What Did We Learn in Florida? Ugly Politics Work… And They Don’t.

With the results in and the pundits having a field day making wild claims on TV about what Florida means for the rest of the primary season, it’s time to get down to brass tacks. The real question isn’t what Florida means for the rest of the primary season, but what did we learn from it? Did Romney finally show he can unite the Republican party and beat President Obama? Is the style we saw in Florida from Gingrich and Romney going to continue? I offer my thoughts:

What did we learn?

We learned that Romney intends to win this process by any means necessary. He didn’t just take off the gloves, he put on boxing gloves and wrapped them in barbed wire. He and his Super PACs spent an absolute fortune, pundits are saying he outspent Gingrich by $15 million in Florida (that means he spent a minimum of 4x more in Florida than Newt), and they spent almost 100% of it on purely negative ads trashing Gingrich. The attack ads (some of which were immediately disproved by Politifact and other sources, but people don’t normally look into things that well) aren’t a new tactic, we saw how well Romney’s negative tactics worked in Iowa when he demolished Gingrich there. What was a new development was how personal he got on the campaign trail. We didn’t see the Romney that promotes his business and leadership experience in Florida, we saw a new Romney that focused his energy on lashing out against Gingrich and pointing out his past in Congress and as a consultant and using that as a platform to make attacks against him. I wondered if Romney would go for the throat after being put on notice in South Carolina, but I underestimated how far he was willing to go with it. We also saw a different side of Gingrich than we’ve seen to date. The skilled orator who highlights his past as a political strategist and conservative while promoting his “grandiose” ideas was missing in Florida. We saw a Gingrich that appeared uncomfortable while under constant attack and failed to defend himself in an effective way against the attacks, whether they were true or false. He appeared frustrated, defensive, and angry and lost his focus on the issues and passion for his ideas we’ve seen so far. The other candidates, Santorum and Paul, barely register as having done anything in Florida. And before you start yelling at me, yes, I know both of them appeared at some events across the state and participated in the debates. Paul wisely skipped Florida to avoid wasting money and Santorum did what he could with the shoestring budget his campaign has been reduced to. We already knew Ron Paul was in this for the long haul, but it now appears Santorum is going to stay in the race as long as he can despite being flat in the polls too. I still don’t think this can continue all the way to the convention despite his claim that it will- Santorum simply doesn’t have the money or the loyal base of Paul to make it that far. He will have to win another state if he wants to build any momentum back up, and although that’s possible, I don’t think it’s too probable.

Did Romney show us he can unite the Republican Party and beat President Obama?

In a word- No. Romney had his strongest performance to date which is certainly important, but he still has a long ways to go to prove he can unite the Republican base and still appeal to any independents in a general election. Florida was a mixed bag for him. Yes, he won the primary and the delegates, but at a great cost. Not only did his campaign spend more than quadruple the amount of money campaigning in Florida than Gingrich (Santorum and Paul won’t register on the spending scale compared to either in Florida), he also lost a lot of his appeal to independents and potential Democratic defectors with the way he spent the money. Polls now show Romney’s likability numbers have been dropping since his scorched earth attack ad strategy started, and most surprisingly polls now show that Floridians would rather vote for Obama than Romney. This puts a whole new kink in the whole process. It has been assumed up until now that Romney was the most electable candidate and polls to date had shown him as the most likely to beat Obama, but that image of inevitability could be shattered if the way he wins the Republican nomination makes him so unlikable he can’t beat Obama. Romney is going to have to find a new way to beat Gingrich if he wants to be the nominee, because his constant negative attacks are taking a toll on his electability and overall appeal. Jabs here and there are fine and are pretty effective, but his current plan is a two edged sword and it will end up cutting him as badly as it cuts his opponents if he isn’t careful.

Is the style we saw in Florida from Gingrich and Romney going to continue?

No, I don’t think so. Gingrich’s concession speech (well, there wasn’t really any concession going on in it but I’m not sure what else you’d call it) after the results were almost all in was probably a signal of how his campaign will be run from here on out. He knows he didn’t handle the attacks well in Florida and that his own counter attacks failed to do any real damage to Romney and he needs to adjust his strategy if he’s going to be the nominee come August. I think Gingrich will stick to what he does best: promote big ideas, rail against Obama and the media when it’s beneficial to him, and lay out his vision for “rebuilding” America. He’ll have to get some jabs in against Romney here and there, but he needs to appear to rise above the attacks to beat them and I think he now knows that. Romney’s campaign machine is too big and well funded not to know that although they won the delegates in Florida, their current direction could cost them the election in November even if it succeeds in getting them the nomination. I think you’ll see Romney focus more on railing against Obama and trying to paint himself as someone the “common man” can connect with, because right now he’s still not making them believe he is the one that can make the economy work for them again. I think too many of his Gingrich attacks have been called out in Florida and Newt will theoretically be wiser from the mess of Florida and be better prepared for future grilling by the Romney ad machine, so there’s no logic in continuing in the vein of relentless negativity. The Super PACs for both will probably keep the anger dialed up for the rest of the process though, and the candidates will of course claim there’s nothing they can do about that.

So, like I said after South Carolina: Things are getting fun, and it will be interesting to see where things head. Luckily for my study habits February is a pretty slow month for the campaigning, but let me know what you think and I’ll do my best to respond.

-M

Will the Debates Matter in Florida?

With the days until the Florida primary counting down, the debates were once again being closely watched as a potential way for the top two candidates to steal momentum from the other, or even for one of the come from behind candidates to make their case to the voters. I missed Monday’s debate (I know, for shame!) but I watched last night’s performance with some interest and was a bit dissapointed that it seemed pretty balanced overall. Not that being balanced in performance is a bad thing, it just means that last night’s debate, unlike the South Carolina debates, probably isn’t going to significantly help or hurt any of the candidates, and that makes me wonder if the debates will even matter in Florida after being so critical in SC.

As far as who did well last night, it’s hard for me to say anyone “won” since no one had a spectacular night and they were all a bit mixed.

Romney got some good hits in on Gingrich (hypocritical hits, but I count them as good since Newt didn’t hit back effectively to point out the hypocrisy) early and then got back to stumbling over things when diverted from his talking points. is actual performance in questions was pretty mediocre, but his fake moral high ground card may help him out as long as people don’t watch his ads or listen to him speak at events.

Gingrich was on the defensive all night and that’s a weaker position for him than the offensive, but he seemed to handle the immigration and particularly Israel answers well and that gave him some momentum to close out on. There are two things Newt needs to do if he wants to keep momentum on his side though, and he’s not doing them well right now. The first is he needs to stop making outlandish attacks he’s not willing to back up. Calling Romney anti-immigrant was a risky play and it backfired. He needs to pay attention to Romney’s style- make small numerous attacks that are difficult to counter and then pretend to be morally superior after your attacks. He also desperately needs to be able to counter Romney’s attacks more effectively. Romney successfully countered Newt’s attacks without having much more substance or any more truth to his statements than Gingrich’s attacks had, and unless Gingrich can follow up Romney’s attacks with some solid facts or an effectively pointing out Romney’s hypocrisy on that issue he’s going to appear to be the weaker candidate. I’m sure his debate coach or campaign staff are telling him this too, I just hope he listens or this won’t be a two or three man race for long.

 

Santorum came across much stronger than normal because of his “get back to the issues” plea (you know he had that one up his sleeve waiting for an opportune moment- he’s seen how Newt capitalizes off calling out media fluff questions and he wanted a piece), but when asked to explain his own views he stumbles around and doesn’t appear prepared. It was also more than a little amusing to see him call for civility and ending attacks and then turn around and use his questions as an opportunity to attack Romney and Newt. He’s desperate to do well enough in Florida to regain enough momentum to continue his campaign and it shows.

 

Ron Paul didn’t have to do much defending and people still like his message about constitutional freedoms and the money supply and such, but he also didn’t earn any new points or followers since it was pretty much the same old thing all over again. He has his strong anti-establishment young voter base, they’re not going anywhere, but they’re also not going to matter in Florida since it’s an all or nothing state for delegates. The only thing that he might be able to do is kill off Rick Santorum’s campaign, but he would need to build a bit more support in Florida to do that. I do think that his message will resonate with some of the elderly voters that remember the “good old days” of cheaper healthcare, not being groped at the airport, and retirement accounts that were solvent, but the elderly vote is probably more likely to gravitate to Romney (partly for looks/style and success in business) and Newt because they make more loud statements about how to fix things than Ron Paul effectively delivers.

 

It’ll be interesting to see how Florida plays out. I have no idea who will win- Newt has used debates to his advantage thus far, but his performances this week have just been average and that may not be enough to overcome the pre-existing Romney machine advantage in the sunshine state, which is what he needed to do. Romney has done well enough in debates and has been scathing enough in his attacks against Gingrich in Florida events that he may not be gaining new support per se, but he’s not giving people a reason to vote for someone else and that’s probably all it will take with the others fighting for whatever’s left. Newt and Romney will be fighting each other, barring some miraculous Paul or Santorum performance in Florida, for at least a few more states, but Gingrich needs to stay pretty even with Romney in Florida to keep momentum on his side. I do think that Florida might be enough to kill off Santorum if he comes in last- he’s out of money and out of momentum and he needs something to put some new life back in his campaign if he’s going to be able to continue in Nevada and beyond. If Ron Paul, who’s not even actively campaigning in Florida, beats him there then I think he’ll have no other option but to drop out. Paul has the luxury of a pretty steady money supply and loyal followers, so he’s going to be around as long as he possibly can.

-M

Does media bias exist against Ron Paul, for Romney, and for Obama? My response to Beer Barrel Politics:

Today another political blog called Beer Barrel Politics posted a graph and short reflection about the Media “Bias” in politics. I enjoy reading their posts and though it would be interesting, but their take on this troubled me simply because the way they interpreted that graph is part of the problem with our country right now. We like to jump to snap conclusions based off very little information or just enough information to agree with what we want to believe regardless of what more adequate information would actually show us. You can view their post and graph here: http://beerbarrelpolitics.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/media-bias-in-one-chart .

The quote that they summed up their graph with was:

“Here are some common perceptions that this graph dispels:

1) Ron Paul gets abused by the media, is treated unfairly, and does not get the respect he deserves.

2) The media loves establishment politicians like Romney.

3) Back Obama is beloved by the media, and gets disproportionately positive coverage.”

This graph is interesting, but it doesn’t dispel any of those perceptions simply because the sample size is far too small to claim those perceptions are false or unreasonable. One week of coverage is not nearly enough to claim people that believe any of those perceptions are wrong. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with any of those perceptions, but let me give three quick reasons you don’t address with a one-week graph that those things might be true:

1– Ron Paul has received much more positive coverage in the last few weeks since his strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire than I’ve ever heard before. However, I, like many others, have heard him repeatedly dismissed as a “fringe” candidate and “unelectable” by a variety of political media pundits.I was actually a Paul supporter back in the 08 primaries and all I heard from the pundits and anchors back then was how he wasn’t a realistic candidate, if they remembered to mention him at all. Being ignored totally in a process where name recognition is so crucial could certainly be considered negative by some people. In fact, until recently, was notorious for being ignored at debates. I think a graph showing the amount of time each candidate spoke at a debate, or the number of questions they were asked, would be more relevant to the Ron Paul perception, otherwise you need data going back pre-2008 showing the same information.

2– During the last couple weeks the Bain Capital stories and issues about Romney’s taxes have been hot topics, so of course the press about him is mostly negative recently. That doesn’t mean it always has been. Romney has long been viewed as the “inevitable” candidate by the media due to his resources and name recognition, and I find it hard to believe that having almost all of the media calling you the likely nominee and talking about your future campaign against Barack Obama like the primaries have already been decided isn’t positive coverage. Based off what I’ve seen about Romney in the press over the last several months, the media has spent a lot more time talking about the strength of his campaign than they have criticizing it. Having major news networks proclaiming you the likely/probable/inevitable/etc. nominee is certainly good news for your campaign (although the Romney camp has done a very poor job at capitalizing off of that), but more importantly it is bad news for all the other candidates who then have to spend time proving they’re still competitive to undecided voters. Causing his opponents to have to spend extra time and resources explaining how well they’ve actually been doing in the polls compared to Romney and trying to tear down that aura of inevitability surrounding his campaign is certainly a good thing for Romney, regardless of whether you consider that positive coverage or not. That doesn’t mean they “love establishment politicians”, but it does seem to indicate they don’t find a lot to criticize about Romney himself that they can turn into media friendly soundbites.

3– For your Obama perception you would need media coverage that covers the last four years. President Obama’s level of media appeal and charisma have been declining pretty much since he took office and as such the media has much less incentive to talk about him in a positive light. With his current approval ratings and an upcoming election, I wouldn’t expect there to be a lot of positive press for Obama this year, but that doesn’t mean you’re correct in saying that the perception that the media likes Barack Obama is false, just that the energy, passion, and rhetoric the media seemed to like so much in 2008 is gone and as such they don’t spend time talking about it. I don’t know if the media is pro-Obama or not, but I think that he’s going to have a much harder time in 2012 campaigning on warm fuzzy feelings and completely abstract (and I’d argue mostly empty) promises of “hope” and “change” when the media has spent the last few years reminding Americans how bad the economy is and running stories about his promises that didn’t happen or didn’t work like he’d hoped they would. I think the media will actually be a stumbling block to his reelection campaign, but that has more to do with current events than the way they have portrayed him in the past. There’s simply not enough information in the graph to have any influence on that perception.

The bottom line is this: I don’t have the necessary data to go through and counter your graph or I would out of curiosity, but a graph covering six days of data has little to no bearing on any of those perceptions. If you visited Little Rock this past week and saw it was in the 50s and 60s all week, you might say “Well that just dispels the perception that it actually gets cold in the winter down here.” and although your observation is true for this tiny window of time, it’s certainly false overall. I appreciate the time you put into your posts and the graphs are always fun, but making blanket statements based off too little data never leads to good results. You may think those perceptions are illogical, but your attempt to dispel them is equally so. You can’t put sanity back into politics without being informed, and you just don’t have enough information here to tell all these other people they’re wrong.

-M

Why Newt Gingrich Dominates Debates

Tonight’s Fox News debate may have been the worst one I’ve watched from the perspective of loaded or “gotcha” questions. Juan Williams was far from the only one asking loaded questions, but his questions really seemed hell bent on creating racial tensions and judgments out of statements or policies that had little, if anything, to do with race and the audience was getting fed up with it too judging by their noises and twitter. The other moderators were no better, their questions were just spread over more issues. I don’t know if that’s a Fox News thing or what, but it was quite irritating. 

I thought Newt did a very good job tonight because he took his aptitude for these debate settings and injected enough passion into it to make him come across as the most genuine in their views tonight by a good margin. He normally does well in debates, but pretty much everything I’ve read tonight felt he “won” tonight with his performance and the feedback was surprisingly positive from people that I know don’t care for him. Romney had a rare “bad” performance, which is probably what allowed Gingrich to steal more of the show, mainly because he let himself get thrown off his normally smooth style by the others and their questions, most notably Santorum. It wasn’t all bad of course, but he was all over the place tonight and I think it might have actually hurt him a little as far as SC is concerned. Santorum had his best debate performance tonight by a good margin and I think probably scored some points off of Romney by being able to appear more knowledgeable on some policy issues and calling him out on his redirection in how he somewhat avoided questions. Perry did surprisingly well tonight, which I guess is nice, but I think he may almost be a non-issue at this point. Paul had a hit or miss night, he did pretty well until foreign policy and once again let himself get side tracked and preachy, which isn’t helping him out any. I think Paul normally comes across as one of the most genuine and straightforward, so appearing a bit disjointed and indirect tonight was a bit unusual for him from what I’ve seen.


The reason Gingrich’s performance tonight was so powerful isn’t because it was just that much better than all his other performances, it wasn’t. It’s because he has been top dog in the debates since this whole circus started. He may not always have the flashiest one liners (although now that Herman Cain is gone he’s had the most) in a debate, but he stays on message, he answers the questions, and doesn’t waste time with empty rhetoric or loaded questions meant to stir up trouble. He doesn’t lose composure like some of the others and can keep his train of thought when others throw a curveball, unlike Mitt Romney or Rick Perry. Tonight was just chaotic enough to show the American people how competent Gingrich actually is, and although I’ve been warming to him over the past several weeks and I researched his platform and watched the debates, I think tonight solidified his position at the top of my list for the Republican Nominee. Newt Gingrich’s intelligence, history of getting results in a bipartisan way, and overall speaking ability make him a powerful leader and I think that would translate into him being a very effective president. I know some won’t agree with me and there are many (I’ve received messages from more than a few) that think I’m nuts for this viewpoint, but I think that the Republicans, Independents, and defecting Democrats that want to get this economy and this country back on track should be listening to what Gingrich says. Not just because it sounds good, all of the candidates have some very nice sounding ideas, but because he actually has the history demonstrating an ability to get his ideas done, and that is what sets him apart as the most logical candidate to get results.

No Newt, Positive Campaigns Don’t Work

As much as I liked the idea of a “positive campaign” from any presidential candidate, I knew from the start that there was no hope it would actually work. People like positive messages, but they remember negative ones. Any when you’re the candidate with the most political and personal history for your opponents to pick apart, you can’t afford to sit back and send out happy thoughts while you’re being pummeled with negative ads. Newt Gingrich certainly learned this the hard way in Iowa and has now been forced to defend himself and go after the others to knock them down a notch too. The latest such attacks are against Mitt Romney and how he led Bain Capital. For whatever reason people are now upset for him questioning the ethics of how Romney made his money at Bain (they seemed less upset when people questioned his ethics of working at Freddie Mac or Santorum’s career in D.C., but logic doesn’t play a big role in this process), and he has to pretend to be nice again. . What I’m better though is the SuperPAC supporting him won’t.


The PAC almost certainly will spend a ton of money flinging mud. It’s more than a little amusing this is the same thing he got frustrated with Romney for doing in Iowa, but it definitely worked for Mitt there, so I guess it’s his turn. The bottom line is he just shouldn’t have attempted to play the high ground/victim card in Iowa, because it’s making it hard for him to stay consistent now.

Why Romney Isn’t the Inevitable Nominee

I’ve had to defend my view recently of not caring for Mitt Romney since he’s potentially the least polarizing of the current candidates. Let me explain… It’s not that I find any one thing especially discouraging about Romney as a potential nominee, it’s that I find everything about him mediocre as a potential nominee. The sense of inevitability the media is using to talk about his campaign simply isn’t logical, and I’ll try to explain why with a few statements I’ve had thrown my way. 


“Romney is the only one with a chance to win against Obama”
I think that’s a foolish assumption, especially since I remember people saying back in 08 that the Democrats better nominate Hillary if they wanted anyone with a chance of winning the election. Romney’s “strength”, in my opinion, is the general feeling of ambivalence most people have towards him. Unlike Gingrich, Paul, Santorum, Perry, etc. there isn’t a lot of reason to hate the guy, just as there isn’t a whole lot of reason to love him. He’s just “okay” in most ways and doesn’t do much to make people love or hate him it seems. That’s a recipe to get elected if your opponent has a lot of reasons to be hated I suppose, (makes you seem like the lesser of the evils at the very least) but it’s not realistic to say that it’s the only way to win this election. 


“Romney is presidential and good at debates”
From a perception standpoint this may be right. I don’t find Romney likable and I really don’t think most people that actually pay attention to what he says will either. He is a skilled politician in the sense that he can speak for hours and hit his highlighted talking points without saying anything of real substance or actually answering any questions. Clinton was skilled at this too (more skilled, I’d argue) but being able to speak well or redirect a conversation in your favor isn’t the same thing as being likable. I like Paul and Gingrich more from a speaking standpoint simply because they don’t bullshit as much and talk in circles. They answer a question and tell you what’s on their mind (whether it’s the truth or not I have no way of knowing, but that’s true of anyone) in a no-nonsense way and that’s much more likable to me than the “better” speaker Romney. Romney does have a more presidential look to him for intangible reasons I can’t explain, but I don’t find anything about him likable. I liked him more when I hadn’t listened to him in debates and interviews, but like Obama, his speaking ability is a lot less impressive if you’re actually paying any attention to content and I think Romney won’t appeal to the more attentive/educated electorate for any other reason than the general ambivalence I mentioned earlier. That’s just my theory though, maybe I’m alone on this. 


“Romney dominates debates“
I read this, and I agree that he is possibly the most skilled speaker, but what this guy generally fails to point out is that he uses the same techniques that the author claims lets him “dominate debates” to avoid answering most of the questions he is asked. Stephan-however you spell his name-oppolus had to ask him the same question several times in one instance during the New Hampshire debates and still couldn’t get a straight answer out of him. I respect a candidate who answers a question with substance much more than one that’s skilled at craftily evading it.


“The Republicans don’t have anyone else electable to run against Obama”
Well, I think Perry and Santorum are doomed eventually due to lack of substance and polarizing statements, and I haven’t liked either of them from the start, but that doesn’t mean I’m necessarily right or that they can’t somehow pull it off. I really don’t think the statement is believable though, simply because the Democrats don’t really have a lot in Obama either. The shiny rhetoric and marketing of the 08 campaign has lost all luster simply because it was pretty much a one-time-use tagline and when you get down to substance he doesn’t have a whole lot going for him either. I still think his reasons for getting elected (other than a very unfortunate Republican ticket) have nothing to do with his overall personal strengths or platform and that re-election will be much harder for him because of that. Obviously it’s still anyone’s game at this point, and as such it’s shortsighted to rule out the rest of the republican field. Most people weren’t expecting a McCain nomination or an electable Obama at this point in 08.

Of course, I may be totally wrong about all of this, but I think it’s pretty logical to say nothing is near decided yet.

The Iowa Caucuses… What the heck happened?

Like most people not living in Iowa, I was baffled last night to see Santorum come out on top in the Iowa Caucuses. He hasn’t been in the news, hasn’t had strong performances in the debates, and hasn’t been all that successful in promoting himself. So how the heck did he end up winning? 


I’ve been doing some reading today and he was actually pretty ingenious in his methods in Iowa. He didn’t have much money so big time advertising wasn’t possible, and he didn’t make much of a splash in any debate (I thought he seemed like a combative jerk with no real substance in the debates, but his rants were brief) or national polls so his opponents ignored him and fought among themselves. While they were busy lashing out at each other and doing damage to the “big” candidates that were supposed to do well, like Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, he was visiting every county in the state and having small meetings with social conservatives/Christians/etc. every day and building a strong grassroots network of people that had actually met him and talked to him and were therefore theoretically more loyal. It obviously worked. He got a huge chunk of the “evangelical” vote and no one landed a real blow on him before the primary to scare any of those social conservatives away from his ticket. I think it’ll be a different game now and the increased visibility will lead to his campaign imploding (like Rick Perry), but it was a clever and cheap way to make a lot of noise in the early primaries. 


As far as where this is headed, I was glad to see Bachmann close up shop after Iowa, and I really expected Rick Perry to do the same. I’ll be surprised if he survives until February, there is just too little substance to his platform and too many missteps to allow most people to take him seriously as a candidate. I think Santorum will fade simply because he also doesn’t have anything really going for him other than a clever campaign strategy in Iowa that he can’t really repeat in other states now that he is in the spotlight, and he doesn’t have the funds or the overall appeal to survive the whole process. He might raise a ton of money due to Iowa I suppose, and he might get a good portion of the hardcore evangelical crowd until a good smear ad comes out about him, but I can’t see him being a serious contender for the nomination. Huntsman seems to be betting it all on New Hampshire but I don’t see that working out well for him. He’s also just not particularly likable when he is on debates or interviews, and isn’t very well funded, so I don’t see him lasting long either. That’s where things get interesting though, because The Romney-Ron Paul-Gingrich line up it a lot harder to get a feel for. 

-Romney has been consistent in his level of support but consistent also means he’s been stagnant overall. I think this is because he’s just not that exciting or interesting. He doesn’t appeal to the social conservatives due to some past stances and recent “changes of heart” and people like me don’t like him much because he comes off as just another slippery politician that says very little of substance. But he’s a favorite of the cynical Republicans who just want someone they think can beat Obama and find him as the least objectionable overall, so he’s not to be underestimated. 


-Ron Paul has a very loyal following and a high anti-establishment appeal due to his views and voting history, but isn’t loved by the social conservatives due to his hands-off approach to some issues they feel strongly about and he alienates some that might support him with his foreign policy views and near fanatical rants about gold and the Fed. 


-Gingrich is an interesting candidate simply because he’s been through every kind of political trial by fire I can imagine over the years and yet still somehow survived and evolved to become a contender. He comes across as the most rational and intelligent in debates and has a relatively interesting platform, but his past also makes him really easy to run a smear campaign against as the last few weeks in Iowa has proven. 

I have no idea how this will all play out of course, but I think it will be interesting to see how New Hampshire and South Carolina play out and who gains support when people like Rick Perry and possibly Santorum or Huntsman close up shop. 

My take on the Western Republican Presidential Debate

I participated in a CNN iReport tonight after watching the Western Republican Presidential Debate. The video can be viewed here: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-691309, the text transcript is included below.

In regards to tonight’s CNN Republican debate, there are a few things that stuck out to me as a potential republican voter.

First and foremost was that Herman Cain handled himself well under pressure. Although we don’t have enough details on his 9-9-9 plan yet, he was under heavy attack from the beginning and came across as straightforward and confident.

Second: Romney, Perry, and Santorum all spent too much time arguing and yelling and too little time proposing real solutions to the problems facing America. Their choice to argue instead of answer the questions is discouraging.

Third: Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich both came across as honest and transparent and that makes me think they’re worth paying attention to.

And finally, Michelle Bachmann, much like Romney, is a strong speaker that often chooses to ignore the question to promote their own campaign rhetoric.

I think Herman Cain is the man to watch right now, but ignoring Gingrich or Paul would be a mistake. Romney will continue to be significant due to his recognition and finances, but was not tonight’s strongest performer.

Initial GOP Field Impressions

In the very early stages of the 2012 election cycle as the GOP field was solidifying, I began watching the televised debates to learn more about the candidates. The first such debate I watched was on October 11th, 2011 and I made a quick candidate by candidate assessment after the debate. For the sake of full disclosure, I have posted it below. I think some of you will find it interesting to compare my initial thoughts about the candidates to how I view them now and to see why my perceptions changed. As of October 2011, The following candidates were still in the race: Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. Here’s what I thought of them in the first debate I was able to watch:

Bachmann: She handled herself very well and is actually a pretty good speaker. She didn’t always answer the question being asked, and wasn’t really put on the spot by anyone, but was pretty skillful at the wordplay and will likely leave a good impression with some people. I still think she’s borderline crazy and full of crap on many of her promises, but she’s at least charismatic and that is bound to lure a few people in. 

Cain: This was the first time I’d seen him live and I was impressed. He was grilled the most of the candidates presence on actual economic issues (Romney probably got the most heat overall, which isn’t surprising, but his was on a broader range of issues) and he never seemed frustrated or lost composure. He seemed honest and upfront and answered the question being asked without going into a bunch of party line rhetoric and fake patriotic ramblings like some of the others. He didn’t let people misrepresent his views (when they gave him time to rebut) but he never stooped to insulting anyone else to win an argument. I can see that being a very good feature for our future leader and I think he would probably do well at diplomacy without being a pushover. I did some looking into 9-9-9 after the debate and it’s interesting and I do think he truly believes it would work, but I don’t know enough about how it would work to think it’s a totally realistic option at this point. However, his history in business and ability to turn around under-performing companies may be exactly what the country needs right now. He’s a new face, he’s not a career bureaucrat, he seems to have good ideas and experience, and I’ll keep him on my short list of people to watch.

Gingrich: Possibly my favorite from last night performance wise, but not my favorite candidate right now. He called it like he saw it last night and it was refreshing to hear someone that isn’t afraid to speak the truth (as they see it, at least). He didn’t try to blame every single problem we have on the current administration (like a few last night did), and I enjoyed listening to him speak. He strikes me as a very smart man, but I think his political baggage and history in D.C. will make him too unappealing to the voters to be a realistic candidate.

Huntsman: Last night was the first time I had listened to him live as well and he did a reasonably good job. I didn’t agree with everything he said, but he was also very upfront and had some good ideas. He seemed a little combative at times and didn’t offer a lot in the way of real solutions (he just kept leaning back on how well Utah had been doing under his tenure instead of offering a specific plan), but he seems like a smart guy who could probably cater bipartisan support for some issues and has diplomatic experience with our biggest economic partner. I don’t like him a whole lot overall, but he might not be a bad candidate if more people knew who he was.

Paul: I like Ron Paul overall because he has a good handle on many aspects of economic theory and he’s not afraid to call out whoever he feels is doing a bad job (regardless of party affiliation). However his solutions are so ambitious/seemingly impossible that he sometimes comes across as crazy and there is probably an endless bank of soundbites out there that would be turned against him in a campaign. I think that he would try to do what he felt was right if elected and he means what he says, but his passion is both an asset and a liability.

Perry: Easily the most disappointing performance of the night, especially considering his “front-runner” status. He didn’t answer the questions, instead all he did was talk about his unknown plan to bring energy independence to the US and promised an economic plan to come in the “next few days”. He strikes me as an easily rattled speaker that didn’t know his own platform well enough to defend himself in a debate and had to resort to talking in circles to avoid looking completely incompetent. I think he needed to perform well last night to be taken seriously and he didn’t. His decline in the polls should continue.

Romney: As the top pick right now, I watched him closely and came up with a few thoughts on him. First, he is a good politician in that he speaks well and can turn attacks on his past into awkward promotions for himself or his platform. That said, he comes across as a bit of a used car salesman and I have a hard time trusting what he says. He’s likely to be the republican’s top choice, but I also think he’s one of the least likely to offer any real solutions. He strikes me as another typical politician who will come up with complicated solutions and poor compromises to our country’s problems. I don’t see him being very effective at appealing to bipartisan support for his issues, and I think most of his tough talk on Obama and China is just that- talk. I don’t dislike his stance on most issues, but he managed to avoid answering the tough questions last night by talking in circles and sliding the subject to something he’d rather discuss and it makes me very skeptical of him as a potential leader.

Santorum: Had one or two good points but seemed to spend the whole time trying to pick fights and belittle others’ ideas without offering anything of substance of his own. It was off putting, and I don’t see him being a realistic candidate or a good choice for the country.


How they would perform against President Obama in a debate: It is my personal view that President Obama is nowhere near the gifted speaker many claim he is. His 2008 campaign speeches were very well delivered, but in press conferences, interviews, and other on-the-spot settings, he frequently loses composure or has difficulty answering questions. As such, I view him as a teleprompter-dependent speaker. He isn’t a bad speaker when his speech and notes are prepared, but in a debate setting he won’t have a teleprompter to guide him.  Romney (regardless of my feelings about him one way or another) is good at debates, even when he’s not really saying anything of substance. He comes across as confident and collected, and the only times I’ve seen Obama unscripted he stumbles all over himself (much like Perry did tonight). He loses all charisma without preparation and a Republican nominee with decent debate skills (like Romney, Cain, Gingrich, or even Bachman all have the necessary speaking abilities) could make him look incompetent. With the most recent polls showing under 40% expecting him to get reelected and his approval rating continuing a downward trend (around 40% now), he doesn’t have the energy of a popular candidate for this campaign and his old tricks are going to need some tweaking to have a real chance at re-election.