It’s been five days since the CNN debate and the verdict is unanimous: not only was Carly Fiorina the clear winner of the debate but the result has been a massive upward bump in the polls, positioning the former Hewlett-Packard CEO as the 2nd highest-ranked Republican in the presidential nomination derby. The biggest loser: Scott Walker. The Wisconsin governor had the least amount of airtime of any of the eleven candidates and, for the second time in a row, had a lackluster debate performance. Just minutes ago I learned that he’s going to announce that he’s suspending his campaign and dropping out of the race, a stunning decline for the former front-runner that many expected to be the eventual nominee.
First of all, a sincere thanks to those of you who have texted or emailed me over the past few days asking, where’s the blog? I was at LAX early Thursday morning and have been on the road ever since, getting home late Sunday night.
So, here are some initial thoughts about the debate: first of all, it may have been good reality TV but I wasn’t crazy about the format from a substantive standpoint. Virtually every question posed by the CNN moderators was meant to provoke a barroom brawl: “Candidate X, recently Candidate Y said that you like to fornicate with sheep, that your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries, what is your reaction?”
If you weren’t ready to brawl, CNN wasn’t really interested in hearing from you. This should have worked to Donald Trump’s advantage and it probably did with his core supporters but he lost some of those brawls this time. It worked to the huge advantage to Fiorina; she’s the only woman in the field but wields the sharpest rhetorical knife. Her cutting response to the question about Trump’s comments about her face was short and not so sweet: “I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said.” Trump’s response was also brief but a little condescending and maybe too little too late: “I think she’s got a beautiful face, and I think she’s a beautiful woman.”
The barroom brawl format also worked to the surprising advantage of Jeb Bush, who went toe to toe with The Donald and scored as many hits as his more bombastic rival. Particularly notable and newsworthy was the revelation (something that I didn’t know) that Trump had tried to get casino gambling in Florida and that Bush, as governor, blocked it. Chris Christie, who is languishing in Obama-hug purgatory, had a terrific debate. Barroom brawls play to his strength. The format worked to the disadvantage of Dr. Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Walker and, to a lesser degree, Ted Cruz. Cruz, who is a terrific debater, has purposely steered clear of any criticism of Trump; five days later, I can’t remember anything he said other than his plan to “tear up” the Iranian nuclear deal on Day One. Still, he delivered his answers succinctly and did no harm among those who like his policies. John Kasich had, in my view, the best answer on Iran, but one that will hurt him with the hawkish wing of the GOP. Kasich, a reasonable pragmatist, said he would see how the deal was going and work with our allies to ensure that Iran does not get a bomb. Working with allies, although intelligent and sensible, is not what the Republican base is looking for right now.
If I had to rank the winners and losers for this debate, in order, this is how I would rank them:
- Carly Fiorina (by a mile on all levels)
- Marco Rubio (the master of foreign policy)
- Chris Christie (nice try at a comeback but probably not enough)
- Jeb Bush (showed he had “energy” despite Trump’s constant claims of the lack thereof)
- Ted Cruz (well below the top 4)
- Lindsey Graham (honorable mention as the clear winner of the “kiddie table” debate)
- Rand Paul
- John Kasich
- Mike Huckabee
- Donald Trump
- Dr. Ben Carson
- Bobby Jindal
- George Pataki
- Rick Santorum
- Scott Walker
First of all, I put Graham #6 because he won the first debate; he sparred a few times with Santorum and schooled him completely, especially on the topic of illegal immigration. It won’t matter; Graham has no shot.
Let me explain why I put Dr. Carson second to last in my rankings among the top 11 at the main stage debate (with Trump just one spot ahead). The reason Carson and (to a lesser extent) Trump were the big losers is because Fiorina was the big winner. The Trump phenomenon has created a narrative about the value of having a candidate with no government experience whatsoever. I don’t agree with this personally, but more than half of GOP voters now seem to prefer an outsider. Trump created this phenomenon; millions of potential voters like his “outsider” message but a great many of them aren’t crazy about the messenger. This helps to explain why Dr. Carson has been surging in the polls in recent weeks; he’s a kinder, gentler, more cerebral and more evangelically pure outsider.
Remember that Fiorina did not make the stage at the first debate; she was in the “happy hour” debate. She won it handily but it was seen by less than 25% of the eyeballs that watched the main event. Her win in that debate gave her a bump in the polls and eventually, after CNN realized it had botched its original main event criteria, the opportunity to go toe to toe with The Donald in CNN’s highest rated broadcast in history. So while, in the first debate, Carson showed America a kinder outsider alternative to Trump, Fiorina last Wednesday showed a more prepared, more knowledgeable, and more stable outsider alternative. More importantly, she also offers a seasoned CEO alternative to Trump. So Fiorina is skyrocketing in the polls at the expense of both Trump and Carson. I think that in the next month she will win over more Carson supporters than Trump supporters; many of Trump’s backers have fully consumed the Kool-Aid while Carson’s are thinking about the race more and much more likely to bounce from candidate to candidate. I say this because of my belief that Carson has been boosted as the “outsider alternative” for reasons beyond his own qualifications for president but maybe I’m underestimating him.
So far, one poll (conducted by CNN) has been released since the end of Wednesday’s debate: the following chart shows the results of CNN’s poll conducted last Thursday-thru-Saturday compared to another CNN poll conducted just two weeks prior (September 4-8):
Candidate Sept 17-19 Sept 4-8 Diff (+/-) Donald Trump 24% 32% -8% Carly Fiorina 15% 3% +12% Dr. Ben Carson 14% 19% -5% Marco Rubio 11% 3% +8% Jeb Bush 9% 9% 0% Ted Cruz 6% 7% -1% Mike Huckabee 6% 5% +1% Rand Paul 4% 3% +1% Chris Christie 3% 2% +1% John Kasich 2% 2% 0% Rick Santorum 1% 1% 0% Scott Walker 0% 5% -5%
Now, this is just one poll and the margin of error is about 5% but some of these results are striking. Trump and Carson lost a combined 13% while FIorina gained 12%.
The second big winner in the debate (by almost universal pundit acclaim and my personal view) was Rubio and the first poll clearly reflects that. He’s the only “insider” candidate in double digits in this poll. Again, it’s just one poll but it’s a nearly quadruple increase in just two weeks.
What’s shocking here is that Scott Walker polled at 0%. The Wisconsin governor was leading the national polls earlier this year; to be polling in Santorum/Graham territory has to be enormously disheartening. It’s so disheartening, as a matter of fact, that he is now the second top-tier candidate to drop out of the race (Rick Perry dropped out a few weeks ago). When you go from Number One to Zero it’s impossible to raise money.
Back to the remaining candidates, there is some good news for Dr. Carson in this poll; if you combine the prospective voters first choice and second choice, here’s what it looks like:
Sept 17-19 poll 1st choice 2nd choice Combined Dr. Ben Carson 14% 19% 32% Donald Trump 24% 7% 31% Carly Fiorina 15% 11% 26% Marco Rubio 11% 13% 24% Jeb Bush 9% 11% 20% Mike Huckabee 6% 8% 14% Ted Cruz 6% 5% 11% Chris Christie 3% 6% 9% Rand Paul 4% 3% 7% John Kasich 2% 1% 3% Scott Walker 0% 2% 2% Rick Santorum 1% 1% 1%
The CNN poll doesn’t break this down, but I’m guessing that Carson and Fiorina are almost universally the second choices of Trump supporters. Regarding the outsiders, I see two possibilities here over the five weeks before the next debate on October 28th:
- Fiorina continues to chip away at both Trump’s but also (more likely) Carson’s support. The level of competency that she showed last Wednesday was so great that she will inevitably rise; she’ll get a massive amount of media attention which will lead to a surge in donations to her campaign, which will allow her to fight back in TV ads against the attacks from Trump or others. In the meantime, Trump will continue to keep rolling, he’ll remain the front-runner and the big kahuna for the others to take down.
- This is the beginning of the end for The Donald that so many have predicted and been waiting for. Trump’s meteoric rise in the polls has been fueled by his fame, his bombastic style, his political incorrectness and an enormous amount of free media that are ravenous for daily Trump news stories. The question is whether Trump can continue to make news: he is already sounding like a politician. What I mean by that is that he is saying the same things again and again and again; he’s got a stump speech now! Perhaps all of the intoxication about the Trump candidacy is starting to wear off; the hangover is over. If this happens, Fiorina and Carson will vie for the outsider position and don’t see how Carly loses head-to-head against the good doctor.
I do believe that #1 is more likely, at least in the near term. Trump is a fighter and, although he’s clearly not fully versed on all of the issues, he’s a quick study. So I’m not prepared to start digging his grave just yet.
Still, getting back last Wednesday, what Fiorina displayed (with Rubio in particular but others as well) is that, especially on foreign policy, they’ve got the knowledge and The Donald simply doesn’t (he admitted to NBC’s Chuck Todd very recently that he got his foreign policy expertise by watching TV!).
So to finish this blog (which is now almost as long as the 3-hour debate last Wednesday), here’s a sample of the answers each of those three gave when asked about Russia’s Vladimir Putin:
DONALD TRUMP:
I would talk to him. I would get along with him. I believe – and I may be wrong, in which case I’d probably have to take a different path, but I would get along with a lot of the world leaders that this country is not getting along with… I will get along – I think – with Putin, and I will get along with others, and we will have a much more stable – stable world.
TAPPER (moderator): So, you – just to clarify, the only answer I heard to the question I asked is that you would – you would reach out to Vladimir Putin, and you would do what? You would…
TRUMP: I believe that I will get along – we will do – between that, Ukraine, all of the other problems, we won’t have the kind of problems that our country has right now with Russia and many other nations.
Now take a look at Marco Rubio’s response:
MARCO RUBIO:
RUBIO (on Putin): He is exploiting a vacuum that this administration has left in the Middle East. Here’s what you’re going to see in the next few weeks: the Russians will begin to fly – fly combat missions in that region, not just targeting ISIS, but in order to prop up Assad. He will also, then, turn to other countries in the region and say, “America is no longer a reliable ally, Egypt. America is no longer a reliable ally, Saudi Arabia. Begin to rely on us.” What he is doing is he is trying to replace us as the single most important power broker in the Middle East, and this president is allowing it. That is what is happening in the Middle East. That’s what’s happening with Russia.
And, finally, Carly Fiorina’s:
CARLY FIORINA:
Having met Vladimir Putin, I wouldn’t talk to him at all. We’ve talked way too much to him….
What I would do, immediately, is begin rebuilding the Sixth Fleet, I would begin rebuilding the missile defense program in Poland, I would conduct regular, aggressive military exercises in the Baltic states. I’d probably send a few thousand more troops into Germany. Vladimir Putin would get the message. By the way, the reason it is so critically important that every one of us know General Suleimani’s name is because Russia is in Syria right now, because the head of the Quds force traveled to Russia and talked Vladimir Putin into aligning themselves with Iran and Syria to prop up Bashar al- Assad.
Notice the difference?
Thanks for reading.
Chris Bodig