Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Tenth 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.
The GOP Food Fight
February 26, 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.
Gallup polls from the 1940s showed that when people were asked if they would like to see a son of theirs enter politics, most people said no. Later, when the pollsters asked about sons and daughters, the responses were pretty much the same. Politics has never been a particularly attractive occupation, and hardly anything we saw on the stage last night would have made it more so.
The political profession almost always ranks near the bottom in terms of public confidence and trust in national polls. It is unlikely that the personal insults, the shouting, the repeated interruptions, and the relentless attacks improved impressions of politicians, with the exception of Ohio Gov. John Kasich who stayed above the fray all night, answering questions in a serious manner.
The cable news networks are complicit in these food fights because it shores up their ratings and bottom lines. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson asked plaintively at one point whether someone would attack him so that he could get some airtime. It was a perfect illustration of what these debates have become.
As for substance, it was hard to evaluate much of it amidst all the shouting and the interruptions. As for tactics, as we had expected, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio attacked Donald Trump and his positions relentlessly. Their double-barreled attacks were supposed to change the race’s dynamic, to take down the Republican frontrunner once and for all. It isn’t clear to me they did. Trump parried effectively on many of the charges.
Rubio seemed less scripted, as he pulled from a grab bag of familiar and fresh attacks on the frontrunner. But it didn’t always work. When he accused the billionaire developer of hiring foreign labor and being fined for underpaying some workers, Trump responded that he was the only one on the stage who had actually hired people. Zing!
When the shouting ended shortly before 11:00 p.m., I doubt many minds had been changed.
The End of Debates As We Knew Them
February 26, 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.
Will campaign debates ever be the same after this year’s Republican primary shout-fests?
Traditionally, presidential debates consist of exchanges about policy issues, bracketed by prepared opening and closing statements. The most memorable moments have been personal confrontations, such as Ronald Reagan telling Jimmy Carter, “There you go again,” Walter Mondale asking Gary Hart, “Where’s the beef?” or Lloyd Bentsen telling Dan Quayle, “You’re no Jack Kennedy.”
Sometimes these moments have been entirely visual, as when President George H. W. Bush looked at his watch while listening to a voter’s question during a town meeting with Bill Clinton and Ross Perot.
While candidates from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton have benefited from their charisma, strength or empathy, Donald Trump is the first candidate to prevail by projecting his personality not his policy positions or political philosophy. During the primary debates, his performances have consisted of blanket assertions about national problems and his own proposals. He supports these assertions less with argument and evidence than with body language that conveys his personal strength and characterizations of his opponents that connote their supposed weaknesses.
In last night’s debate, his two leading opponents, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, tag-teamed Trump with attacks on his business record and his indeterminate ideology. But the question most commentators correctly focused on was whether he had been visibly set back on his heels. Meanwhile, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who could emerge as one of Trump’s leading challengers if Rubio loses the Florida primary, appeared to be debating by pre-2016 rules, stressing his record and proposals, rather than trash-talking Trump.
In a little-noticed moment in the debate, moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Kasich whether Trump’s plan to reduce the budget deficit by cutting “waste, fraud and abuse” would work. Rather than take a clean shot at Trump, Kasich responded with a recitation of his own record as chair of the House Budget Committee and Governor of Ohio.
If the Republican race were to come down to Trump, Cruz and Kasich, how would the Ohio governor do if he treats debates as dignified policy discussions, not raucous reality shows? Are Trump’s exchanges with Carly Fiorina a preview for how he might, to use a word that may be fashionable this fall, try to “manhandle” Hillary Clinton? And how will the electorate respond to someone who casts himself as an alpha male attacking an accomplished professional woman.
Stay tuned for the end of campaign debates as we knew them.
See also
- Presidential candidates, 2016
- Insiders Poll: Who won the Tenth Republican debate?
- Presidential debates (2015-2016)
- Houston CNN/Telemundo Republican Debate (February 25, 2016)
- Presidential election, 2016/Polls
- 2016 presidential candidate ratings and scorecards
- Presidential election, 2016/Straw polls
