GOP Debate 3 by Daniel Langley
By Sean Evans, Chair and Professor of Political Science
Oct 29, 2015 -
In lieu of Dr. Evans presenting his analysis this morning, I will present the analysis of one of our senior's Daniel Langley.
This debate was, all in all, pretty underwhelming compared to the first two. The two big things that changed since the first two debates are Scott Walker dropped out and CNBC was hosting, and I’ll go ahead and bet the first of those wasn’t the cause of the lackadaisical feel of this particular event. There is a line between holding candidates accountable and being boorish about it, and the line got crossed several times (though probably not as many as they got called out for). Three debates in, I doubt anyone really helped themselves, but some definitely hurt themselves.
Rubio won hands down. Even what seemed to be the best laid traps for him failed to have any kind of negative impact. To the contrary, he scored points on questions criticizing him about his voting record and his financial situation. The first might be the most important, just because he took a big step towards leaving Jeb in his dust and making a move to start consolidating the “establishment”. He was very likable, yet also demonstrated an ability to talk about policy, particularly on entitlement reform. If anyone stands to gain from this debate, it is Rubio, and that result would definitely be what is best for the party.
As much as he disgusts me at times, Ted Cruz reached his base and continued to work on consolidating his hold on the non-outsider far right bloc. He continued to squeeze out Paul and Huckabee, and has positioned himself well to go far in the race. It is certainly not impossible that the race comes down to Rubio and Cruz at the end, assuming the outsiders collapse the closer we get to serious season.
Christie had several good moments, particularly towards the end. He was probably the most improved of any of the candidates for debate purposes. I don’t know that it’ll matter much at this point. His best path to victory, to me, seems to be able to capitalize on Jeb’s potential demise to plot a path through New Hampshire. If he can combine tonight’s confident performance with a strong showing at the next debate in two weeks, he could at least be relevant again, and that’s a lot better than he has been the past month.
Kasich wasn’t always sharp, but he stood out from the field, which is difficult to do from his position on a 10-person stage. He got an opportunity to go at the Donald one-on-one early, and had a very strong closing statement. He went at Trump and Carson more forcefully, and that should play well among the voters Kasich needs to get anyways. In a campaign where experience seems to be a dirty word, he did a good job showing why his was unique, and just in general came off as an adult compared to some of the other candidates. He did enough to stay around, and that is better than can be said for some of these people.
Fiorina was solid, but she failed to excel like she did at the first two debates. Her campaign hasn’t shown the ability to capitalize on strong debate performances anyways, but she still could have used a boost. Fortunately for her, she gets another stab at it in less than two weeks.
Carson scored points with his base, but seemed to lack a grasp of basic policy. He gave absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that he could make a 15% flat tax work, which was more or less backtracking from when he came out for a 10% flat tax in the first debate. Also, he was more or less dishonest about his ties with a shady drug company (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396193/ben-carsons-troubling-connection-jim-geraghtyhttp://www.nationalreview.com/artic...). I don’t think he cemented his front-runner status, but I don’t think he really hurt himself either. To have staying power, it will take more than that from him in the future, though.
Jeb lost, not because he was the absolute worst in the field this evening, but because he needed a strong showing more than anyone else and failed to deliver. Rubio getting the best of him early only helped further the narrative his campaign is in a downward spiral, and he never recovered. His window to turn things around is closing.
Huckabee and Paul both had weak showings. Part of that might be that the debate centered around the economy, which didn’t play to either Huckabee’s Social Issues base or Paul’s Foreign Policy base. Huckabee alluding more than a little to Clinton murder conspiracy theories probably wasn’t that healthy for the debate. At the current rate, if neither of them can turn in a good performance at the next debate, Huckabee will almost certainly be toast, and Paul probably will be. Cruz will probably benefit from them leaving the most, with maybe some of Huckabee’s support going to Carson.
Trump was Trump. He said nothing specific about policy and blatantly lied about his positions on visa reform, and his supporters will probably not care at all. He does seem to be in a tailspin, and hopefully that keeps up.