Category Archives: Republicans

The State of the Race in Florida, Post-Debate II

Two new Florida polls, one commissioned by SunshineState News, and the  second by Quinnipiac, came out today, and both show Romney leading Gingrich by identical 9% margins, 40-31% and 38-29%, respectively.   Both polls were conducted prior to last night’s debate.  But nothing I saw last night persuades me that it will change the general polling trend, which since Monday’s debate has favored Romney.   As I noted at the conclusion of last night’s event, and which many of you picked up on in your comments, Gingrich was not at his best.  Although he scored some points, he was on the defensive most of the night, and even his attempt to score points at the media’s expense  – a favorite tactic – did not work last night, as Wolf Blitzer was prepared for Newt and did not back down.  In the end, the audience turned on Newt during that particular exchange.

I think at least some of the blame for Newt’s less-than-stellar performance, however, has to be credited to Mitt. Whether it was his new debate coach, or some other factor, he came into the debate with a game plan – attack Gingrich – and he executed it well, if not flawlessly.   Yes, he occasionally revealed his ham-handedness in interpersonal relations, but it was also clear that he was better prepared than Newt, thanks in no small part to better opposition research.   This was one of those organizational factors which was supposed to be Romney’s strength, and it showed last night, when Newt thought he had scored a point in citing Mitt’s investments in Freddie Mac, only to have Mitt tit-for-tat Newt by citing the latter’s investments in the same mortgage company.  That blunted some of Newt’s strike, and really set the tone for the debate.

Let’s be clear here:  Florida was always Romney’s state to lose.  Newt’s only chance was to build off his South Carolina victory with two strong debate performances in order to offset Mitt’s superior organization and resources.  Remember, Mitt has been running television ads in Florida since before South Carolina, and he had a 20% lead in most polls prior to Gingrich’s victory.  Even with two strong debate performances I wasn’t sure Newt could pull this out.  At this point, however – unless I’m missing something – Romney is going to win this by a margin similar to Newt’s victory in South Carolina.

About the only other factor that might upset this outcome is Rick Santorum dropping out and endorsing Newt. Santorum had a very strong performance last night, leading some on-air pundits to speculate that he might have resurrected his candidacy.  But he has run, to my knowledge, no television ads whatsoever in Florida, and in a winner-take-all state (at least so far – there is some debate about whether that might change), he will receive no delegates here.  Indeed, beyond the visibility afforded by the national debates – and the chance to visit his remarkable youthful 93-year-old mother, there is absolutely no incentive for Rick to invest any resources whatsoever in Florida (again assuming they retain the winner-take-all delegate format).   He’s polling at about 12% – that may increase a couple of percentage points as a result of last night, but he’s not in any danger of winning there.   This was all about the road ahead, and I persist in thinking that road leads to only one destination.

So where does the race stand?  Political scientist John Sides posted this self-deprecating piece recently in which he imagined a conversation with a fictional “cranky reader” who took him to task for his failure to adequately forecast how the Republican nomination race was playing out.  And while I have disagreed with John on some aspects of his analysis – particularly the idea that the winnowing of the Republican field would benefit Romney – we shouldn’t lose sight of his larger point.  Journalists, by necessity, must chronicle the daily ebbs and flows of the nomination race, something I pay attention to by virtue of posting on a daily basis (and which I mostly critique.)   As a political scientist, however, John is really taking a longer view of this race, and everything political scientists think they know regarding the nomination process has indicated from the beginning that Mitt Romney should be the eventual nominee.   That’s John’s view and nothing that has happened so far suggests his long-range forecast is wrong, even if the race may not have played out exactly as some of us anticipated.   Contrast that with the bandwagon effect playing out in the punditocracy, which first had Mitt coronated, then after South Carolina was breathlessly speculating about a brokered convention, and after next Tuesday will likely be back to coronating Mitt again.

Nothing is certain in life except death and taxes.  The nomination process is inherently more fluid, and hence less predictable, than the general election.  But it is not a random process – political scientists have some ideas regarding which factors tend to exert the greatest influence on outcomes, even if we aren’t completely certain how they interact over a sequential process that stretches across many months.  Sometimes new variables – say, 18 debates in which one individual generally is superior – can alter the course of the process, at least in the short-term, in unpredictable ways.  But that doesn’t mean we start from scratch every four years and build a new forecast model.  It’s still all about the fundamentals. I’ll develop this notion in a separate post.

A final point.  I have long pushed back against the idea that an extended nomination fight will weaken the eventual Republican nominee by providing fodder for Democrats to use in the general election. Instead, I have said a lengthy process can only strengthen the eventual winner. Last night provides evidence supporting my argument.  Romney has sharpened his defense of what were potential weak points regarding his taxes, and his work at Bain.  He has also become a better debater – as I noted above, Newt struggled in part because Mitt was more effective at parrying Newt’s now somewhat predictable thrusts.  If Newt is to stay in this race, he has to elevate his game as well.  This will be harder to do in the absence of more debates, and with fewer resources on which to draw.  But he has no choice if he wants to remain competitive.

Less than five days before Tuesday’s Florida primary.  Are there any surprises yet in store? Stay tuned.

Live Blogging the Final Florida Debate

(Sorry about the typo-filled email – just predebate jitters…)

It’s hard to underestimate just how important this debate is for both Mitt and Newt.  How big is it?

It’s Tea Party versus Republican Party.

Main St. vs. Wall St.

Insurgency vs. Establishment.

Rotund guy vs. Not rotund guy

Walmart Look vs. GQ Look

Loose vs. Stiff

Button down vs. Button Up.

Many marriages vs. One Marriage

Need I continue?  I thought not.

In short, it’s big.  What must each candidate do?

Newt needs to trigger some audience response with his patented media putdowns/I can’t believe you are asking such a dumb question routine that worked so well in past debates, but which was missing on Monday.  He needs to press Mitt on immigration, and back off of the Bain attacks, using them only in response to Mitt critiquing his Freddie Mac connnections. He wants to be aggressive, but in a sensitive cuddly way.

Meanwhile, Mitt must stay on the offensive, pushing Newt on the lobbying connection, not backing down on his defense of capitalism, and for Pete’s sake having a stock, short, simple and believable answer on his income taxes.

Don’t forget that Santorum and Paul are bookending the two main participants.  Paul has largely moved on from Florida, but the debate matters to him because it is shown nationally.  He’s already looking ahead to Maine and Nevada.  Santorum, meanwhile has to view this as his last shot to gain traction in Florida and justify staying in this race.  If he can’t turn the polling numbers around, he may have to decide when to get out, and who to endorse.

The crowd looks very un-Newt like – lots of formal wear.  They seem ready to make noise, however.

National Anthem time. Once again, the virtual flag. I’m feeling virtually patriotic.  Mitt and Rick sing, Newt and Ron do not. Ron can’t because he’s sucking on a lemon.

Introductions. Rick’s Mom Lives in Florida.    Wow – she looks great!  And gets a huge ovation!   Newt, as always, pushing the local issues.   Did you know Mitt was married?  To the same woman?  And that he has several kids?  Just in case you forgot.

Did you hear Newt’s strategic cough during Ron’ s introduction?

Immigration is a difficult issue here for all candidates.  The safe route is to take the Romney/Santorum position, in the belief that you win more Republicans by being hard on immigration than you potentially lose among Hispanics.  For what it’s worth Romney was leading among Hispanics in recent polls.

Newt is jumping on Romney’s “self-deport” comment.  Look for Mitt to point out that Newt used that phrase once before.  I still don’t think this is a strong point for Mitt.

So, am I right?: is there no applause allowed tonight, or are these answers simply not resonating?

Doesn’t take long for Paul to segue from immigration to reducing our presence overseas.

Wow, cheers for English as the official language.

Mitt is incensed!  I take umbrage!  That over-the-top language is code word for Newt is erratic!  He was well prepared for that.  Mitt is energized very early.  Two strongly worded rebuttals.  Similar to the exchange they had on Monday.  Remember that after that early clash, the animosity petered out.

Ok, now both sides are equally offended.  Good. What about Rick and Ron?

Is it a winning issue to be pro-trade with Cuba at this point? Or does it largely not matter to most Floridians?  I honestly don’t know.

Intense Rick is back.  When he gets ignored, the passion builds and spills out when finally gets to speak.

I’ve said it before, but Paul is quite willing to stick to principle, even if it costs him support among Republicans.

Oooops!  Mitt supposedly never saw the ad – the one that he endorsed.  And once that is made clear, he decides to embrace it.  Will this remind voters of flip-flop Mitt?  The crowd boos!

Let’s see if Newt has a better answer on the Freddie Mac lobbying issue.  And he does!  Romney owns shares in Freddi Mac!  Take that, Mitt – you forecloser!

Again, these are distinctions that may not resonate with everyone in the audience.    Nonetheless, I don’t think this is a winning issue for Newt.

Et tu, Newt! Romney obviously prepared for Newt’s line of attack. Score one for opposition research.

I just don’t think Newt gains much here with this attempt to say he’s not a lobbyist, he’s a consultant.

Interlude:  Let’s sit back and hear Dr. Paul explain how Freddie Mac is linked to currency reform.

Rick steps up to try to elevate this discourse.  Let’s stop the feuding.  Frankly, I think he’s right.  The freddie mac issue has been so thoroughly hashed through that I just don’t think more discussion is going to help anyone.

Break I.

Initial scoring: I think Mitt has been generally a bit more effective than Newt because he’s both been on the offensive, and he obviously has been prepared for Newt’s ripostes.  But once again he comes across as less than authentic in both his feigned ignorance of his own ad, and his attempt to say he has no influence over his investments.

In my view, if Newt was on his game, he should have said he was a tiny cuddly cat, and Mitt was a big donkey.  Much better than mouse and elephant.

Now Newt wants to elevate the discourse, trying to attaboy Rick.  He tries to use the attack the media tactic that has worked so well in the past.

Oops, Mitt ruins the mood, and invites scrutiny of his overseas accounts.   Is this a mistake?  Once again, Mitt seems prepared for this exchange.  And he rejects Newt’s second effort to call a personal truce.  He’s really on the offensive tonight, much as I suggested he should be.  But he’s really on the offensive.  Is it too much?  He’s showing little interest in calling off the attack dogs.

Rick comes out sounding like a moderate on tax policy here – score some points for him.

Once again, if you ignore the suggestion to rescind the 16th amendment, Paul talks just enough sense to potentially attract broader support.

Bet Paul would ride circles around Newt.  And he scores point with the elderly voters.

Cool – space talk! Newt can go wild here.  Moonbase Newt!   He reprises his Lindbergh analogy.

Newt, to his credit, doesn’t back down from his grandiose ideas.  Mitt says it wouldn’t fly in his company.  Just another harebrained scheme – Mitt dresses down Newt for “spending billions of dollars to make people happy”.   We just have to say no.  Again, Mitt has come prepared.  He’s determined to put Newt away tonight.

Ron reprises his claim that when the government gets involved in medicine, costs rise. Not clear how he’s going to rein in those costs.

A better answer for Newt than he’s been giving on other issues.  Romney reprises Newt’s refrain, and equally effectively for this audience.  He’s having a good night.  But will someone go after him on Romneycare?

Yes!  Rick does! and he hits Newt too – Rick is also having a good night – passionate, energized, but not angry.

Mitt consulted with the “citizens of the nation” in Massachusetts? Rick has his teeth on Mitt’s leg and will not let go. Mitt’s response here really fudges the issue – the nuances he is trying to identify are not going to sell well.  Rick is on fire here.

“It’s not worth getting angry here”?!   Wow, how patronizing can Mitt be? He’s been showing a real mean streak here.  This is a winning issue for Rick – and Newt benefits while Rick does his heavy lifting.

(Newt really likes Ron – he laughs at all of Ron’s zingers tonight.  But can he win over his supporters in Florida?)

BREAK

Thoughts? It seems to me that there’s been some heated exchanges, but it has also been something of a disjointed debate as well.  Some exchanges went on too long, and others not long enough.  I don’t know whether I blame Wolf for this.  I think Mitt has continued the strategy he unveiled on Monday, which is to attack Newt on every issue as frequently as possible, in an effort keep Newt on the defensive and to hammer home the idea that Gingrich is erratic, with a record that simply won’t sell in the general election.  I don’t think Newt has responded all that well, and in a state that is already predisposed to Mitt, this is not going to help the cause.  That’s my early read.

Mitt has demonstrated in his asides tonight that he continues to be tone deaf on personal interaction – notice the inadvertent dismissing of Ron’s ode to his wife.

Ok, I suppose this question tells us something.  (Although I think I agree with Jeff that there probably was a more useful way to fill this time.)  Rick’s answer struck a nice balance, emotionally, I think.  Just when he was in danger of bringing everyone down he lightened it up.

Mitt misses an opportunity to take Gingrich to task for his claims to be channeling Reagan – but maybe he thinks Newt is on solid ground here?   Newt evidently thinks so –  and he doesn’t miss a chance to blame the “Romney attack machine” for casting doubt on this claim.

I was wondering when this Cuban issue would come up.  Paul has already made it clear by his comments regarding trade with Cuba that he’s basically ignoring Florida.  My assumption of course is support for keeping trade sanctions on a Castro-controlled Cuba is popular in Florida, but I confess I don’t know how widespread that view is there.  But I’m guessing Rick and Mitt’s views regarding Cuba having wider support here than does Paul’s.

Finally, Newt find his old mojo on this answer on Cuba.

This question from Abraham is going to elicit an interesting response.  I don’t think he’s going to be very happy with Mitt’s response. Nor with Newt’s.  Both answers are indicators of the size of the Palestinian vote.  Again, Newt has an applause line. Where has he been hiding?

How would your religious beliefs affect your behavior in office?  Paul: it wouldn’t.  Mitt: I’m a Christian!  (Who speaks to ….uh….Providence).  America the Missionary.

Newt has a chance here to play up his conversion.  Instead, proving he’s smarter than me, he uses it to point out the secular elite’s “war on religion”.    Third strong response in a row.  Newt finishing stronger than he started – will it be enough?

Strong answer from Rick.  He’s having a great debate.  Were the pundits (including me) too quick to write him off?  Remember, most of his gains will be Newt’s losses.

BREAK

Tough to score this one.  After the disjointed start, I think everyone has picked it up.  Mitt’s been generally strong, with the exception of his typical tone-deaf slips that periodically reveal a different Mitt, and again raise questions about his authenticity.

Final question: prove your electability against Obama.

Paul, not surprisingly, bases his candidacy on the libertarian principles that have guided him so far.

Romney:  I’m an outsider who will bring real change.  I have the right experience.  Boilerplate for him, but it is also a solid response.

Newt:  Ah, finally – the grandkid reference I said Newt needed!  He needs to step it up with this final answer.   Did he do enough?  He seems not quite as energetic as I’ve seen him in previous debates.

Rick understands that in his position, his answer has to be as much about what’s wrong with Newt and Mitt as it is what’s right with him.

And that’s it.  The final debate before Florida votes on Tuesday.  Mitt’s new debate coach clearly told him to step up the energy, and to focus more on attacking Newt.  I think it unsettled Newt a bit early and although Newt came back, this might not have been enough to change the polling trend in Florida.  Romney may have turned a few voters  off, but it probably was worth it if it prevented Newt from scoring points.  On the whole, then, I don’t think this did enough for Newt, which means Mitt is the default winner.

The other wildcard, of course, is whether Rick’s strong performance will give him a boost, and if so, does that also blunt any potential gains by Newt?   Finally, we need to remember that although Paul is not going to compete in Florida, his debate performance is being watched by caucus goers in Nevada and Maine.  I think he did well by those who are likely to have an affinity with his views.

Let’s see how the Talking Heads respond.   Never mind.  The first segment on CNN is about themselves – how Wolf didn’t back down to Newt.  Sigh.  I guess that’s the signal to wrap this up.

Thanks again for all your comments.  I’ll be on tomorrow with the post-debate spin.

Now, go pour a scotch – you’ve all earned it.

Wait, before you go!  It’s probably interesting to guess what the media will choose as the representative segment that will be replayed endlessly in the next few days.  I have to think it will be the Newt-Mitt exchange on the Freddie Mac investments, and the following one on immigration.  The third possibility will be Rick dumping on both of them.  Finally, a few of Paul’s jokes will be sprinkled in.  But in contrast to previous debates I don’t think there are any made for YouTube moments that Newt will be using against Mitt.

Bottom line:  assuming there’s not a backlash against Mitt’s sometimes harsh demeanor, and his often patronizing tones, I think he probably helped himself the most.  With five days left and no more debates, I think it may be enough to prevent any reversal in the most recent polling trends.

 

 

 

Mitt Gains, Newt Complains: Previewing Tonight’s Florida Debate

As we get ready for tonight’s critical Republican debate, the polls in Florida are volatile, but the overall picture suggests Romney is gaining support while Gingrich stays flat.

On Monday, an Insider Advantage poll had Gingrich up 34.4-25.6% over Romney.  Today, the latest InsiderAdvantage poll (taken yesterday) has the positions reversed, with Romney beating Gingrich 40.3-32.3% – a net gain for Romney of almost 17% in about four days.  In looking at the crosstabs, I don’t see any major demographic differences in the two polls except for an increase in the number of younger Hispanics who responded to the most recent poll.

Meanwhile, a Rasmussen poll also from yesterday shows a similar dynamic with Romney gaining 8% in four days to lead Gingrich 39-31%.  Santorum is at 12% and Paul at 9%.  It appears, then, that Gingrich is holding steady in Florida, but that the undecideds are breaking for Romney – the mirror image of what we saw happen in South Carolina.  It is tempting to attribute some of Romney’s gain to Tuesday’s debate performance, but although I thought Mitt did slightly better than Newt, particularly in the exchange over Fannie Mae, I can’t be sure that particular moment, or the debate more generally, is the primary factor driving the Mittster’s rise.

It may instead simply be the case that as voters begin paying attention to the race in these last days, they are moving toward that candidate who is closest to their political leanings. As I’ve noted before, Florida is a more diverse state, ideologically, than is South Carolina, and one that, on paper, looked more favorable to Romney because of the greater number of moderates and transplants from the North.  Fully half the Florida respondents in this earlier PPP poll said they would not describe themselves “as Southerners”, compared to 48% who said they would.  Romney led Gingrich among the non-Southerners by 37-33%, but trailed badly among southerners to Gingrich by 43-28%.  Similarly, Newt has a positive favorable/unfavorable ratio among Southerners, but not among non-Southerners; the ratios are reversed for Mitt, who is viewed unfavorably more by Southerners.

Remember, Romney did relatively well in Florida in 2008, winning 31% of the vote compared to McCain’s 37%, and that was with Rudy Giuliani, who presumably might have competed with Romney for some votes, pulling down 15%.  He did particularly well in the northeast portion of the state surrounding Jacksonville, as well as along the southern Gulf coast. On the other hand, Mike Huckabee, the conservative in the field, only pulled in 14% in 2008.  Based on his earlier performance, and the state’s demographics, one would expect Romney to be the favorite coming into Tuesday’s primary. The big question was how much of a boost Gingrich might get coming out of South Carolina.

All this sets the stage for tonight’s crucial debate, the final one before the primary on Tuesday. (Yes, I’ll be live blogging the event.)  Although Romney is gaining, the situation remains fluid, with both polls indicating that about 6-8% of respondents are still undecided, and about a fifth say they could still change their mind.  One issue Gingrich should worry about is a pronounced gender gap among Florida voters; all three recent polls show him doing substantially better among men than women. I think he’ll need to have his “grandfather” credentials on full display tonight, with many references to his grandkids, daughters, and new found maturity.  (Motto: I put the “New” in Newt.)

But I think he also needs a new response to Romney’s attacks on his lobbying for Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae.  The “I was just a historian” response just doesn’t cut it.  For starters, few historians get paid that much (to say nothing of political science professors, who often work for free – but don’t get me started).  Perhaps the best defense is a strong offense, along the lines of “My work for Fannie Mae was similar to your work for Bain.”

Of course, Newt’s team complained bitterly that the “no applause” rule in effect on Monday’s debate prevented their candidate from building momentum based on the crowd reaction to the Newtism’s that played so well in previous debates.  The lack of audible crowd noise was the equivalent of clapping with Mitts on.  We’ll see if that policy is changed for tonight.

The debate is on CNN, starting at 8 p.m.  As always, I invite you to join in the excitement. So warm your keyboards, locate the remote, and leave your mittens off.  I’ll be on at about 7:50. Hope to see you then.

The State Of The Race In Florida, Post-Debate (And The State Of The Union)

So many events, so little time.  Between the debates, primaries results, polls and now the State of the Union, I’m hard pressed to keep up with my day job.  But we soldier on, in the belief that these posts bring a ray of sunshine into what may otherwise be a dreary day. Buck up America! It’s election season!

To begin, Bert Johnson and I have our post-South Carolina video comments up online here for your viewing pleasure.

Meanwhile, the immediate post-debate reaction among the pundits seems consistent with my insta-analysis from last night: that it likely didn’t do much to affect the polling trajectory there that, so far, has Gingrich climbing into a lead over Romney, with Paul and Santorum trailing far behind.  Shortly after I posted yesterday, PPP did release their first post-South Carolina Florida poll which shows Gingrich leading Romney 38% to 33%, with 13% for Rick (“I am not a headless chicken”) Santorum, and 10% for Ron Paul. (PPP surveyed 921 likely Republican primary voters on January 22nd and 23rd. The margin of error for the survey is +/-3.2%.) In looking at the PPP crosstabs, a couple of interesting items are worth mentioning.

First, consistent with my prior analysis (but not with that of most other political scientists), the polling data suggests that Gingrich, and not Romney, will benefit if Santorum, the other remaining conservative, drops out. Santorum supporters choose Gingrich over Romney 50-23% as their second choice, and if Santorum is dropped from the field of candidates, Gingrich’s lead grows to 43-36%.

Q9 If the candidates for President were just Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?

If Newt Gingrich, press 1.

If Ron Paul, press 2. If Mitt Romney, press 3.

If you’re not sure, press 4.

Gingrich …………………………………………………. 43%

Paul ………………………………………………………. 12%

Romney …………………………………………………. 36%

Not Sure…………………………………………………. 9%

If I’m Newt, I am making kissy noises at Santorum all this week, in the hope I can get benefit from an endorsement when Santorum concedes the race, as he inevitably will.  (Interestingly, Paul’s supporters are evenly divided between Newt and Mitt as their second choice, at 41% a piece.)

Second, PPP finds that 16% of respondents have already voted in Florida.  This is consistent with the number I’ve heard elsewhere.  Among those, Romney has a slight lead, 43-40%, over Gingrich. This gives him a bit of a cushion against a late surge towards Gingrich, but only if the race is close.

Third, and in a sign of just how much success begets success, Gingrich is now viewed as equally likely as Romney to defeat Obama.  This is consistent with Gallup’s results at the national level which I reported yesterday.

Q10 Which of the Republican candidates do you think has the best chance of defeating Barack Obama?

Newt Gingrich …………………………………………. 37%

Ron Paul ………………………………………………… 5%

Mitt Romney……………………………………………. 37%

Rick Santorum………………………………………… 6%

Someone else/Not sure …………………………… 14%

Remember, about 25% of likely Republican primary voters in Florida support the Tea Party, and fully 44% describe themselves as evangelicals Christians.  Tea partiers support Gingrich over Romney 46-20%, but 21% support Santorum.  If he drops out, these Tea Partiers are likely to throw their support to Gingrich. Among evangelical Christians, Newt leads 42-23% over Mitt, with Santorum at 18%.  So much for the argument that Gingrich’s “baggage” will make him unacceptable to the religious right.

It is still relatively early in the Florida race to be drawing firm conclusions, particularly with another debate coming on Thursday.  But notice the RealClearPolitics aggregate polling in South Carolina leading up to Newt’s resounding win there on Saturday (Gingrich=Green, Romney=Purple, Paul=Yellow, Santorum=Brown).

Now look at the current polling trends in Florida (same color scheme).

Yikes! It’s deja vu all over again!  If I’m Mitt Romney, the parallels between South Carolina and Florida – Newt’s surge to the top, his polling collapse, and his resurgence – would make me uneasy enough to want to change tactics and disrupt the dynamics before Newt pulls off another Bachmann miracle.  That means going negative bigtime, a la Iowa, and another nasty debate performance on Thursday.

Meanwhile, we have the State of the Union tonight.  Remember, these speeches typically serve primarily as an agenda-setting device. Presidents tend not to get any lasting polling bump out of them, and because the viewing audience tends to self-select toward the President’s supporters, reviews tend to be favorable. In an election year, however, the dynamics change just a bit because the speech often serves as preview of the President’s coming electoral strategy.  So this one may have a bit more bite in it than we normally see in one of these staged events.  I look for Obama to lay out some of the campaign themes for the coming year: the need for fairness, a recitation of some of his accomplishments, and a laundry list of items he’d like to see passed as a way of putting down an election year marker by which to paint the Republicans as obstructionist.  I’ll be interested to see who the “man in the balcony” will  be this time around.  Bet it won’t be Tim Thomas!

While I’ll certainly be watching the affair, I wasn’t planning on live blogging unless you, our blogging community, wants the opportunity to participate. If so, I’ll fire up the ‘ol keyboard, pour a scotch, and go at it.  Let me know.

Live Blogging the Florida Debate

Seems like we’ve done this once or twice, or 16 times before.  But here we are again….as always, join in on the comments section if you are so inclined.

As I noted in the previous post, I have to think the dynamics of this might be different, if only because Romney can’t continue acting as if he’s the front runner who only has to attack Obama.  But it will also change because Florida has a different electorate – more diverse economically, ethnically and racially.

Brian Williams is moderating – I think this is his first hosting job in a long while.  Keep in mind that Paul is not competing in Florida, so his messages will be directed at the upcoming caucus states as much or more so than on Florida.

9:05 – Williams wastes no time in getting to the questions.  Is Gingrich electable?  Note that Romney’s negative line of attack in campaigning has been to stress Newt’s instability, and whether that makes him less likely to win election.

Newt is trying to inoculate himself against the ethics-driven decision to resign his Congress seat – Newt did the “honorable” thing and took responsibility for the 1998 election debacle.

Romney is not deterred – The Speaker is an “influence peddler” who resigned in “disgrace”.  Sitting with Nancy Pelosi on a sofa!   The imagined visuals are arresting.  For a Mormon, them’s really fighting words.

Interesting role reversal here – Newt trying to keep to the high road.

9:09 Can Mitt win the conservative vote?  Bad question Brian – in case you didn’t realize it, Newt resigned in disgrace!  Did I say that before?  And did I mention his lobbying?  No more Mr. Mitt-Guy!   He’s on the attack…

Wow, talk about a role reversal – now Mitt says he’s not going to unilaterally disarm?  Didn’t Newt just say that before South Carolina?  Is Santorum or Paul even on stage?

Ah, here’s the headless, er…. Rick Santorum.  What is his path to victory?  He’s got plans. Williams point out he got crushed in his last Senate race.  Rick is proud that he stood up and got crushed…much like he’s probably doing now.  (Of course, he doesn’t say he was elected in the Newt-inspired Republican sweep in 1994.  Political winds can push you up and they can bring you down.)

Paul’s point regarding Iowa is completely true – the caucus results hardly matter in terms of delegates at this point.

Interesting here that Newt and Ron are making kissy-kissy.  This isn’t the first time that Newt has reached out to Paul’s voters – this is crucially important in Florida since Paul is not competing in this winner-take-all state.

Couple of you have noted just how quiet the crowd is.  Not sure what the explanation is.

9:23 Williams probes Romney on taxes.  Again, Romney’s not so fluid on this.  Why the heck is he pointing out that he won’t pay a dollar more than he owes – he doesn’t think the public wants a president who pays more than they owe?  What does that mean?  For a smart guy, Romney can be remarkably tone deaf.

Wow, why is Romney pointing out that he only pays capital gains tax?   And why is he balking at the 12 years?  For someone who is trying to put an issue behind him, he’s saying things that will keep it in the public eye.

Oh my.  Going on about how he had to pull himself up by his gucci boot straps is not really selling well, I don’t think.  He sounds like he’s apologizing for his wealth even when he says he’s not apologizing.  Again, the divide here is that he’s speaking the language of Wall St. – not Main St.   He talks investment – Joe Sixpack thinks in terms of jobs.  He’s not making this connection very well.

9:28  I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: the distinction between lobbying and consulting is lost on most people.  I guess Newt has to make the case, but I can’t believe he really wants to discuss this point.  If it walks, quacks, ….etc.

Romney sees this as well.  He’s not going to let it go.  Newt should just say yes, I misspoke, I wasn’t a historian, I was a consultant.  Let’s agree on that and move on.

Wow, is this badgering by Mitt working? Now I wonder if he’s pushing this too far.

Uh oh, Medicare is the third rail of politics in Florida.  Romney is going to hammer away on this premise.

Uh, Brian – aren’t you a moderator? Do something!

Phew!

BREAK

Santorum is ready to go into Rick-Rage I bet, while Paul could be asleep.  This is actually a riveting exchange between Mitt and Newt, and it is following exactly along the lines I suggested Mitt had to utilize – hammer away at Gingrich’s record, particularly the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac ties – a sensitive topic in Florida where the housing crash was particularly severe. But he’s not very smooth when he attacks and even here he seems driven by polling more than genuine outrage at Newt.  You have to be able to fake sincerity, and he doesn’t do it well.

(Is the flag lapel new for Rick?)

I don’t think everyone follows Paul’s reasoning, but they like the tune.  Every fifth phrase resonates – “erase debt”, “closed doors”, …. .  But the finer points of free markets?   Not so much.

Finally someone pushes back on the idea that if Dodd-Frank is repealed, good things will follow. What about prior to Dodd-Frank?

Good, Williams get it and pushes.  See?  Romney actually has a response, but until Williams pushed him, you wouldn’t know what types of regulations he would support.

Williams:  Isn’t Fidel Castro out of power?

First applause of the night: Fidel going “to another, uh, land”.   Cuba is the ‘red meat’ of Florida’s Republic Hispanic voters.  Newt one ups Mitt on where Fidel should go after death.   Not a lot of daylight between Mitt and Newt on the post-Fidel era.  Let’s ask Paul what he thinks.  Paul gets some applause, but it’s really a dated response.  The Cuba issue has less to do with the Cold War and more about the post-Fidel era.

9:51 Closing the Strait of Hormuz.   How to respond?  Gives Mitt a chance to rip Obama for his proposed defense cuts.  I’m guessing we’ll get some attaboys from Newt and Rick seconding Mitt’s declaration that would be an act of war.

Still, Newt has  a way of couching his answer to make it more interesting than when Mitt does it.  “Americans don’t want to go to war….but…”

Paul’s blockade analogy never gets at why someone puts a blockade in place.  Presumably the cause matters when trying to decide whether the blockade is just.  This is where he’s really closer to Democrats than Republicans.

BREAK TWO – 9:56 p.m.

So far, Rick’s has been overshadowed – he’s going to have to pick up his participation by trying to force is way into the conversation.  After that initial clash, which I guess Mitt gained the most from, both he and Newt have been relatively tame.  Paul has been Paul – not changing minds either way.   I think Newt has been on the defensive a bit more than Mitt, but I’m not sure Mitt has come across as any more likable.

Williams start by giving Rick a chance to go nuclear.

Reinhardt is a National Journal reporter, but she has local roots. Let’s see what the local angle is.   Good question – how to balance keystone vs. clean waters.  Nice answer by Rick I thought.

Another great question – English only?  If so, why do you speak “campaignese” in many languages.  I think Newt’s answer is both politically acceptable and actually makes sense. Mitt agrees.  So does Paul, at least regarding a single national language, but he grants exceptions for state-based allowances on local ballots.

The Dream Act – at some point someone has to press Romney on his immigration policy.  It could be a sensitive point for him in Florida.

Adam Smith picks up my point.   Self-deportation? Is that a formal policy? I don’t think that’s going to play.  This is not a great answer for Mitt.  But Rick doesn’t really make an issue of it – he’s a hardliner on this issue as well.

10:12 Smith – Will you end sugar subsidies?  Gingrich says the beet sugar vs. cane sugar story is fascinating. Is it?  Does anyone get that answer?  I don’t.  What’s the difference?  Did he just dodge this issue?

Mitt decides to answer his own question, based on his conversations with 8 people.  Eight? Is that a lot?  No plans for NASA?  Where did this come from?  It sounds like he’s decided to get all his talking points out before time runs out.

Smith: rebuilding the Everglades.  Do you think Paul has any knowledge about this issue?  Didn’t sound too convincing to me. I think he’s already thinking about Maine’s shipyards.  He’s pretty much written Florida off, judging by his acknowledgment that he’s not up on the Cuban issue.

BREAK FOUR

This has calmed down considerably.  It’s hard to tell how this is playing before a Florida audience, in part because that audience is so variegated.  There’s not one dominant perspective.

10:20 A Terry Schiavo question?  I guess it’s a good way to get Santorum to reconcile his interventionist policy in her case versus his state’s right stance.  Santorum seems to give a sound answer. I’m not from Florida, but is this issue still resonating?

As always, Gingrich is able to frame this issue in a way that makes his response, however simplistic, seem eminently reasonable:  didn’t she deserve the appeal protection that we give death row prisoners?

Reinhardt:  I love the space program – but should it be a priority in a time of looming deficits?  I want Newt to talk about building a moon base!

This is the type of area where Big-Think Newt can shine.  I want him to riff here……hmmm,  offering prizes, space stations, moonbases – “incentivizing visionaries”… classic Newt. Rocketman!

BREAK FIVE

10:28  I’m assuming we get closing statements?  My instant read is this debate, by itself, is not going to drive opinion in any single direction.  Nor will it firm up opinions. I see this as an opening skirmish in which candidates try out strategies to see what works and what doesn’t. In that vein, I think Newt has to shore up his Freddie Mac defense and his “why I left Congress answer”.  Mitt is still weak on taxes, and on his defense of wealth more generally.  But there’s only so much one can do about some of these things.  Mitt will never be warm and lovable. Newt can’t explain Freddie Mac, or three marriages, or his ethics charges, completely away.

Final question: prove your conservative bona fides.

Romney: raised five kids. Balanced a budget in Massachusetts.  (Massachusetts as a model?  Does he mean health care?  Oops!)

Newt: I worked with a lot of cool Republicans.  Talked about big ideas.  Developed a conservative movement.  I think that latter point – building the Republican party so that it could retake Congress  – is one of his stronger point.  He needs to play that up.

Santorum (interesting that Williams basically tees this one up for him!):  Gingrich is pro-health mandates.  Mitt is for cap-and-trade.  They aren’t true conservatives. Wall St. bailouts backed by Mitt.  This is a line of attack Rick has to take.  Still, I see that headless chicken  running…..but I’m surprised Newt and Mitt don’t adopt more of the Tea Party populist rhetoric.

Paul – His answer gets to the essence of his candidacy: he’s a different type of conservative.  He’s a libertarian conservative.  This is really a very telling answer.  And it gets applause.

Romney: Kennedy had to take a mortgage out to defeat me?  Is this a real selling point?  I’ve said it before, but sometimes he just seems so politically tone deaf.  At least he has his answer to Romneycare down.

Gingrich: do you see what he’s doing here?  He is laying the foundation for getting Santorum voters (and Paul’s too) when they drop out – he’s trying to isolate Romney’s support to the Wall St.   crowd.

Romney: Nice start: “We are still a great nation”.     His seven-point plan is another nice touch, except his claim to oppose crony capitalism rings a little hollow.

And that’s it!  10:42 and it’s all over.

I gave my summary a bit earlier, so rather than repeat it, let me just summarize the summary: I don’t think this was a defining debate.  Instead, I think it is better viewed as an opening skirmish. Both sides will go home, see what their focus polls and surveys show, and recalibrate for Thursday’s debate.  Now, it’s time for the spin game.

Thoughts?

A couple of things to keep in mind.  Clearly, one aspect of Romney’s strategy is to try to portray Gingrich as unstable, erratic, prone to fits of grandiosity.  But that aspect of the attack didn’t seem to work.  Mitt scored points, but Newt seemed able to appear poised, basically suggesting that he wasn’t going to sink to Mitt’s level.  The second point to remember is that Gingrich has the polling momentum.  It’s not enough for Mitt to trade blows – he has to bring Newt down, and reverse the momentum.  Nothing that happened tonight did that, in my view.

Third point: I thought it was interesting that Newt pushed Mitt on whether Bain worked with the government which Romney denied.  I’m wondering what Mitt’s tax forms are going to show when he releases them, and how far back he’s going to go, and whether he also has some government contracts in Bain’s past.

Fourth – In terms of made-for-YouTube moments, I thought Mitt produced more of them with his weird “accusation” that under Newt’s tax plan he’d pay zero taxes!  Is that a slam against Newt – or a reminder that Mitt pays only 15% because his income is all taxed as capital gains?

Finally, I don’t think Rick did nearly enough to convince me he has a viable way forward.  Newt is clearly trying to extend the olive branch to both of them.  Is there something going on behind the scenes?

Questions, questions…..we’ll try to answer some tomorrow.

As always, great participation.  Good to see new people joining in!

More tomorrow….time now for a scotch. You’ve earned it.

Don’t forget: State of the Union tomorrow night. The fun just won’t stop.