Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
Fox News/Google 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.
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.
The question is: did Donald Trump’s absence from the GOP debate last night matter?
January 29, 2016
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.
All recent polls in Iowa have shown Donald Trump in the lead, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in either a close or distant second place, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio in third. But as we also know, it is difficult to know who will really show up on caucus night, and we should treat all the polls with caution. Recent polls show that significant numbers of potential caucus voters aren’t certain of their choice yet.
Certainly the debate was more cordial and focused on policy than earlier ones, though I wouldn’t be surprised if many viewers felt they were lost in the weeds during the long back and forth between Cruz and Rubio on immigration. The issue put both men on the defensive, and neither one scored points.
In past debates, Cruz appeared to be a formidable debater, but he lost his footing several times last night, especially in an early exchange with Fox debate moderator Chris Wallace when he appeared to be whining and the audience booed him.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul had very good nights, but their performances are unlikely to propel any of them into the winner’s circle in the Iowa contest. The strengths they showed last night may help them later. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush also did very well, reminding the audience of his command of policy, but he will remain stuck in the bottom tier. Sadly for him, the politics of 2016 seems to have passed him by.
So, did Trump hurt himself? Did his absence cause any voters to move away from him to another candidate? It’s possible. I watched the debate on Fox and not on the networks that showed the split screens with the debate and the Trump veterans’ event that was held simultaneously. In the polls, Trump has a sizable advantage among a lot of people who don’t usually show up in substantial numbers at Iowa caucuses. Will he be able to bring them out and expand the size of the electorate? We will know the answer soon.
More Rooted, Rand and Jeb Coulda Been Contenders
January 29, 2016
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.
Last night’s debate showed two front-runners trying to explain their previous support for immigration reforms and two also-rans belatedly embracing their own backgrounds and beliefs. The tantalizing conclusion: If the trailing candidates had displayed the “authenticity” much in demand this year, they might also be credited with the “toughness” that Republicans claim to crave.
Confronted by Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly with evidence that they’d be willing to tread a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio both backed away and attacked each other.
For his part, Jeb Bush seemed more sympathetic to immigrants, documented and undocumented, while finally reciting a rehearsed, but endearing, explanation of why he is comfortable with being a member of the much-maligned “establishment: “Look, I am in the establishment because my dad, the greatest man alive was president of the United States and my brother, who I adore as well as fantastic brother, was president. Fine, I’ll take it. I guess I’m part of the establishment Barbara Bush is my mom. I’ll take that, too.”
Less predictably, Rand Paul, who trails the field, was also asked about his daddy issues: “So did you make a mistake by not fully, more fully embracing your father [the Libertarian Ron Paul] politically at the beginning of this campaign?”
Paul’s response was shrewd. Explaining that it is uncertain “where that liberty vote goes that my father brought to the Republican Party is,” he added, “I don’t think they’re necessarily going to go for Ted.” In a sense, the remainder of Paul’s responses also answered that question. He advocated an unapologetically libertarian agenda, defending civil liberties at home and non-interventionism abroad while presenting himself as the most fiscally conservative candidate.
When police misconduct was addressed, Paul offered an intriguing glimpse of the distinctive contribution he might have made to the national debate had he been willing to break the mold of conventional politics more often.
Explaining African American views of law enforcement in terms that Tea Party tax protestors might appreciate, Paul said: “I've been to Ferguson, I've been trying to look for solutions to our criminal justice problem. One thing I discovered in Ferguson was that a third of the budget for the city of Ferguson was being reaped by civil fines. People were just being fined to death. Now you and I and many of the people in this audience, if we get a $100 fine, we can survive it. If you're living on the edge of poverty and you get a $100 fine or your car towed, a lot of times you lose your job.”
Had Paul presented himself as an independent leader rooted in a distinctive tradition, much like the socialist Bernie Sanders in the Democratic race, he might have attracted the attention that Sanders and “the elephant not in the room” last night—Donald Trump—have found so beneficial.
Indeed, authenticity also allows a candidate to share Trump’s unique selling proposition: strength. By not apologizing for being the billionaire son of a multimillionaire—albeit with an outer-borough chip on each shoulder and “New York values” in his heart of hearts—Trump appeals to alienated voters searching for someone to drive a hard bargain on their behalf. In contrast, candidates who seem to flinch after being attacked or to calculate what to conceal about their own backgrounds and beliefs end up projecting hesitation, not heft.
If Bush had owned up to his aristocratic sense of noblesse earlier and Paul had presented himself as philosophically skeptical of big government in all its forms, they, too, might have been elephants in the room.
Playing it Safe
January 29, 2016
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.
Debates on the eve of a pivotal caucus or primary usually don’t shake up the dynamics of a presidential nominating contest. In 1980, on the Saturday night before the New Hampshire primary, Ronald Reagan famously challenged a debate moderator: “I’ve paid for this microphone, Mr. Green,” when he confronted Jon Breen, editor of the Nashua Telegraph, who balked at allowing other GOP candidates to join Reagan and George H.W. Bush in the debate. (The media excluded candidates from the main stage back then, too.)
Reagan looked strong and magnanimous, and the elder Bush came across as weak when he ducked the chance to endorse Reagan’s request to open up the debate. Three days later, New Hampshire GOP primary voters rewarded Reagan with a resounding victory.
But most of the time, candidates play it safe and revert to form in these situations, and that’s largely what occurred in Thursday night’s Fox News – Google debate in Des Moines, just four days before Iowans will caucus on Feb. 1.
The big news going into the debate was Donald Trump’s decision not to participate. And for one evening, at least, he did not dominate the discussion of the 2016 Republican White House hopefuls. Trump was mostly an afterthought—or the target of some well-rehearsed barbs—for the seven other GOP contenders who showed up.
When asked about Trump’s absence at the start of the debate, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz joked, “I’m a maniac and everyone on this stage is stupid, fat, and ugly. And [Dr.] Ben [Carson], you’re a terrible surgeon. Now that we've gotten the Donald Trump portion out of the way...” But moments later, Cruz pirouetted and played up to Trump’s supporters, saying, “I am glad Donald is running. I’m glad he has produced enormous enthusiasm, and, every Donald Trump voter or potential voter, I hope to earn your support.”
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said that Trump had been a “little teddy bear” towards him, a bit of self-deprecating humor since the brash billionaire has mauled Bush like a Grizzly in previous debates. Later on, Fox moderator Chris Wallace teed up a question for Bush when an American Muslim YouTube creator asked how the candidates would “promote increased tolerance in the United States?” Bush swung away, resuming his familiar role as Trump’s chief critic in the GOP race: “Mr. Trump believed that in reaction to people's fears that we should ban all Muslims. Well, that creates an environment that’s toxic in our own country.” In case anybody missed his point, Bush continued, “I’ve been critical of Donald Trump. Disparaging women, disparaging Hispanics, that’s not a sign of strength. Making fun of disabled people...” While still a bit awkward, for once, Bush actually seemed to be at ease and enjoying himself in a debate.
Cruz had a rockier night. Normally, the Texan is a disciplined and talented debater, as Ballotpedia commentator David Kusnet has ably described. But Cruz appeared to be knocked off his stride sparring with Wallace over whether he deserved a rebuttal and Wallace shot back, “Sir, I know you like to argue about the rules, but we're going to conduct a debate.” When Wallace did turn to Cruz for a response, he came across as put upon: “Chris, I would note that that the last four questions have been, ‘Rand, please attack Ted. Marco, please attack Ted. Chris, please attack Ted. Jeb, please attack Ted...’” Some in the audience moaned. Later, Cruz tried to make light of the situation and skewer Trump: “Gosh, if you guys ask one more mean question I may have to leave the stage.” That joke fell flat.
Often an inspiring and articulate debater, on Thursday night, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio sounded more insistent than eloquent. He uttered the phrase “when I am president” no less than eight times. Unlike previous debates, sometimes Rubio’s comments seemed forced instead of forceful.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie again made his patented observation that Members of Congress often rely on legislative legerdemain to dodge responsibility for inaction in Washington while “I’ve been held accountable for six years as the governor of New Jersey and with a Democratic legislature, I’ve gotten conservative things done.”
Ohio Gov. John Kasich reminded the audience of the job growth he’s presided over in his state and his role as a reformer in Congress on welfare, defense and budget issues. His demeanor and stage presence has notably improved from some of his earlier debate outings when he occasionally came across as whiny and frenetic.
Kentucky Sen. Raud Paul was just happy to be back in the main ring after having been relegated to the undercard bout in the previous round of debates. He gave his most consistent defense of his libertarian stance on issues in this season’s GOP debates. He seemed more comfortable and composed than in prior encounters.
Retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson was his humble self. That has been an appealing trait for Carson before—especially when he finds himself wedged between some of the more towering and preening egos on the GOP debate stage. But when he reached again for a little humility in his closing remarks by reciting the preamble to the Constitution, it just sounded out of place. He concluded abruptly, “Folks, it’s not too late. Enough said.”
But for some of the presidential hopefuls in the final debate before the Republican balloting begins, you got the feeling that it was.
See also
- Presidential candidates, 2016
- Presidential Nominating Index: GOP elites tilt to Trump
- Presidential debates (2015-2016)
- Des Moines, Iowa Fox News Republican Debate (January 28, 2016)
- Presidential election, 2016/Polls
- 2016 presidential candidate ratings and scorecards
- Presidential election, 2016/Straw polls
