✅ TRUMP HANGS IN THERE IN 1ST GOP DEBATE - NO MOMENTUM LOST ✨

✅ TRUMP HANGS IN THERE IN 1ST GOP DEBATE 
- NO MOMENTUM LOST✨
..
.
And now for the Post-Mortem.

August 6, 2015, was definitely a festive day not only for Republicans, but for Fox News and Facebook - the hosts of the two first debates in the race to the White House. The expectancy was at full bore, lots of butterflies in many bellies, and then they were off and running. The candidates were hoping for a breakout moment, while the moderators were hoping for “hall-of-fame" type of memorable moments. All were hoping for great ratings - which they got: the ratings were massive, with a historic record-breaking 24,000,000 viewers having watched the debates.

At the end of the day, while there were no “WOW!” breakouts, both the “Happy Hour Debate,” (broadcast at 17.00h ET), and the Prime Time Debate, showcased solid performances and showed that the Republicans have a solid, deep bench. 

The big news, of course, was Trump. 

While he certainly did not win the debate on points, he nevertheless set the tone for the prime time debate right off the bat by refusing to take the pledge to not run as an Independent candidate. From there, his tone remained on the pugnacious side, sounding even pedantic sometimes. He was also quite brazen about how he has played the system as is to his great advantage.

BUT, to his credit, he pretty much remained on message throughout the debate, and as the verbal swashbuckler that he is, was able to fence off hard-hitting questions (which he later described as “not nice” and unfair), from Megan Kelly and Chris Wallace, two of the moderators. Most importantly, however, strategically, he received applauses on issues that clearly matter to the voting public. Indeed, he appeared to be far better prepared than he had let on he would be.

Consequently, Trump very much remains in the game - and in that sense, won the night if not the debate per se. No surprise, the political commentariat - especially from conservative media - by and large did not care for his performance; but if Twitter and comments on other media are any indication, it appears that the public by-and-large, did, and they are the ones who will ultimately count. 

Interestingly, the people in Frank Luntz’ focus group did shift rather dramatically their perception of Trump from positive at the beginning of the debate to negative at the end. If they were outliers, or if the group was deliberately stacked against Trump, as he claims, only time will tell. What appears to be true is that Fox may well have been gunning to take Trump out once and for all. (And highlights how careful one must be to gauge comments, etc. from different sources - in these kinds of matters, there is always a hidden agenda somewhere...)

Putting Trump aside for the moment, two other contenders showed why they need to remain in the race: Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina. 

Marco Rubio is not only a fresh face and a Hispanic with a great story to tell, most importantly HE  TELLS  IT  WELL. He is perhaps THE most articulate contender of them all, and possesses a deep knowledge of the issues, which he sets forth easily and convincingly. Mitt Romney’s big Achilles heel was his inability to articulate and defend his positions. As Ronald Reagan proved, being a good communicator is an essential part of leadership - indeed it is the very sine qua non of a leader. 

Rubio has been vilified for having been part of the gang of 8 that championed the immigration comprehensive reform bill in the Senate, but at least he had the courage to attempt to impose some bipartisan order on what is clearly a very broken system badly in need of repair. It should not be held against him, particularly - as has been the case with Scott Walker - it appears he has learned his lesson, listened to the voters, and has evolved on the issue.

In the “Happy Hour Debate,” Carly initially stood out in her hot pink suit and for being so much shorter than her counterparts. She then went on to win the debate and indeed she was the day’s biggest breakout winner through her composed and pointed performance, accompanied by excellent body language in her exposition. As she herself has stated, she is clearly the one candidate who can effectively and persuasively take the battle to Hillary Clinton. She does not shy away from going for the jugular, at the same time she does it in a very professional manner. As stated above, she needs to remain in the race. If she does not become the nominee for President, she should be very seriously considered for Vice President (ditto for Marco Rubio).

Jeb Bush was the anti-Trump of sorts: he scored well on points (he received the most questions), but lost the night on body language. For someone with his family history and his own history as a successful governor, he projected a surprising lack of confidence, stammering on occasion and - while in general terms, smiling is good - his smile appeared to be a nervous, defensive smile more than anything else. His performance did not knock him out of the race, but he simply must get his act together if he is seriously thinking of going for the long haul. Having said that, others that have not done well in one or two debates, still ended up winning the Presidency...

Ben Carson was great. He had perhaps one of the best zingers of the evening when explaining what made him different from the other contenders (picture from the L.A. Times):

Rubio had the other one: “God has blessed ... the Republican Party with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t find even one.”

John Kasic handled himself with a lot of passion, and had the home court advantage. He was also a late entrant into the race. Should be very interesting to see if he gains ground.

Rick Perry acquitted himself well in the “Happy Hour Debate,” but after his “Oops” moment during the last presidential election cycle, his referring to Ronald Reagan as “Ronald Raven” probably didn’t help, though it never hurts to have a moment of levity in an otherwise charged atmosphere.

Ted Cruz scored well. Has his debating body language down. But there was no blow-out moment. Still, a tough contender. Needs to work on his “likeability” factor somewhat: it is fine to be passionate about your ideals, values and positions, but if people don’t like you, they won’t buy them - at least not to the extent they could and should.

If anyone was a bit of a disappointment, it was Scott Walker. Another governor with a great background, but who was fairly grey during the debate. Indeed, he was so grey, I almost forgot to mention him in this post-mortem! He is not a nationally known figure, and needs to do more work to up his identifiability quotient.

As for Chris Christie, some say he did well and was one of the winners. Could be. But more than his Obama hug, and bridgegate, he became a non-serious contender for many the day he delivered that awful keynote speech at the Republican Convention. The speech was supposed about Romney, and, instead, it was all about him at a moment Romney needed all the help he could get. Very unimpressive.

To conclude, if these debates were any indication, this race is off to a flying start, and it will be certainly be interesting to watch so many talented contenders make their case in the solid knowledge that any one of them could be a great nominee. While sparks did fly, especially during the prime time debate, it was great to observe the overall civility of the debate. Tearing each other apart is not going to get anyone closer to the White House, as Mitt Romney learned the hard way.

And when you factor in the eventual Democratic nominee, the eventual Republican nominee is going to need all the support he or she can get.

ACEPUNDIT
Punditry from an Independent’s Point of View

-0-