And What the Debate DID Tell Us

As the dust settles from what we saw Tuesday night in the debate, I suppose it is pointful (?) to reflect on what we were expecting, what happened, and how we react to it.  By "we", I mean "I", since I published a reaction written before the debate was actually held.

As I wrote, I expected a lot of questions of the "Trump said XYZ.  Why was he wrong?" variety.  We got that, for sure -- maybe even more than I was expecting.  The undercard debate was full of them.  In the main event, though, with The Donald physically present, it was remarkable to see which candidates chose to address the question as posed, and which ones took the logical path and refocused their answer toward the topic itself, or the Obama/Clinton menace, rather than taking on Trump as CNN wanted.

The winners of the "I'm not letting you try to make Donald Trump our biggest enemy" award were Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie and, to some extent, Ben Carson.  The big loser in that?  Jeb Bush, who decided in advance that he would have to take on Trump to get anywhere, and got into a dispute he is not constitutionally capable of winning.  He looked bad, and his strategic advisers should be canned.  Jeb Bush is a good man, and was an excellent governor.  What he is not is a good presidential candidate.

Remarkably, Ted Cruz confined his animus to where animus was needed -- ISIS, Putin and the Democrats as led by Obama and Clinton, the latter two of whom are making insipidity a characteristic of whatever they think "leadership" is.  Cruz left Donald Trump alone.  Compare the performance of Cruz and Bush ... which one would be deemed as having managed their debate performance better?

The dust-up that didn't matter, by the way, was the one between Cruz and Rubio that centered primarily on government data-gathering and its impact on terrorism-fighting vs. citizen freedoms.  It didn't matter (and, by the way, did not enhance the image of either) because it was a disagreement about tactics.  Was the disagreement important?  Sure.  But it's the kind of policy squabble that wasted time -- the two men have so much more in common than either does with the Democrats; why risk looking bad by getting that testy with each other.  Respect the other's view and move on.

Winner overall?  A lot of the candidates had good moments, and I would vote for literally any one of them in a race against Hillary Clinton, if she is not in prison by then.  But I would actually say that the best performance was that of Chris Christie.  (Aside to Gov. Christie first -- we now know you were a federal prosecutor.  The phrase "I was a federal prosecutor" is now allowed you only once per debate.)  The governor combines experience with fighting terrorists with executive leadership and. most importantly, presents his points extremely well.  Impressively prepared, articulate, clear in his points, he has had excellent debates but this one was particularly good.

Donald Trump -- we have to give him his own paragraph -- did what Donald Trump does.  He said a lot of things, got into specifics very infrequently, and tossed out statements.  It is, as I said, what he does, and it needs to be understood that his style of leadership is to gather the experts and lead them, not to be the autocrat.  He has been so successful in business that you have to concede that his style works for him.  And remember, Ronald Reagan did that as well, although he got a lot of experience from eight years governing California -- working with a legislature is not the same as working with subcontractors.  We, the voters, have to decide if Trump could do the same.

From the moderators' perspective, it was not CNN's best moment, but I particularly object to a rule that wouldn't have seemed so bothersome if it didn't fail in practice.  Here's the thing -- when a candidate answers a question by invoking the name of another candidate, generally in conflict, the other person gets 30 seconds or so to speak, even if he or she initiated the topic.

So if CNN asks one of those "Mr. Trump said XYZ ..." questions, then 90% of the time they have to go back to The Donald for his rebuttal.  Get the problem?  By asking the question that way, it fattens the stage time for Trump at the expense of the stage time for other candidates screaming for a fair shake.  At this stage, with many candidates, that is a terrible outcome.

I'm going to end this by wondering why CNN did not want Carly Fiorina to have enough air time to speak.  It was as if their moderators mostly forgot that she was on stage, a point she made early in the main debate but which went off into space; she got few questions and had to make do with what was asked.  Earth to CNN: feel free to invite her to participate next time.  You might learn something.

More debates will follow.  I can't wait.

Copyright 2015 by Robert Sutton
 Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.