Post-debate analysis: James A. Barnes, Karlyn Bowman and David Kusnet

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
See also: Fox News Republican debate (August 6, 2015) and Insiders Poll: Winners and losers from the Fox News Republican Debate

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's Disjointed Encounter in Cleveland"

August 7, 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.

"Masterful," "riveting," "the best debate ever." These are just a few of the accolades about last night’s Republican debate from people whose analysis I usually admire. But that’s not what I saw. This is perhaps the most exciting, talented, substantive GOP field in a long time, yet what we got for most of the first hour at least were efforts, designed by the Fox moderators, to take each other down.

In a pre-debate poll of Republicans by Selzer & Company for Bloomberg, 39 percent wanted the candidates to "go after fellow Republicans with direct criticisms to show points of difference," while 52 percent wanted them to “play nice and avoid criticism so as not to damage the ultimate nominee.” Sadly, we got more of the sharp exchanges than substantive commentary.

In fairness to Fox, it is very difficult to manage ten people on a stage, and perhaps that is my complaint. But the first hour, when the hosts seemed intent on pitting the candidates against each other, didn’t help the GOP look like a unified team. It’s theater—and not very good theater at that—that won’t help Republicans win the 2016 election.

Now for some specifics. Jeb Bush seems to lack energy. He’s thoughtful and smart, but he doesn’t have the fire one needs for a grueling campaign. He calls himself the “joyful tortoise,” and he is playing the long game, marshalling resources to play in the expensive round of contests in March when 60 percent of the delegates will be awarded. Marco Rubio and Scott Walker appeared to be participating in a debate that the others weren’t part of. They talked substance and took the campaign to Hillary Clinton. If Bush is still the frontrunner, these two are probably his closest competitors. Rand Paul’s early interruption of Donald Trump brought this bottom-tier candidate onto the stage, but he appeals to a narrow slice of the GOP electorate and didn’t appear to expand his support last night. Chris Christie’s forceful response to Paul on national security data collection reminded people of Christie’s debating skills, but also of his testy temperament. Like Christie, Mike Huckabee is a talented speaker and debater, and he probably helped himself last night. Ted Cruz continued his vigorous anti-establishment crusade, but he didn’t seem to expand his appeal. John Kasich is always quirky. If you’ve been listening to him, you have heard his response to conservative critics about expanding Medicaid in Ohio, and he used it effectively once again last night while talking about the significant changes he’s made in Ohio government. And then there is Ben Carson, who seemed out of place on the stage at many moments, but was a breath of fresh air with his masterful closing remarks. For all his bravado, Trump didn’t diminish the other impressive candidates on the stage and that was perhaps his most important contribution last night. It’s too early to know how much, if at all, he damaged himself among GOP rank and file. If Republicans in the audience or watching on television had a favorite before the debate began, I doubt many minds were changed.

"GOP Contenders Were Schooled By the Woman Who Wasn’t There"

August 7, 2015
By David Kusnet
David Kusnet was chief speechwriter for former President Bill Clinton from 1992 through 1994. He is a principal and the senior writer at the Podesta Group, a government relations and public relations firm in Washington, D.C.

In last night’s Republican presidential candidates’ debate, every contender but one brought his zingers and talking points. The exception: Donald Trump, whose ramblings sounded unrehearsed.

But only one candidate brought her A-game. And Carly Fiorina was relegated to the also-rans’ early evening debate, although a segment of her speaking was shown several hours later at the main event.

So what can we learn from the contrast between Fiorina’s self-discipline and Trump’s self-indulgence? And between Fiorina’s coherent case and most other candidates’ stand-alone soundbites?

First, preparation matters. And women prepare better than men. Over almost four (!!) decades of speechwriting, I’ve never heard a woman say, "I’ll wing it." And, with the exception of Bill Clinton, I’ve rarely worked with a speaker who’s at his best without prepared points.

Preparation doesn’t mean sticking slavishly to a text or memorizing your remarks when you’re speaking in a setting such as a debate where tele-prompters are taboo. But it does mean having a sense of what you want to say and how your best phrasings will help you make larger points.

Which leads to why Fiorina out-performed not only her fellow CEO but also the veteran politicians.

Second lesson: Soundbites need to fit into a coherent case.

Fiorina overshadowed her rivals not with one-liners but with well-reasoned arguments in response to predictable questions. For instance, her line of attack against Trump was spot-on for an audience of angry conservative Republicans:

“ He’s tapped into an anger,” she said, identifying herself with his supporters. “They’re sick of politics as usual. Whatever your issue, your cause, the festering problem you thought would be resolved — the political class has failed you.[1] ”

"I would also say this," she said, inserting the knife. "Since he has changed his mind on amnesty, healthcare, and abortion, what are the principles by which he will govern?"

In contrast, most of the major contenders at the evening event were armed with one-liners but failed to break through the clutter by clearly establishing their own identities and connecting themselves to larger causes.

Yes, Mike Huckabee had several memorable lines, particularly his head feint in his closing statement when he sounded as if he was about to bludgeon Trump but instead hit Hillary Clinton. And Ben Carson’s last two statements, both drawing on his experience as a neurosurgeon, were human and humorous.

But only with Marco Rubio did his disparate points – his immigrant, working class upbringing; his relative youthfulness; his commitment to upward mobility; and his belief in American exceptionalism – contribute to a coherent message: representing America’s future. The runner-up in the messaging marathon was John Kasich, whose own emphasis on his working class background, his religiously rooted concern for "the least among us," and his support for expanding Medicaid all add up to a more contemporary version of George W. Bush’s "compassionate conservatism." But will Republican primary voters outside Ohio buy what Kasich is selling?

As for the other contenders, current and former governors Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Chris Christie and Kasich told variants of the same Gov. Story: cutting budgets, cutting taxes and improving economies. Meanwhile, Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul each strove to present themselves as stalwart conservatives, with Paul sometimes suggesting, as with his crossfire with Christie about government surveillance, that his libertarian heritage makes him "a different kind of conservative."

Still, Fiorina and Rubio seemed best at doing what most communicators must do every day: break through the clutter to establish an identity and make a case.

You can’t do it without preparing to make every word count.

"Trump Kept the Spotlight on Himself, But Others Shined"

August 7, 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.

The Republicans’ prime-time clash in Cleveland was not your father’s presidential debate. At times, it seemed more like your crazy uncle’s. But despite the discordant notes, the kick-off to the 2016 Republican presidential debates achieved one of the main goals of such encounters: giving lesser-known long shots a chance to stand out from the crowd and capture some much-needed attention from both party activists and the media.

From the outset, it seemed like this was going to be a different kind of debate. It’s hard to recall another debate where the leader in polls for a presidential nomination said he might consider an independent run for the White House if he didn’t get the party’s nod. But Donald Trump was not shy about saying he would keep that option open. It’s also rare for a frontrunner, even one as tenuous as Trump, to indulge in kind of the barbs he did on Thursday night—towards his opponents, the debate moderators, the press corps, the political class and even a major demographic segment of the electorate. Normally, frontrunners like to play it safe and deflect attacks, stay above the fray and appear presidential. At least Trump was true to his word when he said in various interviews beforehand, "I am what I am," and that he wouldn’t rein in his brash style for a presidential debate.

And typically, most presidential contenders don’t brag about their wealth and their ability to buy politicians. "You better believe it," said Trump declaring that his contributions to candidates have won him a favor or two "when I need something. With Hillary Clinton, I said, 'be at my wedding.'" I was almost expecting one of Trump’s rivals on stage to quip, "Which one?" After the debate, some Republican Party Insiders were saying, and no doubt hoping, that the Cleveland debate would finally mark the point when Trump’s candidacy starts to lose altitude. Perhaps, but we’ve heard those predictions before too.

Yet while Trump literally held center stage in Cleveland, long shots like Ohio Gov. John Kasich and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the last two candidates to make the cut for the prime-time debate, were able to break through with their messages. Both came across as sensible. Kasich used humility well in explaining his positions on issues ranging from Medicaid expansion to gay marriage. Christie was forceful and persuasive in his exchanges with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul over telephone surveillance, without coming across as a brute. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was sharp on his feet, and in the eyes of party insiders, a clear beneficiary of the debate.

But the biggest winner wasn’t even on the big stage. Carly Fiorina turned in a stellar performance in the undercard debate of the seven candidates who didn’t make the cut for the evening encounter. So much so, that an overwhelming number of party insiders were saying that she belonged in the main event, not the preliminary round. Meanwhile, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush didn’t seem to display the same kind of self-assurance that his older brother did in debates, which were hardly his forte. A survey of more than 100 veteran Republican operatives and party activists conducted by Ballotpedia gave him modest reviews, something you don’t expect from an establishment audience. That may be a reflection of how unsettled the 2016 GOP contest is right now. Neither Trump nor Bush is a convincing frontrunner and the Cleveland debates did nothing to alter that dynamic in the Republican race.


See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.


Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Post-debate_analysis:_James_A._Barnes,_Karlyn_Bowman_and_David_Kusnet&oldid=6013230"