Although some pundits are downplaying the significance of tonight’s Iowa debate, make no mistake about it, this is the most important one of the campaign season to date. Almost every candidate involved needs to do well tonight, or suffer severe – possibly fatal – consequences. Iowans in particular will be paying close attention. While the focus will be on Gingrich, others actually have more at stake. This is particularly true of Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, both of whom are heavily invested in doing well in Iowa’s Jan. 3 first-in-the-nation caucus.
So, what should we expect?
Gingrich will be the focus, of course, with most of the Republicans looking for an opportunity to use his past record to cast doubt on his conservative bona fides. He will respond by trying use the spotlight to explain potentially damaging policy statements and to show he can withstand the heat. Romney has perhaps the toughest role – he has to pivot from perceived frontrunner to go on the attack against Gingrich, but without appearing to be desperate. His goal is to convince people his stances are sincere, rather than mere political posturing. Paul will be his irascible self, but if he hopes to expand his coalition, he needs to avoid topics, like suggesting the U.S. foreign policies led to 9-11, that opponents can use to portray him as a kook.
The second tier candidates have perhaps more on the line. Perry needs a solid performance that keeps him in the top four in Iowa, and thus poised to earn a second look from voters – a real possibility if Romney is perceived to have peaked. Bachmann and Santorum are battling one another for the social conservative crowd, and that already puts them at a disadvantage in a race that will turn on economic issues. But they have to come out fighting. Santorum, however, needs to tone down the stridency – not an easy trick to pull off.
Our hosts are Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopolous. George, of course, has helped prep Bill Clinton for these events, and Sawyer is a veteran from the media side. Let’s see if they can keep control.
Remember, the audience here are potential Iowa caucus voters – that’s who the candidates are playing to (and it’s why Huntsman isn’t here).
And we are off. As usually, Sawyer can’t help but overdramatize the opening – just get to the damn questions Diane.
No opening statements. Good. Standard format, so it’s up to the questions.
First question goes right to Gingrich, and it’s on jobs. How to create jobs? this ought to be easy for Newt. Let’s see if there’s a detailed follow up designed to push candidates on their answers. To Romney – does he attack Gingrich? Indirectly – he touts his private sector experience (take that Newt!)
Paul uses this question as a chance to launch into his fed reserve rant. Liquidate the debt (this deserves a follow up rather than Sawyer’s inane emphasis on a specific number and timetable.)
Perry also touts himself as an outsider – another veiled jab at Gingrich.
Bachmann channels her inner Cain with her win-win-win plan. Do we want to be linking ourselves to Herman at this point? What are the win points anyway – isn’t that a Bill James baseball statistic? Ok, one is energy production and I guess the other is tax reform.
Look for Santorum to note where he’s visited in Iowa – yep, first sentence out of his mouth.
I hope Gingrich yells at Sawyer right now for asking mickey mouse questions.
Santorum offers the first petri dish analogy I’ve heard – who knows what is growing there? Love the Rickster.
Issue two – payroll tax cut. Do we extend it? Everyone has an answer ready made on this, but they disagree, so let’s see if they actually debate each other.
Bachmann first, and she frames opposition to extending the But cut as helping seniors and Social Security. (What explains the feathers Bachmann founds behind the doors? Sounds like fowl play.)
This is the night of analogies – Mitt wants to pour gasoline on the embers. Or not. But he doesn’t really want to talk about the payroll tax cut issue because it’s a divisive issue.
(@Peter – I think Diane is a slow talker, but not necessarily a drinker…..)
Ok, George tries to get Mitt to take on Newt, but Mitt won’t take the bait. At least not directly. But, in case you forgot, he’s worked in the private sector.
Oh boy – George presses the issue and Mitt goes to town on some of Newt’s wild ideas.
Game on – Newt can’t let this go.
And he doesn’t – here’s bad Newt! The crowd boos! A bit too harsh, I think. but he pivots nicely to refute the “crazy moon idea” and he does in the context of the Iowa St. curriculum. Point to Newt. As for child labor – Newt is ready for this. Young people ought to learn how to work – crowd applauds. Finally, he turns the table on Mitt’s capital gains tax. Newt shoots – he scores! Mitt is defending his record – but he’s ready for the Ted Kennedy retort. Point to Mitt.
A nice exchange – and George doesn’t give up. Now it’s Paul’s chance to pile on Newt. And he does by going after the Freddi mac connection. Newt is smiling, but it’s not a happy smile. He needs to maintain control. But wait – there’s more. Bachmann gets the invite as well. George is basically handing out ammunition to Newt’s opponents and telling them to open fire. And the only target is on Newt’s back.
Bachmann, however, goes after both of them as “Newt Romney” – very nicely done, Michele! Best debate yet – the Mitts are off. Newt has to be careful here about the health mandates. He actually did support the individual mandate, at least for a while. Steady Newt – it has only just begun!
Mitt plays the “I knew Jack Kennedy” riff Lloyd Bentsen used against Dan Quayle but not quite as effectively.
Now it’s Perry turn – and he goes after Mitt for the Massachusetts health care.
Boy, this is great! Real differences are exposed for the voters. Perry piles on. Mitt has a nice response here in trying to differentiate his support for mandates from Newt’s – Newt’s was at the federal level., says Mitt. Now Mitt turns the table and raise the “mandatory” vaccine.
Finally, Newt owns up to the individual mandate and tries to justify it as a conservative response to Hillary care.He should have gone right to this.
Boy, Perry and Romney don’t like each other. Their spat helps take a bit of the heat off Newt.
Bachmann is doing a great job tonight. She’s not letting either Newt or Mitt off the hook here.
Neither is Santorum. But he needs to focus as much on Bachmann as on Newt and Mitt, because she’s fighting for his voters.
Rick calls Bachmann a loser. He’s a winner. Winning! Duh! Bachmann says she was in a minority – but so was Rick!
FIRST BREAK
Well, Dorfman was right. This is exciting! Great stuff so far. The candidates are on their game, the gloves are off, and the second-tier candidates understand the stakes here. I think so far Newt and Mitt have suffered the most damage. Paul needs to break through the cross-conversation. We saw flashes of the thin-skinned Newt here, and it wasn’t pretty. He needs to regroup. Mitt is Mitt – he’s not going to win over anyone tonight that’s not already in his camp. Perry’s been solid. I’m really interested to see how Santorum and Bachmann are registering, because they look sharp. Anyone following any focus groups tonight?
What a great way to spend a Saturday night. let’s hope George handles most of the remaining questions – he knows how to stir a fight. Diane is far too laid back.
Part II.
Social values – watch out Newt! First question is on marital fidelity. Perry doesn’t pull any punches. Can you say “awkward”? Please please put the camera on Newt – and there it is! He looks chastened. He has to be ready for this. Santorum is not quite as aggressive, but nonetheless his point is clear. What will Newt say? This is not the time to attack – Newt needs to beg for forgiveness, and stop there. Newt has to be planning his response here. Everyone knows his record – acknowledge, and move on.
Wow. George is deliberately letting Newt stew, but asking every other candidate about values first. Turnabout is fair play – there’s no media love for Newt. He’s last.
Biggest answer of the campaign to date. drum roll please…….
And he hits exactly the right tone – measured, open, but not dwelling on the marriage issue. I think he survived.
One reason they are falling behind is because Sawyer won’t shut up and doesn’t ask a question without a 10-minute build up. Get to the point!
Another danger point for Newt – immigration. This is not a winning issue for Newt in Iowa. He needs to be careful. Newt has his answer ready – let’s see if the other candidate let him off the hook. First, Mitt needs to clarify his own view. Instead, he goes after Newt’s “amnesty” plan first, then touts his harsher plan. Perry doesn’t look convinced. Look for him to take on Mitt.
Instead, Perry tacts toward attacking Obama’s immigration policy. And George moves on to another issue – Newt calling the Palestinian’s an “invented” people. He hands the gun to Paul to pull the trigger. Paul does so, but not very crisply – instead, he’s the cranky Uncle firing multitude shots almost everywhere but at Gingrich. This is a winning issue for Newt, and he doesn’t miss this one. Good Newt is back – he regains the momentum……just like that, he rescues the debate.
Romney tries to straddle this one, and Newt simply demolishes his ability to do so. (Who is Newt winking at?) Romney, to his credit, persists. I think he’s trying to portray Newt as unstable – but really, this is not a winning issue for him. Debates reward clarity and simple declarative sentences, not the type of Romney tact of saying I agree with Newt’s sentiments but I wouldn’t have actually said it. That simply feeds into the the notion that Romney is someone who lacks core convictions.
Santorum seems to back both. Perry tries to put it to rest as a media-contrived issue, and instead turns the issue back to Obama. We are getting some foreign policy into this debate. Perry mangles his answer three times, but in both answers he makes the essential point that there’s larger issues at stake here.
BREAK
Is it me, or has Paul receded a bit here? Is his energy flagging. Newt has rallied, Romney is doing nothing now to stop his downward trend. Perry has been steady, and Bachmann and Santorum – especially Santorum – are really really sharp. This is the best debate so far. The debaters are engaged in substantive issues, illuminating differences and really engaging each other. I think Newt has been shaken, but not fatally so. If he survives this, it can only help him going forward. Everyone of his vulnerabilities have been targeted tonight and while he’s wavered, he’s rallied quite well.
Ok, here’s one of these “personal” questions that never works. When was the last time one of these candidates suffered economic hardship. It’s time for the hardscabble upbringing stories. It might be fun to see how Mitt answers this?
No, it’s not. I mean, this is just a wasted question. We are going to hear endless tales of hard work, core values, and love of America.
Well, at least Paul gets creative and manages to insert some economic policy. Santorum uses it to link family values to economic growth – a nice twist.
Bachmann has another strong answer here. I think she’s helped herself the most of any candidate tonight. It will be interesting to see how this resonates in Iowa. She really needs to get into the top four – ideally, the top three in Iowa.
George wants to rehash the mandate issue. I’m not sure what this is going to yield, but it gives him a chance to tout Yahoo, which is cosponsoring the debate.
So that’s Diane’s problem tonight – she is heavily medicated!
Paul’s storm troopers are out in full force tonight. Will they turn out on Jan. 3? But it’s interesting how the other candidates rarely take Paul on – they seem to recognize that he has a ceiling on his likely support and prefer to let him hang himself with his rants on the Federal Reserve, etc.
BREAK
I think one of the reasons this debate has been so good is the absence of Cain and Huntsman. With six people, the candidates have more time to talk and to engage. Bachmann’s coupon clipping answer will resonate with women. I didn’t think Newt’s hardship answer (my consulting company has to meet a payroll) really worked.
This has been a long debate. Let’s see if Perry begins to wilt – the first sign will be longer pauses in the answer.
And, we are in the homestretch. Interesting question: what’s one thing the candidate has learned from another candidate? The key here is to praise someone who can’t win or who can’t compete for your coalition. Paul is pretty safe. And so Perry and Romney pick him. But no one spends much time praising someone else so much as praising themselves.
Gingrich, as always, manages to actually praise other Republicans. And adds the twist of giving a shout out to Iowa. Compare that to Romney’s answer essentially praising himself.
And that’s it folks! Winners? Losers? As always we are interested in who helped themselves the most, and who hurt themselves.
So, the spin begins.
My read: biggest loser is Romney. He is too smooth by half. And, as several people have pointed out, offering a $10,000 bet in a state where unemployment is an issue doesn’t help Romney’s cause.
Biggest winner: Bachmann, followed by Santorum. Both were sharp, and raised their profile. The problem is that both are fighting for the same set of voters, so they may negate each other.
Paul didn’t broaden his coalition. Perry was strong, and didn’t hurt his cause. He’s playing a long game here and is simply hoping to beat out Paul in Iowa.
But Gingrich took the most heat, looked shaken at times, but rallied strongly in a way that makes me think he probably solidified his standing although he may not have increased his support. In terms of Iowa, I have to think Gingrich comes out still on top. The battle now is for the not-Newt slot, and I think Romney is in serious danger of losing his hold on this. I still think there’s room for Perry to move up to fill that.
That’s it for tonight. More tomorrow….
What has Diane Sawyer been drinking?