I don't think Trump came across that well at all; for the most part, the others on the stage dominated policy discussions--I saw legitimate multi-part debates arise, which I think made for a better debate than the first one. Off the top of my head, I honestly think Rand Paul won the night, although I have a couple of problems with a couple of his responses (birthright citizenship, vaccinations); better than expected: Rubio, Christie, Bush. Worse than expected: Fiorina, Carson. I'm really pissed off at the relevant GOP candidates who seemed to back some variation of a minimum wage increase. More detailed discussion later.Trump displayed several instances of his signature obnoxiousness, e.g., when he said that Fiorina wasn't a good enough executive to work for him. He did make an attempt to make it look like he was one of the guys, e.g., at one point an improbable high five with Jeb Bush, and he seemed to backtrack on some of his insults, at one point praising Fiorina's looks (after mocking them in an earlier photo opp, i.e., something like "would you vote for someone who looks like that?") To me it came across as insincere, forced, calculated and manipulative.
For some reason (probably Paul, next to Jindal, being the most vocal critic of Trump), Trump openly questioned Paul's being included in the debate, holding maybe 1% of the vote. Whereas Paul is struggling, the RCP gives Paul an average of 3.3%, as good or better than Fiorina, Walker, Kasich and Christie, also on stage. At a time when he and Carson are taking half of the overall poll support, the remaining 15 (14 after Perry's withdrawal) splitting the other half. There are some signs that Trump is peaking, with Carson drawing within 4% in the latest CBS poll. Did anyone have a breakout performance like Fiorina had (I haven't watched yet) during the overflow debate at FNC? No. I think the others made Trump look thin on policy; it might slightly dampen his current standing. I do think Bush comes across as the most Presidential in demeanor, but he's struggling with a Bush fatigue electorate and he hasn't found the knockout punch for Trump.
Did anyone change minds? I'm not sure the Trump cultists found any reason to desert him, although they might find his hint to bring back many of who Trump wants deported troubling. I did find it refreshing that Carly Fiorina refuted Trump's ludicrous claim that without him, the GOP would not be talking about unauthorized immigration; I've repeatedly pointed that out--in fact, I've pointed out Trump himself blamed. Romney's restrictionist policy for his 2012 election loss, there were two failed immigration reform attempts in Bush's second term, Pete Wilson raised the issue during his gubernatorial run in the 1990's (which, except for the Governator, has resulted in Democrat dominance in statewide office since).
A number of sources are calling Fiorina the winner (e.g., National Review). Don't get me wrong; I do think Fiorina scored some good points; I think she really connected with the discussion of having lost a child to (prescription) drug abuse, her climbing the corporate ladder to the top is Americana at its best, she is very well organized and prepared with bulleted items for questions (consider her list for building up the military with ships, planes, etc.), and she got the better of her exchanges with the schoolboy bully Trump. However, I heavily docked her on a couple of grounds: first, I thought she was far too defensive, too many excuses about her termination as HP's CEO, and second, I did not like her "I will not talk to Putin" grandstanding. I thought she was evasive ("let the voters decide") on whether Trump's demeanor was Presidential. I really didn't get a good sense of her political philosophy and policy priorities, how she positioned her candidacy apart from the rest of the field: I heard too many repeated sound bites.
Carson did not have a good night. I've found some of his positions, like running drones along the southern border, potentially troubling. Any faithful reader know that I'm firmly against government constraints on compensation; minimum wage laws are unnecessary barriers to lower-skilled/inexperienced employment. Take away the only leverage such a worker has to attract employers (unlike the top 97% or so of workers above the minimum wage) is morally reprehensible. Carson shows himself to be an economic illiterate on principle, although I do give him credit for understanding the disparate adverse effect on younger workers with a lower starter wage nuance. This is one of those things which make sound economic policy very unpopular; even some red states approved minimum-wage hikes.
The CNN moderators did an interesting point pairing contrasting talking points, say, Rand Paul vs. a neo-con on foreign policy, and playing the candidates off each other. It worked--probably too well as many others wanted in on the exchange. I am not going to review each exchange in detail but I want to highlight a few points of discussion.
Towards the end of the debate, this question was asked, slightly paraphrased, "How will the world look different after you leave office?". Somehow the question got morphed into something like "Why do you want to be President?" Rand Paul and others gave very eloquent responses, but I would have said something different, e.g., "I see an America that is at peace and prosperous, where the federal government restores a more constitutional balance with the states and the people. I see a country that is ready to address unsustainable spending, debt, and unfunded liabilities. I see a country focused more on liberalization of trade than meddling in regional conflicts, where the 3 branches of government live within their constitutional limits."
Rand Paul had a very good night reinforcing his pro-liberty message on foreign policy, the need to restraint the prosecution of victimless crimes, etc.; this is probably more important to those of us who are libertarian and have been worried about his attempts to broaden his appeal, e.g., his support for the war on ISIS vs. a more restrained foreign policy which is focused on more direct threats to the US. That being said, I worry that he has an uphill battle winning over a majority of GOP voters who have become used to neocon policies. I have to ding him on birthright citizenship and his discussion of vaccines.
Birthright citizenship evolved from the 'jus soli' tradition in English common law, part of our legal heritage; let's note that almost universally in the Western Hemisphere, with immigrant roots, (contrary to Trump's wrong assertion on Mexico) birthright citizenship is practiced. Now the GOP-controlled Congress, after the Civil War, could have simply granted citizenship to former slaves (which they did in the Civil Rights Act of 1866); note, of course, that native slaves should have been citizens already by jus soli. The GOP wanted to ensure that future Congresses or the courts (re. Dred Scott) couldn't revert such actions. That was a motivation for the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Any attempt to describe the citizenship only reflected former slaves ignores the very wording and discussion in both the Civil Rights Act and the Amendment:
During the original congressional debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." According to historian Glenn W. LaFantasie of Western Kentucky University, "A good number of his fellow senators supported his view of the citizenship clause." Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.We are talking about " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside". As described above, the exception refers to things like diplomatic immmunity, occupation military forces, and the like; unauthorized aliens generally are not here under the direction of some foreign power and are subject to the laws of the US, e.g., the recent murder of a young woman in San Francisco by an unauthorized immigrant. As otherwise noted, a relevant SCOTUS decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark , Ark, the native son of two Chinese immigrants barred from citizenship, found himself barred from reentering the US after a trip abroad, and successfully sued to get his citizenship recognized. Now Paul and others will point out that Ark's parents weren't unauthorized (we had open immigration policies at the time), but the salient point is that the families, regardless of the legal status of parents, are subject to American laws.
I wrote a few posts earlier this year, refuting the anti-vaxxers; Paul doesn't like for the State to compel vaccination. The issue, for me, is the nature of contagion; in libertarian circles, there's the non-aggression principle. The problem is not so much the government wanting to save you from your own self-destructive decisions, but your threatening the health of people who cannot be vaccinated for personal tolerance issues.
Finally, Trump was asked about means-testing social security to make it more sustainable. He wanted to make it voluntary. Funny, I don't recall his wealth tax or higher taxes on hedge fund managers being voluntary...
My personal ranking of best showing by rank order in decreasing sequence:
- Rand Paul
- Marco Rubio
- Chris Christie
- Jeb Bush
- Ted Cruz
- Scott Walker
- Mike Huckabee
- John Kasich
- Carly Fiorina
- Ben Carson
- Donald Trump
