When we look critically at Thursday’s GOP debate, it becomes clear that Trump’s absence made for a more informed, more mature more reasoned debate. I’ll propose my nominations for the top winners and losers.

GOP Debate Winners

  1. Perhaps the biggest winners were the audience members, both in person and at home, who weren’t subjected to Trump’s usual bombast and hyperbole. While disagreeing on issues, there were few ad hominem attacks and even fewer outrageous statements to merit response.
  2. Rand Paul had the biggest cheering section, but he also made salient points and distinguished himself from the other candidates on the issues, particularly with regard to foreign military intervention and domestic surveillance. While he probably falls outside the comfort zone of some primary voters, no one could accuse him of being outright kooky. He sounded reasonable and provided a sound alternative.
  3. The Fox News moderators performed their role well. Notwithstanding the pre-debate Trump/Kelly dustup, the moderators did a decent job keeping the candidates on time, on track and on point. The highlight was when Chris Wallace refused to be bullied by Ted Cruz into giving him additional time or conceding any bias on the part of the moderators. The video clips were a positive development, which held candidates accountable for their statements. It’s much easier for them to deny they said something when they aren’t confronted with evidence to the contrary.

GOP Debate Losers

  1. Ted Cruz was the biggest loser of the evening because of the target painted on his front-runner back. It’s a position Cruz envied, but he should have been careful what he wished for. In yet another attack on the media, he whined about being attacked by everyone and treated unfairly. I can only hope that all those who constantly refer to him as a “championship debater” finally saw what his debate skills consist of—style and bluster coupled with the absence of substance. I appeal to reporters to put this obsession with his “excellent” debating skills to rest once and for all.
  2. Ben Carson got the least amount of speaking time (6:11 as timed by Politico), and didn’t make very good use of it. Paul, who edged him out slightly with 7:56, said much more and said it much better. Chris Christie treated every question as an invitation to attack Clinton and the current occupant of the White House. Rubio provided the best example of pandering during this debate. He played to the evangelical faction of the base and he played hard.
  3. The issues need clarification. After watching the debate twice, I’m still not sure where each candidate stands on amnesty and a pathway to citizenship and exactly what the difference is. With the exception of Paul, candidates all agreed that Obamacare is an “absolute disaster” and that our military is too small. Still, as I pointed out in the post on reasoning, there is a dearth of evidence to support the assertion that the Affordable Care Act. Instead, they take it as an article of faith and a guaranteed applause-getter. This plays well during the primaries, but the last candidate standing will have to make a much stronger case (or for that matter, a case at all) when debating the Democratic nominee. Do we really need a larger military? I wish candidates would make the case. Do we have a smaller navy than we used to? Yes. Is the navy less powerful? I’m not so sure. Do we need more planes, tanks and missiles? At least two sources provide some insight into this question. The first is Global Firepower, which provides comparisons between countries on several different points. The second is a look at the U.S. military spending compared to other countries [source]. I remain open to the idea of increasing the military might of the U.S., but I want someone to make a reasonable case for it rather than treating it as a given. If the GOP applied the same amount of skepticism to increased military spending as they do to climate change, we’d have a combined military force on par with Lithuania.

0053_defense-comparison-full

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With so many left in the field, primary voters are also losing out on the opportunity to consolidate support behind a single candidate. It will be interesting to see when each of them answer the question of whether they should stay or go now. The other big losers were the fact checkers, who had much less to do in the absence of Trump.