’s starred on a reality TV show, dominated the first debate. Bush didn’t do a bad job in Columbus, but with his podium right next to Trump’s on the stage, the celebrity’s gusto and occasional outrageousness, seemed to diminish Bush.
Bush truly did flounder in the third debate when Rubio turned his own attack against him and Christie got the better of him in an exchange over regulating fantasy football. During the first round of questions in the Milwaukee debate, Bush was visibly irritated when Gov. John Kasich interrupted an inquiry posed to him. And Bush groused that he had been shortchanged on time in the previous debate. But for much of the rest of the Milwaukee debate, Bush was reluctant to interject himself in the freewheeling exchanges that other candidates were having. As one Democratic Insider who watched the debate aptly put it, “Bush just isn’t brash enough to stand out in this crowd.”
Bush’s problem is that he has his father’s manners and not his mother’s mouth. President H. W. Bush is known for his usually reserved demeanor, while Barbara Bush can be outspoken, as in 2013, when reflecting on the possibility of another Bush presidency she told Today show host Matt Lauer, “There are other people out there that are very qualified and we’ve had enough Bushes.”
Jeb could use a few crackling debate performances to help avert that admonition.
See also
- Presidential candidates, 2016
- Insiders Poll: Winners and losers from the fourth 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
