Live Blogging Tonight’s New Hampshire Debate (With a Preview of Coming Attractions)

Tonight’s New Hampshire debate (ABC, at 9 p.m.) is less about who will win the New Hampshire primary (barring a Bachmann miracle, that would be Romney) and more about the combined efforts of Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum to upend the media narrative – one fueled by the fervent hopes of the Republican establishment – that the Republican nomination race is over.   After Romney’s “victory” in Iowa (it now seems as if Santorum may in fact have edged Romney), Republican party leaders and their media mouthpieces have been loudly proclaiming that this race is essentially over and that it is time for the other candidates to face the music and end this charade.  For his part, Romney has spent the last several days campaigning in New Hampshire as if the nomination race was over; he has spent most of his time attacking President Obama.

The reality coming out of Iowa, of course, is something different. The results there reaffirmed what has been clear for five years now: the Republican base does not want Mitt Romney to be the party’s nominee.  Although Romney nearly pulled the expectations game off to perfection by lulling the media into thinking he wasn’t all in in Iowa, he slipped up near the end and acknowledged that he expected to win there.  Alas, although he may have “won” (again, it won’t be clear until the recount), he pulled almost an identical proportion of votes as he did in 2008.

As Gingrich has pointed out, if the non-Romney forces could coalesce behind a single candidate, Romney would be trailing in this race.  But Republican voters can’t seem to solve this coordination problem, and the non-Romney candidates are suffering from a collective action dilemma; all would benefit by having one of the remaining three – Perry, Gingrich, or Santorum – as the sole standard bearer for the conservative-Tea Party faction, but each of the candidates thinks they should be that person, and none are willing to step aside.  All have shown strengths – Perry in organization and money, Gingrich in debates and Santorum where it counts the most – in votes.  I have long believed that Perry had the most upside, but he’s never recovered from his bungled opening debate performances.  Gingrich in many ways is the most flexible candidate in terms of ideological appeal,with potentially the broadest appeal, but that very flexibility has been used to devastating effectiveness against him by his opponents.  Santorum is perhaps the most ideologically “pure” candidate by conservative Republican standards, but he has almost no organization to sustain momentum from his Iowa victory.

At this point, the latest New Hampshire polls show that while Santorum has received a slight bump coming out of Iowa, it won’t be nearly enough to challenge Romney as long as Paul continues to siphon away independents and Huntsman,  who – emulating Santorum’s strategy in Iowa has lived in New Hampshire for several months – draws his 10%. (Romney purple, Paul yellow, Gingrich green, Santorum brown, Huntsman pink).

Tonight’s debate, followed closely by another at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning, isn’t likely to prevent Romney from taking New Hampshire.  But in many respects the state is an outlier, one that won’t tell us much about how this race will unfold down the road (although you almost certainly won’t hear that from the media.)  Independents can vote in either primary, and with no Democratic race, they will be participating in the Republican primary in large numbers.  With no real candidate to his left, Romney is poised to win as the “Massachusetts moderate” – not a bad thing to be in the Granite state at this moment.    The real issue is how the Gingrich-Santorum struggle plays out, and Tuesday’s results in New Hampshire may give us some clues about this as we head into South Carolina later this month.

And this is what I find so puzzling about Gingrich’s strategy – he is focusing on taking down Romney, but his real rival is Santorum; as long as the two split the conservative Tea Party vote with Perry (who is debating tonight but has essentially conceded New Hampshire) Romney will win this by default.   Newt, it turns out, is a first-class debater, but he has not shown that he understands how to turn his professorial skills into advantages on the campaign trail. As yet, he has not seemed to demonstrate any understanding of fundamental campaign tactics – identifying a winning strategy, honing a campaign theme based on that strategy, and then staying relentlessly on message.   In the end, this isn’t a campaign about ideas – it’s about framing a strategy that emphasizes one’s strengths against opponents’ weaknesses.

We know Newt can debate. Tonight may be the last chance for him to demonstrate that he has learned how to campaign.

As always, we are live blogging starting just before 9.  Please join in (you can put the game on a separate screen).

We are on.  Remember, the last time ABC hosted this, Diane Sawyer was, er, highly medicated, and asked rotten questions.  Alas, she’s back again.  Similarly, this is a horrible format – one minute answers.  Far too short to really develop useful answers.

Question 1 to Mitt: what to make of the new jobs data?  Predictably, Mitt doesn’t praise the President. He’s a rooster.  Cocka doodle doo!

To Rick Santorum:  What is a leader?  Note Rick’s new position center stage.  Diane presses –  when you say we don’t need a CEO, do you mean Mitt?  Of course I do!

Mitt- He’s an outsider, Rick is not.  He’s a Washington insider.  Same meme as he used against Gingrich.  Someone has to start attacking his policy positions.

Georgie-Porgie gives Newt a chance to pounce, referencing a recent media critique of Mitt.  Gingrich is ready – Mitt is a jobs destroyer, not a true free enterprise capitalist.  Gingrich should have been using this line in Iowa. Is it too little too late?

Mitt doesn’t directly deny this, but points to his net job creation- George cuts him off, casts doubt on his figures…George – unlike Diane – asks good questions.   The key to getting to Romney is rattling him on stage.  He can be thin-skinned.

Georgie-Porgie gives Huntsman a chance to pile on. He does!  It’s important to look at someone’s record.  Look at my role as governor compared to Mitt’s role.  No health care mandate, more jobs created.  Mitt didn’t do this.

Mitt’s response?  Private sector, jobs, blah blah blah.

Paul’s chance to jump in – oooo, nice ad lib by Rick when Paul’s microphone has feedback!  Paul introduces his Santorum as a big government guy.  Rick is ready to rebut all charges, and to turn the tables on Paul (I’m not a libertarian, I believe in some government – including earmarks as did you Ron.  Take that…..)   Quote:  “I’m a cause guy”.  Fit that on a bumper sticker!  Remember, for a lot of people, this is there introduction to Rick Santorum.

Paul:  I voted against spending – all spending.  Rick is a big spender.  Hey big spender, spend a little dime on me!  It’s was clear early in this race that Paul and Santorum don’t like each other.

Where’s Rick Perry?

Right here. Remember, Rick is talking to South Carolina – not New Hampshire voters.  And he immediately positions himself as an outsider, and plays up his military angle.  That plays well in South Carolina.  Paul is a hypocrite (according to Texans) because he accepts earmarks while voting against spending.

Paul seems fixated Santorum.  He must have decided that in a two-man race, the second position will go to either him or Santorum.

Sawyer: why will Huntsman be a better commander in chief?  Go Fighting Utes!  America wants leadership (and, by the way, Romney’s not one of them).   We must find…….yes, yes, yes?…someone who can lead the charge on term limits!  Excuse me?  By the way, he’s the only person on this stage to live overseas – twice!  Two weak arguments, it seems to me.

Diane lets the ball fall here, and gives Mitt a chance to riff on Obama again.  Bring back George, please!  Don’t let Mitt skate above the fray here.  Mitt brings up the recent decision to scale down the armed forces. I was waiting for this to come up – it’s red meat for conservative republicans.

Josh: only Paul and Perry have served in the military  – talk about that in the context of leading the military.  Perry also jumps on the budget cuts to the military.

Josh to Newt: Paul says you are chicken hawk.  Newt: Paul says a lot. That’s his style.   I’m an army brat. Nice touch here focusing on a New Hampshire veteran’s hospital.  Nicely done, Newt.

Paul – at Diane’s urging – repeats the claim that Newt is a chickenhawk who received several deferments rather than serve.  “At least I served”.   Nicely done.  But he’s really fixated on Santorum.

Newt comes back noting he was a father  with a child, and so was automatically deferred – but so was Paul, and he served!  This exchange did not go well for Newt.

George, who really knows how to get to the core issues, brings up Paul’s infamous racist newsletters.  Paul is ready, and moves beyond those to riff on racial bias in criminal sentencing and drug laws.

FIRST BREAK (but Diane hints that social issues are to come. Look out Rick Santorum).

Lively debate so far – the early targeting of Romney was expected, but I didn’t expect Paul to be so feisty, especially in his attacks against Santorum and Gingrich.  This will play well to his libertarian Paulistas, but I’m not sure it’s expanding his support among moderate New Hampshire voters.  Perry and Gingrich have got to get more involved and refocus this debate on Romney and, frankly, Santorum.   Keep in mind that Perry was a night of sleep away from dropping out of this race, so tonight is crucial for his prospects – but not in New Hampshire.  Let’s see how the social issues play out.

George: Mitt, let’s talk abortion and contraception. Can a state ban contraception?  Mitt – that’s a stupid question.  Ask Paul.  Mitt is punting big time on this.  He is waffling (what’s the polling data say?)  Mitt asks George for some legal history, and George is glad to reference the Griswold decision.   Mitt seems unwilling to be on the wrong side of the 10th amendment versus contraception issue.  He will not answer this, no matter how much George pushes.  (It’s working fine.)   Paul is quite willing to wade in, and he gives a mini-con law lecture.  At least he was willing to answer the question.  Mitt sounds positively Mitt-like in his non-answer.  The exchange illustrates everything core Republicans don’t like about Mitt.

Diane pivots from the Constitution to a Yahoo question about gay marriage.  This is really a non-starter question – everyone has already stated their position on this and have articulated their defenses.  Newt lays out the case for keeping marriage between a man and a woman.

Huntsman steps in to embarrass his family and then say something that no one gets.  He’s not exactly lighting this debate on fire as yet.

Josh to Rick: Can gays adopt?  Rick: a state issue (but marriage is not).  I’m not sure what the difference is here, but I’m not Ron Paul. (or Rick Santorum).

Diane Sawyer persists in using the inane “living room” metaphor.  Isn’t this a bedroom issue Diane?  Maybe I’m missing something?

Newt sees an opportunity to bash the liberal media, followed by a long attack on state efforts to close down Catholic adoptive services.  Biggest applause of the night, so Mitt – ever the opportunists – horns in by attaboying Newt.

George – Ron, will you rule out a third-party run?  Short answer:  No. (and don’t interrupt me Rick).  And “I’m catching up on Mitt every single day!”

Perry (and remember, he’s talking to South Carolina voters) is mad about the “administration’s war on religion.”  Perry goes for an applause line, and gets a lukewarm response.

Diane to Huntsman (who is having a weak night so far, and he can’t afford a weak performance).  What should be done in Afghanistan?  Bring the troops home, except for what’s needed for counter-terrorism.   Say 10,000.  Mitt doesn’t agree – listen to the commanders on the ground.  Huntsman:  Mitt, the President is the commander!  Finally Huntsman seems to come alive on an issue.  Nice counterpunch, and he gets well deserved applause.

George: Newt, do you agree?  Newt seizes the chance to show his mastery of foreign policy, concluding with a the call for a fundamental new strategy worldwide.  Rick agrees with Newt (they’ve agreed a lot tonight.)  Rick sees the chance to dump on Huntsman.  Remember, they may be battling for second place in NH.  He accuses the President of prosecuting a politically correct military policy.

Perry one ups both by saying he would send troops back into Iraq.   Again, that’s a stance that plays better in South Carolina than in New Hampshire.

Newt – it’s all a question of grand strategy.  Applause!

Diane – softball to Mitt regarding what would it take to send troops into a conflict.  She should know by now that Mitt always says he cannot specify beforehand what it would take.   You are making it too easy.

Josh – How about you Ron?  Paul – President is not a king, he’s just a commander in chief.  (he forgets that Bush went into Afghanistan and Iraq with congressional resolutions of support.)  What foreign policy does Paul support?  We should rescue more Iranian fisherman!  (this is crazy Uncle Ron talking).  Rick:  If you have your way, Ron, we wouldn’t have a fleet to pick up those fisherman.  Touche!

And a jab at Obama as Chicago politician…

BREAK TWO

After the initial flurry of attacks on Mitt, this has settled down somewhat into a somewhat wonkish debate, but one that has enough patriotic, America is right red meat applause lines to please the base.  Politically, it’s not clear this will be changing the dynamics of the New Hampshire race, but as I suggested at the outset, I don’t think New Hampshire matters much unless Mitt really falters there. I do wonder if Mitt’s evasive non-answer on contraception and states right will work its way into a Gingrich commercial tomorrow.

Josh McKelvey:  infrastructure help.  Is it an engine for economic growth.  Mitt?   Yes, let’s fix our bridges and roads.  But government can’t create jobs.   How do  you square those two sentences?  Mitt doesn’t say. Instead he riffs on the American spirit.  No socialist, he – not like our President.  He wants us to be Europeans!  Heaven forbid!

Newt does better.  He brings it back to New Hampshire by saying he’d veto a local energy pass program (one connecting power lines from Quebec to Boston) and then lays out an energy policy.  This is what Newt does best.   Too bad debates can’t stand up to scads of unopposed negative advertising.

George asks Huntsman about his economic plan, then cuts him off when he says he’d adopt Simpson-Bowles to see if anyone else agrees. I don’t think George really takes Huntsman seriously.  Rick jumps in to elaborate his economic plan.  Kudos to him – he’s aggressive in a way that the other Rick is not.  Perry is all about preplanned applause lines, but doesn’t think quickly enough to take advantage of openings.  Santorum wants to lower corporate taxes.  Romney won’t go as far as Rick but wants tax relief for the middle class.

Diane with another wasted question.  Give us your vision thing.  Paul: it’s all about eliminating debt.  Cut spending. Understand the business cycle.

What’s this?  Did I hear Perry speak, unsolicited?  You go Rick!  He’s ready with his energy spiel.   A right to work icing on the cake (by the way, that’s as much for South Carolina as for New Hampshire).

Huntsman:  I had conversation with Jamie who growing up in New Hampshire had 30 jobs. (this doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement of Jamie’s ability to keep jobs!) And that’s why my tax plan is than Mitt’s.  But Mitt doesn’t take the bait.  Instead, he goes after Obama again.   We aren’t Europe.  We have a declaration of independence.  They don’t!  Mitt spouts platitudes 101!  REturn American to its principles, yada, yada, yada…..polite applause.

Newt – he’s too harsh on Obama who is certainly sincere about making us like European nations!  Newt then quotes the Wall St. Journal attacking Mitt for his weak economic plan.  Rick attaboys Newt, and by the way there is no class in America.  Not even a middle class!  (hmmmm….does this sell in New Hampshire?)  I wasn’t for a Wall St. big banker bailout, not for health mandates – I’m a blue collar conservative (wait, I thought there were no classes in this country?).

Once again, Mitt simply refused to engage his rivals.  Is he playing it too safe here?  I’m beginning to wonder.

Huntsman – Romney is too simple to get the nuances of the China relationship.   Romney: you spent two years working for the enemy.  This is a nice retort by Mitt.  He takes the easy shot – we have to play by the rules. Huntsman responds by speaking Chinese!  Does that help the cause?   I think Huntsman just won the support of my colleagues in academia, and lost most blue collar voters in New Hampshire.  How did this guy ever win elections in the first place? He always seems to be talking down to people.

Last segment – Perry, Gingrich and Santorum needs to finish strong here.  By the way, coming home through New Hampshire earlier today, every highway overpass had a Ron Paul banner hanging from it.  No other candidate had anything hanging.  It was a small touch that reminds how well organized he is here.

Finish with a softball question, which Gingrich manages to miss!   That’s it!  time for the spin!  Let’s see how quickly the wives get on stage.  Winners?  Losers?  Thoughts!

I thought Romney, except for the awful waffling on the contraceptive question, again was solid, without his hair getting mussed.  Newt – with two noticeable gaffes – was his usual strong self, and probably “won” the debate.  but I’m not sure he, or Santorum, or Perry, really dented Romney enough to weaken his support here.   Santorum was ok, but certainly not outstanding.   Perry had several applause lines, but he is too sporadic.  Keep in mind that it’s not enough to win the debate – you have to change the media narrative that says Romney is poised to close this race off.  And I’m not sure that happened tonight.  Paul was actually pretty good, but his ceiling is painfully obvious when he goes into extended answers; he’s really on the fringe on some of these issues.  In the end, I don’t think this is going to change the media rush to annoint Mitt by itself.  But I’m not sure it matters.  I just don’t think New Hampshire matters as much as the pundits think it does.

I understand the Republican establishment’s desire to end this quickly, but they are being shortsighted in pushing the end game.  It doesn’t help Mitt Romney to crown him before the Tea Party faction is willing to climb on board.  We heard the same thing in 2008, when Democrats were pushing Clinton to drop out of the race. She didn’t, and in the long run her challenge strengthened Obama for the long haul.   I think that holds this time around as well.  If Romney is to win this, he needs to be bloodied, and badly during the primaries – not in the general election.  Critics are always saying that Democrats are videotaping these debates to use in campaign ads, but this is nonsense.  They don’t need these debates to find weaknesses in any of these candidates – they have their own opposition research teams.    If the Republicans want to field the strongest candidate, they have to hope that this race doesn’t end quickly, and instead is extended through Florida.  But it’s not clear to me that the party leadership understands that it is in their interest to see this race extended, and not prematurely concluded in a way that would leave the Tea Party faction convinced that a non-Romney candidate could have won this.

That’s it for here – I’m back on at 9 a.m. tomorrow for Act II – see you there.

15 comments

  1. The results there reaffirmed what has been clear for five years now: the Republican base does not want Mitt Romney to be the party’s nominee.

    Oh, please. The Iowa caucus electorate is very atypical, skewing right with emphasis on social and religious issues. If Romney can win there he can win almost anywhere. And I think that’s about to happen, in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida.

  2. But in many respects the state is an outlier . . .

    Sorry to be repetitious, but this is another ‘oh, please’. Iowa is the greater outlier. More precisely, the electorate of the Iowa caucus is more of an outlier than the electorate of the New Hampshire primary. The GOP typically nominates candidates who lose in Iowa and win in New Hampshire.

  3. On reflection, my last comment is missing the point. I’ll take another stab.

    My observation that Romney could win almost anywhere if he could win Iowa, was in reference to Romney as he is situated in 2012. He is the next-in-line, establishment, moderate candidate, as McCain was in 2008.

    In 2008, I would say McCain could have won almost anywhere if he had won Iowa. In the event, of course, McCain won the nomination without winning Iowa.

    In 2008 Romney might have won Iowa – for example if Huckabee’s vote had instead been split between two or more social conservatives – and Romney might still have lost the nomination to McCain.

  4. I’m inclined to the theory that Gingrich didn’t expect to win the nomination when he declared. He may have briefly thought he was going to luck into a win, but if so it seems he has been disillusioned. He may have decided that getting revenge on Romney doesn’t conflict with his primary goal of raising his profile.

  5. he forgets that Bush went into Afghanistan and Iraq with congressional resolutions of support.

    No. Paul doesn’t agree that such resolutions count as constitutional declarations of war.

    Btw Paul voted for the resolution supporting the Afghan operation.

  6. Gingrich’s Bain Capital attack is a kamikaze play. It probably hurts Romney with blue collar populists(Buchananites), but it hurts Gingrich with market-loving types, like the the kind of Tea Partier who reads Hayek. (I would say like me, except I’m a committed Paulista, and I would never support Gingrich anyway.)

  7. This is probably obvious, but ‘expect’ in the last comment is a typo for ‘except’.

  8. I’ll respectfully disagree with Dave. I don’t believe we can say with any certainty that “the GOP typically nominates…”; there just aren’t enough historical examples, and the George W. Bush experience in 2000 is a relevant counterexample (if I recall correctly, he lost to McCain by 18 points in New Hampshire). What we CAN say is that the GOP has always nominated the winner of South Carolina, and that the winner of South Carolina has always been a candidate who won either Iowa or New Hampshire. Romney does not seem, to me, to be well-suited for South Carolina’s electorate, regardless of what the polls say. In a true, two-candidate race in South Carolina between Romney/Gingrich or Romney/Santorum, I’d bet on the non-Romney, even with all of Romney’s institutional advantages.

    Even with that said, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the GOP will nominate the South Carolina winner, particularly if there is a late entrant… which strikes me as MORE likely if Romney seems to have sealed this up without the consent on the conservative base. Someone like Palin has the stature to mount a competitive write-in bid, no?

  9. @ 1:42 David – But that’s my point! So why will this time be different? It may be of course – Romney could win the nomination. but nothing that happened in Iowa gives me much confidence that his support has appreciably broadened since 2008.

  10. @2:04. David – I think that’s right. Romney is making exactly that argument – that he’s next in line as the “establishment” candidate. The problem he is having, I think, is that many Republicans still don’t view him as authentic. That’s wasn’t a problem with McCain – lots of conservatives didn’t like him because he was viewed as liberal – but they knew where he stood.

    Sorry about the slow responses – busy last couple of days.

  11. I meant to include a link @2:57 and it seems I screwed it up. Trying again:

    Paul doesn’t agree that such resolutions count as constitutional declarations of war.

  12. David,

    Yes, that’s right, and on purely constitutional grounds Paul is correct. The problem is that everyone else is thinking about it in political terms, and in the modern context when Congress passes a resolution of support for going to war, that’s pretty much giving a greenlight to the President. So they share the blame here (even if Paul does not.) I understand the point Paul was trying to make, but I don’t think it resonates very well with most voters who see the joint resolution as a de facto declaration of war.

  13. It’s worth noting that Senator Clinton tried to weasel on this, with an Orwellian claim that her vote for war was really vote for peace. Many of her supporters claimed to buy it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *