What to Watch for at the CNBC Boulder Debates

WHEN: Wednesday, October 28, 6:00 PM Undercard, 8:00 PM Main Event (EDT)

WHERE: Coors Events Center, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO

TV: CNBC

Three debates in, and the combined 2016 primary field is down four candidates. The case can be made (and DebateWatch has certainly attempted to make it) that the debates have been substantially, if not solely, responsible for those exits. Rick Perry bet big with TV buys to make the main stage and lost, Scott Walker’s donors lost faith after his two “aggressively normal” performances, and Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee quickly bowed out after flopping in Las Vegas.

After several news cycles hyping and unpacking the Clinton-Sanders showdown at the Wynn, the focus again shifts to the Republican primary. The Consumer News and Business Channel will feature moderation from Carl Quintanilla (“Squawk on the Street”, “Squawk Alley”), Becky Quick (“Squawk Box”), and John Harwood, who does not co-anchor any squawk-themed television shows to the best of DebateWatch’s knowledge. The undercard and primetime debates will feature the same candidates respectively as they did on the CNN debate, sans Walker.

Will a marginal break through? Will a giant be felled? Will the altitude or local flora sap the candidates’ concentration? Here are three things to bear in mind when the candidates convene at Coors:

1. The Undercard Is a Game of Chicken

At first, it wasn’t clear that CNBC would even have a supplemental debate for candidates who couldn’t crack the top tier. But CNBC couldn’t say no to Lindsey Graham’s must-see TV, although the RNC is undoubtedly getting tired of humoring these long-shot candidates. No one has escaped debate purtagory since Carly Fiorina, the marginals still haven’t caught on in the polls, and their television time is running out. Does that mean Wednesday’s undercard is make-or-break?

DebateWatch doesn’t think so. The final four second-tier debaters are all betting the farm on one of the first two primary states – Jindal and Santorum on Iowa, Graham and Pataki on New Hampshire. All four rightly regard these states as their Alamos – the last and best (though not very good) chance they have of becoming a force to be reckoned with in 2016. Their campaigns are built around competing in these elections, so they are unlikely to run out of money before then. That means that almost nothing can convince them to end their presidential runs short of losing the states to which they’ve pinned their hopes. Don’t expect any of the undercard participants to be phased, even if they tank on stage.

2. It’s (Finally) the Economy, Stupid

After two debates where foreign policy and social issues dominated the agenda, CNBC has pledged to focus its conversation on the economy. This shift will bring some candidates into their comfort zone and others out of theirs. Contenders for whom economic issues are more in their wheelhouse include Bush, Carson, Fiorina, and Kasich; those that harp on non-economic issues in their stump speeches (such as Cruz, Huckabee, and Paul) will be challenged by the moderators to pivot and prove their competence in this area.

Some have argued that economics questions will tilt the debate in Trump’s favor, given his background as a business mogul. DebateWatch is unconvinced. Trump’s campaign rests primarily on foreign policy and immigration, where his issue stances are on the same side of the scale as most Republicans, though occasionally more extreme. On taxes and healthcare, his policy proposals look more like Democratic ones than Republican ones, giving the moderators plenty of opportunities to pit Trump against rivals who are closer than him to the median Republican voter.

3. Ben There, Don That

At the last Republican debate in Simi Valley, Ben Carson passed up an opportunity to nail Donald Trump as an anti-vaxxer, and the two shook hands on stage. Trump was more focused on assailing Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, who at the time posed a greater threat to his campaign. Flash forward to today: Carson is a close second to Trump nationwide (even beating him in a CBS/New York Times poll), a not-as-close second in New Hampshire, and a clear favorite in Iowa.

Carson and Trump will stand at adjacent central podia once again on Wednesday night, and most everyone expects a confrontation this time around. It’s worth mentioning that the doctor and businessman have diametrically opposed styles, which should make it an asymmetric showdown. Trump is blunt and unencumbered by self-censoring, beloved for telling it like (he thinks) it is. Carson is quiet and reserved, loath to sling mud. Trump got the best of Bush in previous debates by dragging the ex-governor down to his level and beating him with experience, but Carson seems less likely to take the bait. Will Trump trample over an insurgent candidate who puts up no resistance, or will his bravado backfire when Carson keeps his cool? There’s only one way to find out for sure.

The Governors’ Curse

Around the time a peculiar chain of events involving hypnosis, Tim McGraw, and an ice cream maker led to his first and only high-school breakup, this Debate Watcher’s mother soothed his puppy love pains by saying, “You’re not the type of guy you date; you’re the type of guy you marry.”

This maxim can be applied to presidential primaries as well. In an up-and-down campaign in which many candidates have ephemeral peaks, governors and ex-governors are the type of candidate voters can settle down with after bouncing around the primary field. Five of the last eight presidents have had gubernatorial experience, and only two governors (Michael Dukakis and Mitt Romney, both of Massachusetts) have lost to non-governors in the general election. The story goes that governors are uniquely suited to the presidency because they are practiced executives with clear résumés. Unlike members of Congress or non-politicians who talk a big game but have little to show for it, governors can back up their words with their deeds. Generic candidate polling backs up this conventional wisdom: voters like candidates with faith and works.

But this conventional wisdom doesn’t seem to apply in 2016 when one looks at the gubernatorial fare on offer. Governors Perry and Walker have suspended their campaigns. Governor Gilmore couldn’t even qualify for CNN’s undercard debate and had to live-tweet it instead. Governors Jindal and Pataki are trapped on a secondary debate stage that might disappear before the next contest in October. Governors Christie, Huckabee, and Kasich are clinging to the edges of the main stage, one or two bad polls away from oblivion. Of the governors, only Jeb Bush has sustained success in the primary polls, but even his performance has been disappointing.

Meanwhile, three political amateurs are at or near the top of the heap, and senators like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are positioned well for the long haul to Iowa, New Hampshire, and beyond.

Individual candidates have individual reasons for their successes and failures, but the anti-gubernatorial trend is striking, even this early in the race. What’s behind this flipped primary script? Is this a particularly bad crop of governors, or a particularly good crop of non-governors? Or can the dismal showing of state executives so far be attributed to changes in the electoral context?

By now you are no doubt aware that DebateWatch likes to blame debates for many campaign phenomena. We won’t go so far as to argue that the debates are the only reason why governors are underperforming in this GOP primary. Nevertheless, the packed debate stages are a symptom and manifestation of the true cause: overcrowding.

Governors are traditionally strong candidates because they rely on substance over show. If you’re a governor preparing for a debate or writing a stump speech, the recipe for success has always been to know your record back to front and cherry-pick the facts that present it in the most favorable light. The upside of this strategy is that, pound for pound, it beats unsubstantiated sound bites from non-governors. The downside is that it takes longer to explain four to twelve years of leadership than to deliver a pithy applause line.

In boxing, the biggest and hardest hitter can fall to an opponent with superior speed and maneuverability. In warfare, massive armies with huge numbers advantages can be stalemated or even beaten by a nimble guerrilla force in close quarters where dexterity trumps force. And in a crowded field where news coverage and time on the debate stage are scarce resources, governors who would normally win in head-to-head or three-way match-ups can be outpaced by candidates with good scripted sound bites.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that governors can’t adapt to this new game. Indeed, Bobby Jindal has done a game job of virally marketing himself in sound bite fashion, and Chris Christie has honed a strong image as the working man’s Republican candidate. Neither Jindal nor Christie have especially poor gubernatorial records, and both talk competently about them when asked. But while they’re not running from their records, they’re also not running on them. There simply isn’t enough airtime this cycle to whip out a ruler and compare each other’s job-creation numbers like boys in a locker room. Candidates who try to squeeze their lists of accomplishments into tiny speaking slots end up sounding stilted and stodgy: Jeb Bush and Scott Walker haltingly recite tax cuts and state rankings without ever delivering the oomph that Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio seem to exude effortlessly.

Over the long term, the GOP field may shrink to the point that whichever governors remain have a chance to expound upon their experience and access their traditional advantage over the non-gubernatorial presidential hopefuls. The waiting is the hardest part, and candidates like Perry and Walker who don’t have the budget or stamina to stick it out may never get a chance to let their records blossom. Americans may like the idea of a governor in the White House, but governors who expect their long-form political biographies to carry them to the Republican nomination without having to develop good oratory skills are bringing knives to a gunfight.

Who Won the CNN Reagan Library Primetime Debate

If your debate-watching drinking game involved taking a swig every time a candidate or moderator invoked Ronald Reagan, please get your stomach pumped as soon as possible. We all knew the Republican presidential hopefuls on stage would pay homage to their party’s hero, surrounded as they were by memorabilia from his administration. What we didn’t know was how much time they would spend talking about one another.

Often the most frustrating moments for moderators are when candidates pivot from specific questions to their rehearsed stump speeches. This can be a great security blanket for candidates who feel more comfortable retreading practiced rhetoric than thinking on their feet. But with Tapper, Bash, and Hewitt pushing for confrontation and tensions high within the field, fights were bound to happen. And happen they did.

As the dust began to settle, head moderator Jake Tapper asked each candidate to give himself or herself a Secret Service nickname. DebateWatch isn’t convinced that these nicknames are especially useful as heuristics for voters, but we present them below alongside their corresponding candidates as we work through the rankings from last to first…

11. BEN CARSON (“ONE NATION”)

The question that perennially swirls around non-politician candidates is whether they have the necessary policy expertise to succeed in the Oval Office. Dr. Carson benefited from being in the “getting to know you” phase of the campaign in the Fox News debate last month, when he cultivated a nice-guy persona and wasn’t challenged on policy specifics. Going into Simi Valley, Carson’s debate strategy was the same as the last time around – just be yourself.

Unfortunately, himself wasn’t particularly articulate on policy matters when pressed by the moderators. Carson spoke in broad brushstrokes about uniting the country, but aside from shrewdly correcting Tapper on what he considered mischaracterizations of his policy proposals, Carson had little more to offer than that. In a debate all about conversations and confrontations, the Marylander shied away from arguing with other candidates, and his opponents generally left him alone. DebateWatch anticipates that the neurosurgeon’s impressive poll numbers will not stay as high as they are for long if this performance is indicative of future ones. Of all the candidates on the main stage, Carson still seems the least equipped to debate Hillary Clinton or whatever nominee the Democrats put forth in a general election.

10. JEB BUSH (“EVERREADY”)

Mark Twain once advised “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” Governor Bush’s campaign may not have specifically called Donald Trump stupid, but the two camps have been at each other’s throats for most of the early primary slog. In Cleveland, Bush strove to stay above the polemical fray, but his new “high energy” debate strategy drove him to engage in tiff after tiff with the real estate tycoon throughout the night. Snarky back-and-forths are Trump’s home turf, and the home field advantage was eminently apparent.

When he wasn’t dancing with the Donald and getting his toes stepped on, Bush struggled to achieve an air of sincerity. His stilted speaking style seemed calculated and suppressed, as though he were constantly self-censoring to avoid committing gaffes or showing anger. Ironically, the moment when Bush appeared to come closest to losing his temper – defending his brother’s foreign policy to great applause – was his most candid moment. Playing not to lose in Cleveland may have lost Bush some percentage points in the polls, but trying to beat Trump at his own game will not regain them.

9. DONALD TRUMP (“HUMBLE”)

Eleventh-place Rand Paul shouldn’t even be on stage; Fiorina’s company is a disaster; Rubio has the worst voting record in the Senate; Bush is soft on immigration because of his Mexican wife. The Trump strategy has always prioritized zingers over policy specifics, and the second debate was another opportunity for Trump to please supporters who see him as being the only person willing to speak truth to power.

Trump’s performance was probably not poor enough to drive his numerous supporters to other candidates. That being said, it was a major step down from his Cleveland appearance. Perhaps the difference this time was the element of surprise – before the first debate, Trump’s opponents were unsure of what to expect from what a Kasich staffer referred to as the political equivalent of a drunken NASCAR driver. In Simi Valley, both Fiorina and Bush skewered Trump on his multiple bankruptcies, and the Donald was less effective in countering their barbs. Later, he seemingly outed himself as an anti-vaxxer before backtracking. Trump has yet to prove his ability to successfully improvise under the klieg lights, and he will need to do so soon lest his supporters tune in to debates and news coverage and tire of the same soundbites.

8. JOHN KASICH (“UNIT ONE”)

Governor Kasich was a big star in the Cleveland debate after making the cut by the skin of his teeth. Energized by a hometown crowd and effortlessly speaking with poise and authenticity, he looked like a palatable establishment alternative to Jeb Bush in the compassionate conservative category.

DebateWatch had high expectations for the Ohioan going into the second debate, but we were baffled at the first half of his Simi Valley performance. As the discussion turned to the unpopular Iran nuclear deal, Kasich inexplicably moved to defend the Obama administration’s negotiation tactics, arousing the perplexed ire of his opponents. Later in the evening, Kasich returned to form and made a reasonably successful attempt to be the adult in the room while others squabbled. But the foreign policy move leaves us unsure about Kasich’s discipline at the podium, and the specific stances he took may come back to haunt him in the future.

7. MIKE HUCKABEE (“DUCK HUNTER”)

In Cleveland, Governor Huckabee found himself in a tit-for-tat with Chris Christie over entitlement reform for which he seemed unprepared. This time, his lines did not engender any such mini-debates. In fact, almost everything he said was compatible with all the other primetime candidates’ positions on the issues. In fact, almost everything he said could just as well have been said by anyone else on stage without anyone thinking “Hey, that sounds like Mike Huckabee!”

Huckabee’s talking points were unobjectionable but so non-individuating that they might as well have come from Reince Priebus or some RNC lackey representing the collective id of the Republican Party. While Bush, Christie, Kasich, and Walker hawked their records, Huckabee was silent about his. The Arkansan offered plenty of reasons to vote for the GOP nominee in the general election but virtually none for why he should be that nominee. Psephologists searching for the most neutral – not helping, not hurting – primary debate performance might have found their answer in Huckabee’s.

6. RAND PAUL (“JUSTICE NEVER SLEEPS”)

In the first debate, Senator Paul didn’t even wait until the first response had concluded before interrupting and attacking Trump. In the second one, Paul complained about the “sophomoric” interpersonal attacks Trump was levying against the field, and kept a minor feud smoldering between himself and Trump throughout the night.

However, DebateWatch was surprised to find Paul exceeding our performance expectations more than any other candidate on the stage. Paul’s dovishness on foreign policy was not presented as brashly as it often has been, and a surprise questioning round on marijuana legalization gave him a chance to one-up his opponents on a policy area he had spent far more time than his opponents prepping. The ophthalmologist even seemed to be enjoying himself on stage, jokingly referring to a follow-up he gave after one of Dr. Carson’s answers as a “second opinion.” Paul’s path to the nomination is less discernible than most candidates’, but performances like this one are undoubtedly an important step.

5. TED CRUZ (“COHIBA”)

Love him or hate him, one thing is patently obvious about Senator Cruz: he fervently believes every word he says. The Texan iconoclast delivered his lines staring directly at the camera with a practiced intensity befitting a former Harvard debater and solicitor general. Again offered a smaller than average slice of the television-time pie, Cruz milked every second, turning his answers into miniature fireside chats.

Cruz’s sincerity clashed with Bush’s woodenness in an exchange between the two over Supreme Court justice nominations. With Bush defending his father and brothers’ picks for the bench (already an awkward moment for a candidate trying to downplay his family history), Cruz took a stand for committed conservative justices so stoically that his campaign team cut the debate clip and released it on their own YouTube channel. He may be back in the polls at press time, but Cruz has been in the 2016 race the longest and has yet to stumble on the debate stage.

4. SCOTT WALKER (“HARLEY”)

Governor Walker was once the darling of Iowa voters. Since then, his poll numbers in the Hawkeye State have tanked, and his non-confrontational demeanor at the Cleveland debate left many questioning his viability. More than any other candidate going into Simi Valley, Walker was in desperate need of a debate strategy reboot.

He got one. Walker’s answers were hardly different from the ones he gave at the last debate (or the planks in his stump speech), but he managed to hit upon a successful tactic early on that paid dividends throughout. Placed adjacent to the Trump-Bush pissing contest, Walker interjected several times to break up the fight and put forth his own record and recommendations. It took him a few tries to get right, but the implication was clear: Bush and Trump only care about fighting each other, but I have real workable ideas, and “we don’t need an apprentice in the White House.” Walker would do well to keep up this new rhetorical strategy in coming contests, and to refine it further.

3. MARCO RUBIO (“GATOR”)

Senator Rubio was the surprise winner of the Fox News debate in August by DebateWatch’s reckoning. He started things off in CNN’s contest by proudly displaying the water bottle he had brought along with him, indulging in a laugh about his desiccated State of the Union response.

With so much of the debate focused on foreign policy, Rubio had much fewer opportunities to expound upon his economic platform that went over so well in Quicken Loans Arena. Luckily for the Floridian, his talking points on Iran, Russia, and other pressing issues were well polished. Rubio was unflappable even as Trump attempted to trip him up by needling him for missing Senate votes; rather than deflect, he eagerly defended his prioritizing of campaign over Congress and won the audience over to his side. DebateWatch wasn’t sure whether to label Rubio’s stellar appearance in Cleveland a fluke; now it is apparent that Rubio really is this effective at impromptu answers.

2. CHRIS CHRISTIE (“TRUEHEART”)

“Hi, my name is Chris Christie, and I’d like to you take the camera off me and put it on the audience….” Thus began the best opening statement DebateWatch can remember seeing. Governor Christie entered the Reagan Library with an agenda: sell his record from the Garden State and make a play for the struggling middle class.

Except for a strange moment where he criticized Carly Fiorina and Donald Trump for talking about their records as CEOs instead of the plight of the jobless (what else are Fiorina and Trump supposed to talk about?), Christie effectively stuck to his message and style. He also managed to add depth to his no-nonsense persona by recounting the harrowing five hours on September 11, 2001, when he didn’t know whether his wife (who worked mere blocks from the World Trade Center) was alive or dead. Like Cruz, Christie is effortlessly authentic on the stump or the debate stage. If he can’t climb out of his polling hole after stringing together performances like this one, he can take cold comfort in the fact that he gave the campaign his very best shot.

1. CARLY FIORINA (“SECRETARIAT”)

Winning two debates in a row is one thing. Winning two debates in a row after having been kicked up to the big leagues is something else entirely (maybe having a triple crown winner as a codename is fitting). Everyone was waiting for Carly Fiorina to get a chance to respond to Donald Trump’s critiques about her fitness to lead; after punting on her first chance, Fiorina deftly demurred: “I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said.”

But the real highlights of Fiorina’s debut on the main stage were her forceful cadenzas that drew applause and admiration on almost every topic she had a chance to address. Whether it was treading old ground on presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, ticking off figure after figure of foreign policy expertise, or making emotional appeals on abortion and drug addiction, Fiorina was ruthlessly effective at getting a rise out of the crowd. Even when pressed on her key vulnerability – her controversial tenure at Hewlett-Packard – Fiorina never flinched. From our perspective, there is no debate about this debate: DebateWatch declares CARLY FIORINA the winner of the CNN Reagan Library primetime debate.

---

Which candidate do you think we overrated the most? Underrated the most? Tell us in the reply section below, and don’t forget to come back in the weeks ahead as we preview the first Democratic contest coming in October, as well as other debate-related events that could change the course of the nomination races.

What to Watch for at the CNN Reagan Library Debate, Part 2: The Main Event

WHERE: Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, California

WHEN: Wednesday, September 16, 8:00 PM EDT

TV: CNN

This Wednesday will mark the fourth and fifth times the Reagan Library has hosted a Republican primary debate since its first in 2007, and the first time ten of the candidates on the main stage have debated in its hallowed halls (Mike Huckabee has made two prior appearances). The 40th president’s reliquary is an appropriate pilgrimage for candidates hoping to follow in the footsteps of the man widely regarded as the last great Republican president – and if you doubt the Gipper’s place in the conservative pantheon, just remember the swiftness of the curse levied against the last presidential hopeful to botch his name.

This will be the second consecutive debate in which the “local” candidate has squeezed into the top tier at the last minute, but aside from Mrs. Fiorina the dais will comprise the same faces as last time. But don’t be fooled by the presence of the usual suspects – this debate will be much different from the last, for three main reasons:

1. The Tapper Effect

Veteran newsman Jake Tapper will quarterback the moderating effort alongside his CNN colleague Dana Bash and conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. An alum of the White House press corps, Tapper has a reputation for getting under the skin of his interviewees, and if anyone can deliver questions as tough as the ones brought to bear by the Fox News crew, Tapper seems to fit the bill.

But what is most interesting about Tapper’s presence is his laissez-faire approach to controlling the flow of debate. Whereas Fox News designed its debate rules to discourage cross-talk and had a secret nuclear option to be used in case of a Trump takeover, Tapper has stated that his goal is to get the candidates to debate each other as much as possible. One might expect this confrontational structure to benefit raconteurs like Chris Christie and Rand Paul while hurting speechifiers like Ben Carson and Scott Walker, but with advance warning all of the campaigns might well be prepping their candidates for the unique challenge of debating without blinders.

2. Risers and Fallers

Aside from Fiorina’s meteoric rise, there has been no vertical movement into or out of the top tier since August. But there has been plenty of horizontal movement. As with the Fox News debate, the candidates’ positions on stage reflect their standing in the polls: the closer you are to center stage, the better shape you’re in.

Most of the candidates are roughly equidistant from the middle as they were in Cleveland – Trump remains the centerpiece, Christie, Paul, and Kasich are clinging to the wings, etc. A few, however, have made significant shifts that could change their debate tactics. Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, who have seen their stocks fall considerably, have vowed to “come out swinging” and be more aggressive in Simi Valley, respectively. To DebateWatch’s knowledge, Mike Huckabee (down from fourth to eighth place since August) has not previewed any strategy changes for Wednesday night, but his high-profile intervention in the Kentucky marriage license controversy may portend a more aggressive play for social conservatives on the debate stage.

Meanwhile, Ben Carson’s surge to second place may put him under extra scrutiny from the moderators and/or his fellow candidates. Carson has no public plans to modify his style (why mess with what seems to be working?), but if Tapper and company press him for policy specifics he may need to shift gears from outsider to frontrunner in order to maintain his prestigious poll position.

3. Lady and the Trump

Ronald Reagan was called “the Teflon president” because the scandals linked to his administration did little to dim his popularity with the American public – like a Teflon-coated pan, nothing stuck to him. Recently, the Donald has inherited the Ronald’s nickname on account of his ability to pick fights with his primary opponents and the media and come out unscathed. But Trump’s feud with Fox News anchor and debate moderator Megyn Kelly was something of a close call. Dismissive during the debate and petulant afterward, Trump found himself the target of outrage at what many called misogynistic attacks (culminating in what appeared to be an implication that Kelly’s withering moderation was spurred by menstruation).

If Trump has an Achilles heel, it may be his unwillingness to suspend his trademark political incorrectness when confronting a member of the opposite sex – which is why Carly Fiorina’s ascendancy is so exciting to opponents of Trump who want to see the tycoon taken down a peg. After Trump dismissed Fiorina’s candidacy in an interview for Rolling Stone by saying “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that?” Fiorina took only a weekend to turn the dig into a positive campaign ad that has garnered rave reviews. The expected showdown between the primary field’s two business executives may be the defining moment of the CNN debate: both Fiorina and Trump seem to be spoiling for a fight, and Tapper seems eager to facilitate one. DebateWatch can’t tell you who will come out on top, but we can promise you we’ll be watching intently.

---

What will you be watching for on Wednesday night? Tell us below in a reply, and come back after the debates to find out whom DebateWatch has declared the victor of both contests.