The GOP Debate: What Now?
Lots of ink has been spilled from last week's first GOP primary presidential debate. What's it mean going forward?
The somewhat-heralded first of several scheduled GOP presidential primary debates occurred in Milwaukee on August 23rd. The next one will be at the Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, California, on September 27th. More will follow well into next year.
To qualify for the next debate, candidates need at least 50,000 unique contributors and sport at least three percent in two national polls or one national poll and two early state primary/caucus polls (e.g., Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada).
Lots of ink has been spilled, and airwaves filled with prognostications, observations, and shallow horserace-like assessments of the eight candidates who made it on stage. The snarkier and more partisan reactions assert that the winners were Donald Trump (who didn’t show) and Joe Biden, whom I predict we will never see on a debate stage in the 2024 election or ever again. But I don’t take those commentators seriously.
I’ll make one exception to the “Trump won” argument, and it was cogently made by US Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) via his excellent podcast, “The Verdict.” He asserts that Trump's avoiding the debate allows several candidates to shine, thus leaving the field divided and unable to coalesce behind one challenger, which would be Trump’s most significant threat to the nomination. True enough - Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) did well, but other candidates may also see their poll numbers and fundraising increase.
Cruz didn’t say that 1) the field will narrow at some point, and 2) Cruz still harbors presidential ambitions and would very much like to inherit the Trump mantle for the 2028 nomination when Trump won’t or can’t run again.
A few of my observations before offering predictions and suggestions to a few candidates on strategic considerations for the next one.
First, let’s assess the format, the moderators, and debunk one very big falsehood. I’m somewhat qualified because despite being partisan, I have no favorite candidate in the race - I’m neutral and looking at all the candidates with an open mind. Like most on stage, I’ll support the eventual nominee. But more partisan moderators, I think, would be more effective in asking questions that partisan primary voters care about, with a heavier focus on policies.
The falsehood
For some reason, the platform formerly known as Twitter (X) won’t release actual statistics on subscribers who actually viewed part or all of the Tucker Carlson interview of Donald Trump that ran concurrently with the debate. But please laugh off the wildly ridiculous assertion there were a couple of hundred million “views” of the interview versus the 12.8 million who watched the debate live (not counting people like me who watched replays later).
We’ll let Mediaite explain:
After Elon Musk took over Twitter, he hid the “video view” metric, which showed how many people watched a video on Twitter. Even the video view metric was pretty flimsy: according to Twitter: if you watch a video for two seconds, with only half the video player in view, you count as one video view.
The tweet view metric — that’s the 253 million number Trump and his allies are touting — is even less valuable. It merely counts how many people viewed the tweet. So if you scrolled past Carlson’s video on Twitter, you counted as one of the 253 million. “Anyone who is logged into Twitter who views a Tweet counts as a view,” Twitter says. If you scrolled past the tweet multiple times, you counted more than once.
The Hollywood Reporter pointed out that the Twitter views were being overplayed in a piece published Thursday (emphasis mine): “As of publication time, the interview had 235.2 million views on the platform — with a ‘view’ counting as two seconds. Applying the two-second standard to the debate, it had the equivalent of 46.8 billion views.”
Sadly, Trumpian sycophants like Lia Barkoukas at Townhall.com parroted the nonsense without bothering to do primary research. She wasn’t alone. I can’t believe her post is still up.
The format and moderators
Fox News has some issues to fix for future debates.
First, remove the audience or at least change its makeup. Allowing candidates to fill the room with their partisans made their obnoxious yelling and screaming an unwelcome distraction. These clowns’ outbursts also stepped on their preferred candidate’s statements. How about no audience, or perhaps, pick a small audience of undecided GOP primary voters (we’re out there, and there’s more than you think) who will agree to a strict no-reaction, no-demonstration rule.
Fox can then make those people available after the debate to reporters for reactions. That would be interesting. I would care more about the reactions of truly unaligned “average” voters than mouthy pundits. Heck, even bring back GOP communications mogul, pollster, and author Frank Luntz to moderate one of his post-event “town hall” panels with debate attendees.
Second, remove the ridiculous restrictions that limit alternative media’s use of debate clips to three minutes per day. Fox News owned the rights, but the Republican National Committee (RNC) should not have let this happen. It plays to the worst instincts of soundbites over context and actual substance.
Third, while Brett Baier and Martha McCallum are fine journalists (especially Baier), I would much rather have independent, more partisan journalists from their and other networks for a GOP primary debate. For example, well-known, policy-minded media conservatives who don’t support any candidates would make a fine panel (they do exist). Journalists like Fox’s own and Spectator USA editor Ben Domenech; Salem Radio’s Hugh Hewitt, a previous GOP debate panelist; and podcasters/broadcasters such as Mary Catherine Ham, Bethany Mandel, Byron York, and/or Guy Benson. There are others.
Baier and McCallum get high praise from me for their opening question, featuring the Billboard 100’s top song, Rich Men North of Richmond, written and sung by Oliver Anthony (his real name is Chris Lunsford, but he’s honoring his grandfather with the stage name). It was a hanging curve ball and a terrific way to open up the debate for each candidate to frame their vision and how it contrasts with the unfolding disaster, the Biden Administration.
They all whiffed their opportunity.
But my beef with the moderators was their failure to ask a single question about Biden's Afghanistan debacle, the most defining event of his failed presidency, unfolding in real-time precisely two years ago. No single event or action of the Biden presidency has had a more dramatic effect on his public opinion approval (or disapproval) than his grotesque incompetence that cost the lives of 13 service men and women and hundreds if not thousands more left behind, and for which not one person has been held accountable. That and Biden offensively and constantly checking his watch as coffins rolled off the C-130 at Dover Air Force Base. That still angers me.
That, despite foreign policy dominating the debate.
My second beef with the moderators was allowing the abortion issue to consume so much time when there is little meaningful difference between the candidates other than whether they would support national legislation or keep the issues at the state level. They’re all pro-life.
Former South Carolina Governor and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley provided the best response on abortion, as she has throughout the campaign. This is a deeply personal issue with voters across the spectrum. North Dakota ex-Governor Doug Burgum’s clinical “the Constitution says this or that” approach without empathy for the unborn or women is a loser. Not to mention failing to characterize the radical position of most Democrats - abortion on demand without restrictions.
One more thing. Enough with the “raise your hand” questions and answers. That is not helpful. Kudos to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis for brushing off the “with a show of hands” climate change question. A good answer has plenty of nuance, at least on this issue. Vivek Ramaswamy’s “Climate change is a hoax” is a slogan with an element of truth, but not to more independent-minded voters of his generation that Republicans need to attract. There’s a better answer that doesn’t take much time and reflects what many farmers and growers are experiencing in real-time. It’s complicated, and segueing to expensive, failing, and harmful climate change policies is better.
I also think one minute is too short for answers to questions (90 seconds is preferable), and I’ve never liked the “response” rule when one candidate mentions or attacks another. Americans are easily turned off by politicians arguing, especially when they try to talk over each other. When the field narrows to two or three, I’d favor cutting them loose to talk among themselves, Lincoln-Douglas style, with the moderator staying out of the way. We’re not there yet.
Winners and Losers
Debates like this can have multiple winners and losers since each candidate has objectives. Vivek Ramaswamy was a winner by drawing fire and attention to his provocative views and statements, one of which was underhanded but admittedly effective - “I’m the only one on this stage who isn’t bought and paid for.” He is positioning himself as Trump 2.0, even calling the former President and his competitor the “greatest President of the 21st century.” The centi-millionaire biotech investor clearly is after the Oliver Anthony vote. He also reportedly raised $450,000 in contributions immediately following the debate.
But someone else thinks Ramaswamy won. No surprise here. Flattery will get you everywhere, especially with Trump. Why are you running, Mr. Ramaswamy?
Ron DeSantis is a winner. No breakthrough moments - three/four yards and a cloud of dust on each question, but no fumbles, interceptions, or penalties - and he still needs to connect personally with voters (lower the intensity, work on the arrogant, sing-songy cadence, and take a more conversational tone and approach). DeSantis won with good answers and was not targeted by the other candidates like Vivek. He mainly stayed above the fray. In a post-debate poll of likely GOP primary voters, he scored best with 29 percent of those who thought he performed best. Not great, but not bad, either.
It was a net win for Nikki Haley, primarily thanks to her sharp exchange with Ramaswamy, where she attacked him for his lack of foreign policy experience, especially for a proposal some see as “defunding Israel.” That’s not entirely accurate, but it's effective. She came across very well and can claim to have won the expectations game when many think her campaign languishes. Not anymore. And while her abortion response is tops in the field, her climate change comments raised eyebrows. I expect she will continue to target Ramaswamy in the second debate. She’s playing to the establishment crowd, which is odd, given how she fought the South Carolina GOP establishment to win two terms as governor.
Mike Pence scored the most time at the debate with 12 minutes and looked presidential, appealing to evangelical Christian voters who predominate in Dutch Reformed western Iowa. But no breakthrough moment. The most traditional of the candidates, he has the challenge of being loyal Trumpians’ least favorite candidate. He spared with strength and dignity but has a tough road ahead. I’m not sure his calm, confident demeanor is what resonates with voters.
Tim Scott did not win. That disappointed me because I really like him. But I sense he hated this format. He sounded like a typical Senator eager to spew every statistic he learned during debate prep without distinguishing himself. He confirms why Senators generally make lousy presidential candidates, at least on the GOP side. Senator Scott needs to change and reduce his use of statistics to make them more relatable to viewers and average primary voters. Instead of discussing inflation percentages, give examples of how costs have increased for basic staples, from milk to gasoline, while weaving in his rags-to-riches personal story more effectively. That’s relatable.
Tim Scott remains the most personally likable candidate in the field but needs to demonstrate toughness. He can do that more assertively in the next debate and challenging candidates whose comments he disagrees with or finds wanting.
Note to Tim Scott: Nice guys really do finish last. At least in presidential primaries.
Chris Christie performed well with a conversational and confident tone. Still, his attack on Ramaswamy for sounding like “Chat GPT,” the artificial intelligence app, fell flat (most primary voters are still largely unfamiliar with it), and Vivek hit Christie hard by noting his criticism of Trump’s campaign of grievance and revenge while he was running a similar kind of campaign against Trump. Ouch.
Christie will have multiple knives and Howitzers out on September 27th, likely to conduct a two-front war against Trump and Ramaswamy as he continues to camp in New Hampshire, where he currently polls second or third. The pugnacious former New Jersey governor continues to have a serious likeability problem. Grievance and revenge campaigns often result in that. He begs for a positive vision that has eluded him throughout his political career.
Billionaire tech mogul and former two-term North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum gets a participation trophy for showing up after tearing an Achilles tendon while playing basketball hours before the debate. His folksy style will resonate with many, but no breakout moment. But he’s an intelligent guy with an attractive demeanor - will he hit 3 percent in national or state polls to make the stage on September 27th? We’ll see. He needs to unleash some of his fortune for a national media campaign to introduce him to voters - at least in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It’s a challenge.
The most panned candidate of the night was former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who scored the least speaking time at the debate at just over 7 minutes. He answered his questions well, but again, there was no breakout moment. He’s just too nice, normal, and conventional for this stage, and I doubt he will make it to Simi Valley next month. I really like Gov. Hutchinson, but this is not his time.
I wonder what Governor Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) thought as he watched the debate. Watch this space. It won’t be too late for him to jump in only after Republicans win control of the State House and Senate in November’s elections, and he’ll have to move quickly. He’s rightly hyper-focused on Virginia’s off-year elections. Ultimately, I don’t think he will run, but he’ll be a very attractive running mate with a chance to carry Virginia in 2024, which Obama, Clinton, and Biden all carried in the last four elections.
Basically, the debate was like the first games of the baseball (or football) pre-season. It is forgettable and with few defining moments. Still, look for these things to emerge for the next debate in California.
I sense that Trump will probably participate in the next debate and attempt to dominate it as he did in 2016, castigating the rationales for each candidate. I expect his ability to apply monikers to the candidates (e.g., “Little Marco” or “Low energy Jeb!”) to be on display. The moderators will have their hands full. Trump’s failure to attend the first debate allowed DeSantis, Ramaswamy, and Haley to introduce themselves and draw interest from primary voters. As a result, Trump’s poll numbers in states like Iowa and New Hampshire may decline in response to the first debate. If they do, I promise he’ll show up in Simi Valley. If I were him, I’d show up if only to try to claim the “Reagan mantle.” A stretch, I know, but hey, it’s Trump.
It doesn’t mean Trump will win the next debate, especially if he gets off on a 2020 election denial gambit. He’s not known for self-discipline. Other candidates will be interesting to watch for their reactions and responses. Christie will be loaded for bear against Trump, although that schtick didn’t play well in the first debate. But he’s potentially the most effective debater on stage, and it will be interesting to see how the interchange plays out.
Ramaswamy has his opening now with a strong performance, like him or not. And he clearly annoyed the other candidates, “Rich Men North of Richmond,” and many pundits. Attacks on him and some of his positions will intensify, and he’d better be prepared. He did a good job of bullocking Christie and demonstrating good debate skills. He’s taking the pole position in the coveted “outsider” lane for now. That’s coveted because swing voters opted for calm, seasoning, and experience in 2020. Look where that’s got them. If he has any skeletons in his closet, expect that door to spring wide open.
DeSantis will again be able to rise above the frays between Trump and Christie and between Vivek and almost everyone else. Haley will be looking to build on her solid performance. She will undoubtedly have her exchanges with Trump and/or Ramaswamy if only to demonstrate her considerable chops, having breathed new life into her campaign. DeSantis is in a good spot to build on his solid first debate performance, barring the unforeseen.
All the candidates not named Trump, DeSantis, and Ramaswamy need to find ways of attracting higher poll numbers and contributors for subsequent debates. Expect several clever and provocative lines that appeal to various constituencies or take advantage of miscues by candidates. In particular, I look for Ramaswamy and DeSantis to highlight the age difference between themselves and Trump (Ramaswamy is half Trump’s age, and DeSantis is younger than Donald Trump Jr.) and invoke “new generation of leadership” themes, especially with Trump on stage. The growing issue among GOP primary voters is age and the ability to serve two consecutive terms (which Trump cannot).
There was no clear winner in the first debate. There may not be one in the second. The nomination is a marathon, not a sprint.
Candidates may drop out soon, especially those who haven’t or won’t make the next debate stage. But the field will narrow, and the debates to watch may come as the weather begins to change and Iowans begin to plan for their participation in their caucuses come January, when the real winnowing will occur.
One bit of advice for all the candidates. Despite format challenges, start clarifying your vision of America as President by resonating with working-class voters. You had your opening with the question about Oliver Anthony’s song, and all of you swung and missed. With the benefit of time and hindsight, here’s how you might have answered.
“Oliver Anthony strikes a chord with millions of struggling working-class Americans and their families. They struggle to get by while they fall deeper into debt. They’re tired of a Washington that treats every spending and tax bill like a vote-buying scheme for special interests. I’m running to restore the American dream for people like Oliver who want a fair shake from their government, reward for their work, and the opportunity of a better and brighter future, like good jobs, safe streets, a secure border, and schools that parents can be proud of. I’ll fight for Oliver and millions like him and take on the vested interests in Washington who are destroying our institutions, from our schools to our courtrooms. I’ve done it. And I will never let them take this election away from you, the working people and families of this great country.”
That’s about a one-minute response with room to add street cred, although you’ll unlikely have a second chance to answer this question. It’s not perfect, but it might just resonate, depending on the sincerity and believability of how one says it.
Homework assignment for candidates: Read or watch Bill Clinton’s famous speech to union voters before the New Hampshire Democratic primary in 1992. This is how you “read the room” and sincerely connect with disaffected voters who want someone to fight for them until “the last dog dies,” even as you’re being attacked and pilloried.
I couldn’t agree more with your assessment. One caution to the candidates. The Anthony piece hit number one, because the electorate are discouraged, even depressed. Candidate bashing (Christie) will further sink the electorate to hopelessness and discourage participation. Candidates must have a clear plan that exudes HOPE.
Good analysis of the debate. To one of your early point, I would like to see one of the future debates be about foreign policy, where a President's actions have enormous consequences. It might also be good to have one that just focuses on the economy. While a President depends on the Congress and numerous factors beyond his or her control, they do provide leadership and initiative.