Friday, January 15, 2016

How Multi-Candidate field dynamics helps you grade a debate

It is easy to get caught up in the debate moments to think of the debate itself as an event with winners and losers. This is not really the case. The point of these political debates is for each candidate to advance his standing with respect to the upcoming contests and with respect to each candidate’s opponents. Sometimes you can “lose” the debate but get information out in it that can damage an opponent, and thus your “loss” does more to help you with respect to winning than a “win” ever could. It is with that in mind that we present the key takeaways from the debate for each candidate in order of their national polling performance.

Donald Trump.


This was his best debate so far. He was crisp and clear and the incoming fire he took was basically non-existent and that is amazing for a front-running candidate. He also benefited greatly from the Multi-candidate field dynamics aspect of the debate. The reason is simple. No other candidate really hurt themselves in a serious way [except Ben Carson], but also no candidate really helped themselves too much either. The longer it takes for the field to condense, the harder it will be for Trump to lose. His agreement with Governor Haley, that he was angry and he meant to be angry, was, given the mood of Republican primary voters, spot on. Some see the exchange with Cruz about Cruz’s eligibility as a weak spot, but the fact is that raising doubt on this score can be advantageous, even if it is only with a small number of voters. Those could be the voters who make the difference, and if you have to look a little bad to get it out there so be it.

The New York values exchange was his best moment and a huge win for Trump, particularly if the race actually makes it all the way to New York. Cruz might have gift wrapped the state to Trump which has the 4th most delegates of any State. (This gives you a sense of how New York might be taking it.) While the consensus was that this ended peace between Trump and Cruz, that remains to be seen. Cruz could have hit Trump directly rather than by implication, which means he still sees value in the alliance. Trump engaged on eligibility but otherwise did not overly attack Cruz. The alliance may be damaged, but it still exists. Trump had a good night both for himself and because his rivals are all standing but none are shining.

Ted Cruz.


Ted Cruz is a great debater. This cannot be denied. He did very well on the first question and from there he was off and running. He is clearly being seen as the one standing Trump alternative, but his New York line was a disaster when it was first said. Repeating it as a way of attacking Trump without really attacking him fell flat. He did better on the Canada question, but the problem is that as much as he dealt with it effectively, he could not erase all doubt. To some degree, doubt here is simply not his friend. If he was leading then he might still be leading, but since he is not time is running out.

Marco Rubio.


The problem with Marco Rubio in this debate is that he was in such a rush to emphasize his utter disdain for President Obama, get to the right and launch attacks on opponents that he forgot to make the case for himself. He is almost trying to be certain to come across more like Trump, stressing how his conservative bona fides rival those of all others. But he just cannot come across that way compared to Cruz or Trump. He still seems like the most viable alternative on paper, but it seems more and more like paper. The one saving grace for him is that because of multi-candidate field dynamics his third place finish in Iowa looks a bit more secure tonight because of the next candidate.

Ben Carson.


The first time Dr. Carson got asked a question he started with “I finally got a question,” and he did not get any better from there. He has never been good at these debates, and he is not getting better. If anything he was worse. He needed to be a presence as the incoming attack on Ted Cruz gave him the slightest of openings. But he did nothing.

Jeb Bush.


He did decently. He was the most aggressive in going after Trump, but he was not aggressive enough. He kept his support, but time is growing short. While he is 5th in national polls, his New Hampshire strategy does not seem to be going well. Still his strategy of being not Trump overall might be the right one in New Hampshire.

Chris Christie.


He did ok, but part of his problem is that he does have a previous period of time in New Jersey in which he was more moderate. He is running from it now and handled the Marco Rubio attacks quite well. In particular, the way he attacked Marco with Marco’s own words about Jeb was ideal. But otherwise he did not do anything to stand out and the clock is running out. He seems to not have a strategy besides just being Chris Christie.

John Kasich.


This was also his best debate. He seems to be settling in. Saying exactly what he wants to say in the way he wants to say it. He was the only candidate to entirely stay out of the fray [except for Ben Carson but that was because Carson said nothing.] The best thing for him is the flack that Rubio and Christie seem to be taking from others and from each other. Rubio does not seem to think Kasich is a threat or if he does, does not know what line of attack to take. The polling in New Hampshire now has him in third and the Rubio/Christie fight has opened the door for him to a degree.

Conclusion:

Everything was mostly to form. We got small amounts of clarity leaving things mostly where they were. Donald Trump still leads. 17 days to Iowa.

Share:

0 comments:

Post a Comment

The Scorecard

The Scorecard

The Scorecard is a political strategy and analysis blog. Our hope is to provide information and insight that can be found nowhere else into how and why things are happening in American politics. Unlike many political pundits, we will tell you who we think is going to win as an election approaches; we will tell you why; and we will give you a sense of our level of confidence. Ours is a holistic approach, one that takes in as many numbers as possible but is also willing to look past the numbers if need be. When we turn out to have been wrong, we will let you know. When we are right, we’ll let you know that too.

Our Delegate Math


Delegate Count


Delegate Contests

About Me

Delegate Count

Author Jason Paul is a longtime political operative who got his start as an intern in 2002. He has been a political forecaster for almost as long. He won the 2006 Swing State Project election prediction contest and has won two other local contests. He had the pulse of Obama-Clinton race in 2008 and has been as good as anyone at delegate math in the 2016 race. He looks forwards to providing quality coverage for the remainder of the 2016 race.