What Went Down At The ABC Republican Debate

So that’s a wrap, folks. If you decided to go out on a Saturday night for some reason and didn’t watch the debate, just start at the bottom and scroll up — it’ll feel like you were at the ABC News’ Republican debate (well, sort of). Will tonight’s debate have any effect on the race in New Hampshire? Let us know what you think @FiveThirtyEight or leave a comment.

Hey Micah, you mentioned the newsletter, so we’re allowed to plug stuff? Listen to our elections podcast! But seriously, we’ll have plenty to discuss the next time we get together, which will be on Monday to preview the New Hampshire primary voting. Check it out on iTunes and spread the word.

The candidates were just asked about conservative views on abortion and same-sex marriage. It should be noted that the New Hampshire electorate is anything but conservative on social issues. In the 2012 primary, an amazingly high 62 percent of primary voters said they were moderate-to-liberal in their social philosophy.

https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/696172422790307840

This will probably be the last commercial break of the debate, so you should take the opportunity to sign up for our weekly 2016 newsletter: “What I Thought About Over The Weekend.”

Some context for why Jeb Bush and Chris Christie just gave the smart-for-New-Hampshire answer on abortion. In 2008, 52 percent of voters in the New Hampshire Republican primary said abortion should always or sometimes be legal, according to the exit poll. Only 15 percent said it should always be illegal.

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/696174450463653888

Marco Rubio, in response to a question about younger voters and social issues, brought up an interesting point: that the Democratic debates have, thus far, not really mentioned the abortion issue. It’s perhaps because Sanders has heightened the debate over economic issues so much in that race.

I’m a bit more equivocal. In the long run, Trump has to prove that he doesn’t have a low ceiling on his support. Getting 30 percent would be better than the 24 percent he got in Iowa, but it’s still in Pat Buchanan range. (In 1996, Buchanan got 23 percent in Iowa, then won New Hampshire with 26 percent of the vote.) The important way it would be helpful for Trump is that a strong showing for Kasich and Bush could keep them in the race longer and prevent party elites from consolidating around Marco Rubio.

I think that does make sense, Micah. Take a look at the latest poll from the University of New Hampshire: Who is the candidate that leads among those definitely decided? It’s Donald Trump with 40 percent. No one else is above 14 percent. Trump’s actually trailing among those who haven’t totally made up their mind. That is, the vote that is still up for grabs tends not to be a Trump vote. The leader of the not-totally-decided vote? It was Marco Rubio.

I’d simplify that to say that Cruz and Rubio not having great nights would be good for Trump. Rubio’s clearly not having his finest hour. Cruz hasn’t been too memorable. (My theory about Rubio right now is that he’s switched to general-election debate mode: He’d go to a mosque — theoretically — he’s worked in a bipartisan way.)

There’s some talk that Bush and Kasich are having good nights, which may end up being good news for Trump because he could win New Hampshire with say 30 percent … does that make sense?

The absence of military veterans on the Republican stage tonight, with none remaining in the Democratic race, is quite a sea change. Between 1948 and 2008, at least one veteran was among the major-party nominees in every single election. (Although we should note that low-polling GOP candidate Jim Gilmore is a veteran, as was Democrat Jim Webb, who has since dropped his presidential bid.)

One thing to keep in mind: there are just three more full days of campaigning remaining in New Hampshire, but that’s still plenty of time for the results to change substantially from where the polls have them right now. In the past, for example, there’s been a huge last-minute surge for Gary Hart (1984), a significant rebound for Howard Dean (in 2004, although it was not enough for him to win New Hampshire) and a major upset in 2008, when Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama despite trailing him in all the final polls.

… even if we have trouble defining what conservatism means. By the three ideological measures on this chart, Cruz is the most conservative, on average, and Christie is the least. Perhaps relatedly, Cruz won the Iowa caucuses this week and is polling well elsewhere. Christie is barely on the radar with GOP primary voters. Among the candidates still in the race, Rubio is the second-most conservative. Kasich and Bush are both between the Republican average for the 96th Congress (1979-1980) and the Republican average in the 113th Congress, whereas Rubio and Cruz are both to the right of the later average. In other words, there’s a time dimension to this as well. Kasich and Bush are more representative of the Reagan and George W. Bush era, while Cruz and Rubio entered national politics with the Tea Party movement. So what we’re seeing there is not just that the stronger candidates are further to the right – we’re also observing the evolution of the party.

And here’s our weighted polling average for New Hampshire:

Commercial break forecast check:

As the chart in Ritchie’s post below shows, heroin and opiate addiction is a big problem in New Hampshire. It’s a topic we’ve heard about at almost every town hall we’ve attended here, even as it’s rarely discussed by the national media.

Believe it or not, John Kasich was pretty effective when speaking off-the-cuff in the town hall I saw him at yesterday, answering all sort of miscellaneous questions that New Hampshire voters can throw. He’s a little stream of consciousness, however, when the debate format really rewards conciseness, especially when you’re only getting a real question once every half hour.

Cruz is having a little bit of trouble with the torture question, in part because his campaign is really hoping to pick up some Rand Paul supporters, and libertarians tend to be highly critical of George W. Bush’s so-called “enhanced interrogation” techniques.

The candidates defined conservatism tonight in terms of free enterprise, opportunity, and limited government; maybe that philosophy degree is coming in handy after all. Nativism and executive-branch strength aren’t part of this classical definition. But they’ve been a big part of the political debate within, and outside, the Republican Party, for a while now, and especially in this race. The first answer of the night, from Trump, was about illegal immigrants and Muslims. Is that conservatism? Paul Ryan came out and said no, after one of Trump’s statements. But it clearly attracts support on the American right. It hasn’t been front and center tonight, but in previous debates, presidential power has been a question. It’s hard to reconcile a strong, decisive and expansive presidency with the principle of limited government. Yet, conservatives have done exactly this for decades, in a way that’s often been politically effective. Historically, conservatism has been associated with isolationism – but this has changed, with conservative foreign policy positions being closer to hawkishness and president-led interventions. Neither building a wall nor carpet-bombing enemies fits neatly with William F. Buckley’s vision of “standing athwart history yelling STOP.” Can the candidates make those connections, or do they have to admit they also hold other ideologies? No discussion of conservatism can just be about making more millionaires or about the promise of free enterprise. An honest answer requires confronting those two difficult questions.

According to Betfair, Rubio’s chances of winning the Republican nomination have declined to about 52 percent from 55 percent before the debate began. That seems reasonable enough. I thought he was really, really bad in the first half-hour of the debate. However, (i) it’s not that easy to judge how people at home are seeing things and (ii) the other frontrunners, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, haven’t had a very good night either.

Nate, you’ve been very bullish on Rubio’s chances since early 2015. How bad is tonight?

https://twitter.com/pewresearch/status/696158966540320768

Trump has shifted from being a moderate populist to something more along the lines of a conventional conservative, but where he’d end up in the event of a general election is hard to say. What’s clear is that Trump’s pretty far removed from a laissez faire “small-government conservative,” which is some of what Rubio’s answer was getting at.

Viewers might wonder whether Chris Christie and John Kasich have some of a deal going into this debate. Christie was asked about Kasich critiquing his job record. Christie basically passed on attacking Kasich and instead praised Kasich. Instead, Christie attacked Rubio yet again. Then when they went to Kasich, he refused to attack Christie and praised him. It’s interesting because Christie and Kasich are fighting over many of the same voters.

What Harry said: Donald Trump is political tofu — he can take on any flavor.

Donald Trump is whoever you want him to be. He has said so many things over the years that I’m not sure what he is exactly.

Is Trump a conservative?

Yes, I think he is. I go back to my post when Kasich started running. He has a conservative record, but he is running like someone who doesn’t.

He is. Socially for sure.

Is Kasich a conservative?

For what might have been the first time in the campaign, Jeb Bush clearly got the better of Donald Trump in a debate exchange (in this case, on eminent domain). But to repeat a question I asked earlier today: should Chris Christie, having been so effective against Marco Rubio earlier tonight, be attacking too? Their appeal overlaps more than you might not think — maybe not a lot on policy, but plenty on personality. And Christie will need to pick off votes from a lot of places if he’s going to make a last-minute comeback in New Hampshire.

In answering a question about eminent domain, Trump said that all the other candidates have hit him with ads about his support for it, “except Chris,” referring to Christie, who, as Nate pointed out earlier today, is close with Trump. What followed was one of the sharpest exchanges in the debate, with Bush getting in a couple of shots at Trump, saying he had abused eminent domain in order to “try to take the property of an elderly woman on the strip in Atlantic City.” The crowd booed Trump several times throughout the minutes-long exchange.

https://twitter.com/micahcohen/status/696153314749259776

Q: Is Harry Enten jumping back on the Christie bandwagon? — commenter James Prentiss A: I still think Christie has a tough road before Tuesday, but I’m not sure he could have imagined a better performance than he has delivered so far.

“New York values” and, to a slightly lesser degree, “New Jersey values” were put on full display early in this debate, when Trump and Christie did not back away from confrontation. Cruz, meanwhile, side-stepped going after Trump on stage the way he has through the media. Rubio tried to fight off Christie’s attacks but was overpowered. Both Trump and Christie — the two bullish personalities on the campaign trail — jumped on Cruz and Rubio’s weak moment and used it to put themselves head and shoulders above the field (at least for that moment). In fact, anytime Rubio spoke in the rehearsed manner that Christie accused him of, we were reminded of the governor’s words.

That was a top-notch riff against Marco Rubio, and Rubio appeared to be visibly thrown off his game. But what’s notable is that it’s not new – Christie has compared his experience as New Jersey governor to Rubio and Cruz’s role as senators, and he’s offered some very compelling rhetoric in earlier debates. It never seems to make much difference in his public standing. Furthermore, as Harry just pointed out, voters don’t seem to care that much about candidates’ governing experience. This is true in both parties and in the general election, but it seems especially applicable in the current GOP, which is highly skeptical of the idea that government can get things done. This line is pretty unlikely to be persuasive, and a Christie comeback seems far-fetched. Running against Congress is also a little odd if you think about it – sure, it’s unpopular, but this doesn’t seem to have hurt Republicans in actual Congressional elections recently. What’s the goal here? Christie is far enough behind that this strategy is a little baffling. If he’s angling for vice-president, this seems like an odd strategy. An independent run, also unlikely. Running for another office? Becoming Secretary of State? He better hope Rubio doesn’t get the nod in that case.

The dynamic on stage tonight with Marco Rubio is a bit like at the poker table when everyone else is eager to play hands with a certain player because they know he’s on tilt.

https://twitter.com/publicreligion/status/696148669486206976

It’s worth remembering that this is a fatiguing stretch of the campaign. All of the candidates just came from Iowa, and they’re holding lots of events up here in New Hampshire. They’re probably not leaving as much time free for debate prep as they might have earlier on in the race. If you’re a good natural debater like Chris Christie, that might serve you just fine. But it leaves you vulnerable if, instead, you’re someone who needs a lot of rehearsal.

https://twitter.com/pewresearch/status/696148366162554880

The detail with which Cruz answered the question about North Korea, and the fact that this question was asked at the very top of the debate (granted, an ICBM was just launched by the North Koreans) shows a big difference between the Democratic and Republican race. The GOP primary season has been very much about national security — the threat of ISIS, homegrown terrorism, etc. — while the Democratic race has been so much more focused on domestic economic issues. The foreign policy questions in the Democratic debate on Thursday came toward the end, and Bernie Sanders all but fumbled a question about his foreign policy priorities should he become president. He said that he was most worried about North Korea (over Russia and Iran) but didn’t give a whole lot of specifics about why. Cruz, meanwhile, used the North Korea question to talk about the easing of sanctions on the country during the Clinton era. It’s clear he’s been studying up on certain topic areas.

I wrote a post for our live blog praising Chris Christie’s skills at an event earlier today in Bedford. At that same event, Christie spoke up on the importance of tonight’s debate. He wasn’t kidding. Judging by my Twitter feed (and my own reading), Christie just landed some very heavy blows against Marco Rubio. He clearly knows his political life is on the line tonight.

Have to agree with the consensus that the Christie-Rubio exchange was one of Rubio’s worst moments of the campaign. Even if Rubio’s a guy who needs to prepare for debates beforehand instead of thinking on his feet, it’s a little surprising that he repeated his talking points and didn’t have second, third and fourth lines of argument prepared on the experience attack.

You know, it’s funny when I hear these guys talk about elected-office experience and the Oval Office. Voters don’t necessarily care all that much about it. Three of the last six presidents had served the same or less time as Marco Rubio has in major statewide or federal office by the time he would become president. Barack Obama served four years in the Senate, George W. Bush only served six years as governor of Texas and Jimmy Carter only was governor of Georgia for four years.

I think the only reason I don’t totally agree with you, Micah, is the inertia that has characterized this race. Christie’s been saying this for months, and so has Rubio (though not quite as … verbatim). I don’t see Christie coming from behind at this stage – too many liabilities, too little support.

Am I overreacting in thinking that was a really bad exchange for Rubio?

I think Chris Christie listened to some Springsteen before this debate tonight — he is pumped up! He opened a screed against Rubio, bringing up the Florida Senator’s much-talked-about supposed absenteeism in the Senate: ”That’s not leadership, that’s truancy,” Christie said. Rubio fired back, talking about New Jersey’s downgraded credit rating under Christie, and then Christie comes back with: “I want the people at home to think about this. This is what Washington, D.C., does—the drive-by shot at the beginning with incorrect and incomplete information and then the memorized 25-second speech that is exactly what his advisers gave him.” Wooh!