Tonight was the first debate of the 2012 Republican primary season and it provided no shortage of awkward moments, political catchphrases and blatant misunderstandings about how the economy works. Instead of doing an entire recap of the debate, though, I'm going to give my analysis of the winners and losers in tonight's debate and how it may affect the race going forward. So, I may miss some of the better... ahem... “policy” gems of the debate, like Speaker Gingrich comparing Muslims to Nazis, or Congresswoman Bachmann saying that she thinks there should be both a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and independent state laws governing the issue, but I hope that you'll forgive me.
And so, from biggest loser to biggest winner, here's how the debate played out.
8. Former Governor Jon Huntsman
The biggest loser in the debate was Governor Huntsman, by nature of the fact that he didn't even bother to show up. It's true that he's not technically in the race yet, but neither is Congresswoman Bachmann, and that didn't stop her. Huntsman is already going to have enough problems winning the nomination: the combination of an unfriendly primary map and his relatively moderate stances on some issues make him an extreme longshot. Missing the first debate—which took place in New Hampshire, the state the he absolutely needs to win to remain viable—was a critical mistake. Instead of taking this chance to introduce himself to Granite State voters, he punted and let others take the spotlight. Frankly, this was his best chance to gain early traction and he failed miserably.
7. Congressman Ron Paul
OK. Let me start with a disclaimer: I greatly respect Congressman Paul for constantly being willing to state his beliefs, even though he knows that many disagree. That said, the man is a bit of a nut. I've always thought that, and tonight's debate certainly didn't change my opinion, so, you may want to take what I say about him with a grain of salt. I thought that Paul's performance tonight, while eloquent in its own way, was a perfect example of why he has no chance of winning: by his own standards he had a great night and yet his ideas are still far too radical to be mainstream. He argued, among other things, that the U.S. should withdraw its military from everywhere and then defund it and give up on Medicare as we know it because it's too expensive. As I said, I give him a great deal of credit for saying those things in a national forum—but they're not going to get him elected.
6. Former Governor Tim Pawlenty
Regardless of which direction you lean politically, we can all agree on one thing: tonight was a terrible night for T-Paw. More than any other candidate, he needed to win this debate. Up until now, he's been the closest thing the GOP has to an alternative to Mitt Romney, whom many Republicans are still wary of. With a good performance, he could have solidified that position and gained broader support. Instead, he blew it. He barely talked and when he did, he looked stiff, timid and boring. CNN moderator John King even threw him a softball, asking why he compared Romney's health-care plan to Obama's plan, but Pawlenty muttered something about hating Obamacare and left Romney alone. For most of his answers after that, he looked fairly inauthentic and had canned responses, failing to say anything original. Not to overestimate the effect of one debate, but tonight Pawlenty, my pick a month ago to win the nomination, may have taken himself out of the running to beat Mitt Romney; a lot can happen between now and January, but he certainly didn't do himself any favors with his performance.
5. Herman Cain
I'm torn about placing Cain this low on the list. On the one hand, he's still a fairly unknown candidate and any press is good press in that situation. On the other hand, he also seemed fairly boring and didn't really have any signature moments in the debate, so the public has no reason to remember him. For a candidate who is supposedly such a strong speaker and debater, Cain whiffed on this opportunity. Still, he ranks higher than Pawlenty because he seemed more authentic and he had less to lose. Expect to see him be much more aggressive in the next debate.
4. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
I thought that Gingrich did an average job tonight. He started off very strong, sticking to a message of criticizing the Obama-created “depression” and clearly answering the questions posed to him. He clearly distinguished himself as the smartest person on stage when he talked about a national legislative electoral strategy and tied it into the presidential debate. His problem was that he didn't seem to wow anyone: everyone knows who he is and how smart he is, but he didn't seem to have much else to offer. A good performance but not a game-changer, which he needed in the wake of his campaign's recent implosion.
3. Former Senator Rick Santorum
Some may disagree, but I thought that Senator Santorum had a pretty good performance tonight. He was articulate, passionate about the issues he cared about and showed that he has the policy chops to stand up and debate with the likes of Gingrich and Romney. He may have gotten a little too emotional (read: aggressive) at times, but that could also be seen as a sign of passion, something that other debaters (like T-Paw) lacked. For a candidate that no one is really taking seriously, Santorum showed that he is in the race to win it and that he doesn't plan on fading away any time soon.
2. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann
Without a doubt, Bachmann had a great deal to both gain and lose tonight. She succeeded in portraying herself, as Ezra Klein states perfectly, “the candidate that Sarah Palin was supposed to be,” without coming off as excessively crazy. While she started off slow (and with about five political catchphrases in a 15 minute window), she gained steam as she went along and showed an impressive readiness and calmness in her responses, given her lack of national debate experience. Combined with Pawlenty's failure tonight, Bachmann may have transformed herself into something resembling a frontrunner in the socially conservative Iowa caucuses, making her a force to be reckoned with this election cycle.
1. Former Governor Mitt Romney
Romney came to play tonight and he didn't disappoint. All of the problems that haunted him in 2008—the inauthenticity, the canned responses, the general boring-ness—were gone from his answers, and he managed to both give decently detailed responses to the questions and to keep from saying anything too controversial. Even on the health-care question mentioned earlier, he essentially verbally smacked Tim Pawlenty down before Pawlenty could do any serious damage. If viewers were watching to see if Romney is ready for prime-time, you have your answer. Be warned, Republicans: Mitt Romney doesn't look like he's going down easy this year.
So there you have it. Romney and Bachmann won, Pawlenty did terribly and Gingrich and Cain did about average. You'll notice that some of my electoral analyses after this debate are different from those I made last month. I still stand by most of my earlier predictions, but there's no doubt that the tone of the race shifted tonight. Romney showed that he's potentially capable of holding off the competition, Bachmann showed that she's serious and Pawlenty showed that he may be the 2008 version of Mitt Romney: he'll get there, but maybe not this year. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out from here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment