What Went Down In The Second GOP Debate

With talk of Syrian refugees in the Republican debate, it’s important to remember that most Republicans are not in the mood to accept more of them. In a YouGov poll out this week, 52 percent of Republicans said the refugees are Europe’s problem, and 69 percent of Republicans oppose the United States taking in more refugees.

I don’t think so, Micah. The economy is the No. 1 issue for Republicans in poll after poll. In a late July Quinnipiac poll, 32 percent of Republicans said foreign policy topics (such as terrorism) were the most important issue in the presidential election. For 65 percent of voters, non-foreign-policy issues were most important.

Harry, you pointed out how Graham basically only talks about foreign policy, but does that issue resonate enough with GOP voters to fuel a candidacy?

CNN said before this debate started that they wanted the candidates to engage with each other. The network is getting its wish. Where are the fault lines in the GOP field? Twitter holds some clues:

One more note on immigration and the economy: Lindsey Graham is right that with the aging of the baby-boom generation, the U.S. will become increasingly dependent on immigrants to help boost the labor force. Indeed, immigration — combined with our comparatively high birth rate — has helped the U.S. avoid the “demographic cliff” that is hurting economies in Japan and Europe. It’s worth noting, though, that most Latinos in the U.S. labor force are native-born, not immigrants.

During this debate on illegal immigration, pretty much all of the Republicans are saying that securing the border is the No. 1 issue. Many of them are probably looking at the polls. A majority of Republicans (55 percent) in the most recent CNN/ORC poll said that “a plan to stop immigrants from entering the U.S. illegally” was more important than developing “a plan to allow those in the U.S. illegally who have jobs to become legal residents” or “deporting immigrants already in the U.S. illegally.”

To your earlier question, Micah, I agree with Jindal on this — with the caveat that it’s a little hard to pin down what Trump believes. I’d think about the question like this: What if Donald Trump had decided to run in the Democratic primary instead? It’s not that much of a stretch. Some statements he’s made in the past — a wealth tax! single-payer health care! the undue influence of the Club for Growth — would fit right in with the left of the Democratic Party. He’d explain away his flip-flopping on abortion by saying that it was a distraction. Immigration would be a tougher fit — but there are still some Blue Dog Democrats who aren’t so liberal on immigration. If Donald Trump could almost run as a Democrat, he’s not much of a Republican.

Rick Santorum says immigration hurts American workers. Economic research suggests that isn’t true in the aggregate — immigrants create more jobs than they destroy. But there are losers from immigration. Some research has found that immigration pushes down wages for less-skilled workers — a group that has already been buffeted by technology, trade and other forces. Santorum is definitely right about a different point: U.S. incomes are stagnant. New data out today showed that median household income remains far below pre-recession levels and has seen minimal if any improvement in recent decades.

Lindsey Graham has focused almost exclusively on foreign policy in the debate so far and throughout his campaign. When I wrote about Graham’s chances back in June, I noted that Graham may have already won because most of the Republican candidates adopted his positions on foreign policy. With the emergence of Trump and his previous non-hawkish statements on foreign policy, Graham’s candidacy may have gained relevancy.

Bobby Jindal just said that nominating Donald Trump would be “gift wrapping” the general election for Hillary Clinton. Maybe that will end up being the case, but keep in mind that Trump is actually polling at about the same level as the other Republicans are against Clinton in a general election matchup.

Bobby Jindal has tweeted 94 tweets since last Thursday: 66 of those were attacking other candidates, and 62 of those were attacks directed at Donald Trump.

Nate, is Jindal right? Is Donald Trump not a Republican ideologically?

A: I don’t think there’s a correct answer to this necessarily, but a bad early debate moment can definitely hurt a candidate. I think Rick Perry hurt his chances tremendously by not taking a hard-line stand against illegal immigration in the September 2011 debates. I think Tim Pawlenty hurt himself when he didn’t go after Mitt Romney in June 2011. Would these candidates have won if not for these moments? We cannot say, but they certainly didn’t help.

https://twitter.com/ollie/status/627496313823842304

Can I answer your question, Micah? If I were someone who could be an alpha dog on a stage with four people, but I wasn’t the most interesting story on a stage with Trump, Carson, etc., I might prefer the JV debate. Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee, in particular, have enough rhetorical skill that they could run circles around the JV field. They might get lost on the big stage.

I don’t know if there is a right answer here, Micah. There were three candidates who saw a real bounce coming out of the first set of debates: Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio. The first and third on that list were on the outer edge of the varsity Fox debate. The middle (Fiorina) was part of the junior varsity debate. Carson was able to hold on to and expand that bounce coming out of the first debate, but there is no guarantee that will happen this time. With even fewer candidates in the JV debate tonight, one of the four may have a better chance of standing out.

Hey Harry (and readers), if you were a Republican presidential candidate, would you rather be: 1. on this JV debate stage and sharing the stage with just three other candidates, or 2. on the outer fringe of the varsity debate and contending with 10 other spotlight-seekers?

Some recommended reading before tonight’s festivities: Our friend John Sides at the Monkey Cage wrote an excellent piece about how media coverage can influence voter perceptions in the primaries. Here’s my favorite snippet:

But at other times, you can see reporters discussing the campaign “narrative” as if it came from angels who floated down to earth on gossamer wings, clutching a sacred scroll that, once unfurled, told us The Narrative. In fact, the news media collectively write the narrative. In so doing, they make many, many choices about how much to cover events and candidates during a campaign, and how to cover them.

In other words: It’s important to watch how the media watch the debate — and what narratives they unfurl from it — in addition to how the candidates are performing. One small addendum to John’s piece. I’d wager that the tenor of media coverage becomes less important the further you go in the race. That’s for several reasons: Voters will become better informed; paid advertising will play a larger role; and there will be fewer candidates, which reduces the potential for tactical voting based on who’s having a media-driven surge. But for now? Voters are still just tuning in to the race, and the choices the media make in how they cover the race can have a huge impact on the polls.

https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/644262754669363201

There’s been a lot of buzz about outsider candidates in the Republican field like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, and Trump and Carson are currently No. 1 and No. 2 in national primary polls. But historically, polls this early in the campaign haven’t been as meaningful as endorsements from party bigwigs. While most U.S. representatives, U.S. senators and governors have not yet endorsed a candidate for president, those who have endorsed have come out in support mostly of establishment candidates. In fact, Trump and Carson (as well as Fiorina) have yet to receive a single endorsement.

CNN changed the rules for tonight’s Republican debates, and as a result Carly Fiorina will be on stage for the varsity debate instead of the warmup round. CNN tweaked its criteria after a number of Republicans, including Ben Carson, complained that Fiorina was set to fall short of the main stage even though she was surging in the polls after a stellar performance in Fox News’ Aug. 6 debate. The funny thing is that Fiorina’s post-debate surge may have been nothing more than a momentary bounce. Check out this Huffington Post Pollster chart of Fiorina’s support in national Republican primary polls: She reached her zenith (5.1 percent) on Aug. 13, stayed steady through Aug. 22, and has been falling ever since. As of this writing, she is down to 2.3 percent. That’s not quite as low as where Fiorina stood before the Fox News debate (1.2 percent), but she’s lost most of the bounce.

Tweet us a question or comment

Some things haven’t changed in the month-plus since the first Republican debate: The reliably bombastic Donald Trump still sits atop the polls. But some things have changed: Ben Carson has surged into second place, Scott Walker has faded out of the top tier and Rick Perry straight dropped out. What will the second GOP debate change? Watch it with us here.

Comment at the right, and send us questions @FiveThirtyEight.