I found the debate playing on my local CW station, the affiliate of NewsNation. . I think the latter is the new home of fired CNN anchor Chris Cuomo. The last time i checked it wasn't in my cable bundle. I was surprised to see former FNC host/podcaster Megyn Kelly on the list of moderators.
On a more personal note, i've gotten harassed in varying degrees by all the candidates (plus Trump, who of course has refused to participate in any of the debates--and it hasn't affected his position in the polls) except for Christie. Trump and DeSantitis have mostly spammed my core email account. For the most part, Gmail does a good job filtering those out. In the case of Haley, it's spam cellphone text messages. I still don't know what motivates those; I lived in SC only for a year or so, that was over 7 years ago--and I was not and haven't been politically active. Ramaswamy has been the most annoying with unsolicited cellphone calls. I've probably blocked at least a handful of phone numbers to date.
The general state of the race shows Trump at a dominating 60% or more of the vote, DeSantis at about 13%, Haley at 11%, Ramaswamy 5%, and Christie at about 2-3% . The perception has been Haley has been getting some momentum out of the debates at DeSantis' expense. There are some situations where Haley has improved to a lead over DeSantis, e.g.. NH and SC, and she's closing the gap in IA. Christie also is improving in NH. I don't see Ramaswamy placing in any early state. There are some signs that DeSantis has lost some big donor support while Koch associates are apparently putting resources behind Haley.
I'm not going to do a detailed analysis on this debate like I did in the last one, in part because I don't think the questions really broke new ground and there was a lot of expected interpersonal bickering as they compete to be the final alternative to Trump. There was a transparent attempt to encourage the candidates to go after Trump. The candidates have done so in their own nuanced fashions in past debates, with Christie being the most direct. Haley has talked about Trump having been the right choice in 2016. She has been highly critical over Trump's $7.8T addition to the national debt, and she has pointed out she outperforms Trump in pairwise polls against Biden and does better with female voters. DeSantis has pointed out that Trump is constitutionally limited to one more term. He has emphasized his relative youth and emphasized his results-based leadership record in Florida (vs. Trump's failed wall and Mexican financing promises)--not to mention he's the only candidate who has worn a military uniform. Ramaswamy emphasizes he is one of the youngest candidates to have ever run for POTUS as a Republican and argues he can build on the Trump base with younger voters. Part of the ptoblem is that the party base is intolerant of those criticizing Trump, and in part that has driven up Christie's unfavorables, something the debate moderators specifically addressed in discssing his viability as a candidate.
I thought this was one of the better debates in terms of letting the candidates interact with and challenge each other. Unfortunately, part of that was interpersonal bickering. DeSantis and Ramaswamy both targeted Haley, perhaps in recognition to her recent momentum. Between DeSantis and Haley, there have been counter-claims as to their tenures as governors, e.g., as being China-friendly for business investment, in a current anti-China environment (Taiwan, COVID-19, industrial policy, etc.). Ramaswamy channeled his inner asshole, e.g., dismissing Christie with a passing reference to the Fort Lee lane closure scandal. He directly accused Haley of corruption, having enriched herself from near personal bankruptcy in the aftermath of her UN ambassador stint under Trump with lucrative corporate board seats with Boeing and speaking tours (including a passive comparativereference to the Clintons as I recall). I think Haley responded by pointing out she resigned her seat over Boeing's decision to seek a COVID-19 relief bailout.
I don't think the moderators really questioned Rmaswamy''s lack of public sector execuve experience vs. the 3 former/current governors. Ramaswamy was probably most effective in distinguishing his non-interventionist foreign policy vs. his opponents' "neo-con" perspective. He was particularly strident and abrasive, basically accepting Russian talking points on Ukraine (in fact, he does a NIGYSOB on Christie, childishly daring him to name 3 Russo-ethnic separatist regions in Ukraine). He wants to link his opponents to Bush's multi-trillion Gulf Region wars and unaffordable blank checks to Ukraine et al., ignoring Ukraine's rampant corruption and antidemocratic policies. Ramaswamy argues he's effectively the new face of Trumpist populism and his opponents represent the failed GOP estalishment.
DeSantis comes across as prepared, organized, detailed, and decisive. The problem is I disagree with a number of positions he's taking, including possible military incursions into Mexico over immigration and an asserted link to fentanyl. He seems to have a vested interest in an imperial Presidency. He has also taken more of vaccine-skeptic stand. I'm also not sure his combative cultue warrior style will work in a closely split hyperpolitical Congress versus the GOP-controlled Florida legislature. He is shrugging off recent polls pointing out the 2022 polls didn't live up to an expected Biden mid-term reversal.
Haley tried to assume a more frontrunner/leader status by constantly contrasting herself to Biden versus her fellow debaters, e.g., it's Biden's flood of immigrants, Biden's dubious foreign policy on Iran, etc. She was still trying trying to recover from her past proposal to ban anonymous social media content, which likely would violate the First Amendment .
Other points of interest include but are not restricted to:
- Ramaswamy's emphasis, going beyond our (failed) war on drugs, to dealing with the related mental illness issue involving the fentanyl crisis
- Christie's point that Trump's trade war was a failure; he also wants to deal with the recent politicization of justice by picking the right AG and federal prosecutors
- DeSantis admitted the government debt problem is bipartisan in nature; Haley also pointed out the Fed shares some responsibility for the inflation problem, but Ramaswamy seems to be targetting crypto currencies as enabling terrorist activity.
- Trump is trying to resurrect his immoral Muslim immigrant ban; Haley is posing a more nuanced security-risk immigration filter. DeSantis pointed out Obama deported more than Trump. Trump's biggest impact was lowering LEGAL immigration which most GOP hypocrites claim to favor.
Finally, probably the most interesting question dealt with identifying the President who most inspired them to seek the Presidency; this sparked a number of trends on Twitter/X. None, of course, picked Trump. Christie picked Reagan (I would have thought he would emulate Grover Cleveland on grounds of public integrity). I was pleasantly surprised with DeSantis' choice of Calvin Coolidge, who was great on economic policy and the public budget (but I'm not thrilled with his role in immigration restrictions including quotas). Haley chose a phone-it-in Washington/Lincoln, which I considered it odd since Washington warned against foreign meddling. Finally, Ramaswamy chose Jefferson without futher explanation. I admire the man, but I found his second term more questionable.
