He stood there on the stage, facing attacks from all sides, as the front-runner in New Hampshire avoided nearly all critiques. This was not supposed to happen—just days earlier, Sen. Marco Rubio had succeeded in spinning his third-place finish in Iowa as a win, but he now began to sweat as all of his weaknesses were exploited by his opponents. In a particularly painful exchange, Rubio repeated (almost) the same line (“This notion that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing is just not true. He knows exactly what he's doing.”) four times in just a couple of minutes. When Gov. Chris Christie called him out on it, saying “There it is. There it is. The memorized 25-second speech. There it is, everybody,” Rubio did not get the message. Instead,
…show more content…
While Republicans tend to argue that Obama is incompetent and does not understand the actions that he takes, Rubio has pushed the narrative that he can replicate Obama’s success—for the conservative cause as opposed to the liberals’ fight. It’s a general election argument: Obama is smart (which offends many voters less) and Rubio can achieve similar successes (making voters more likely to vote for him). It fell flat, of course, at the Republican debate, where all the other candidates came together to attack Obama and Rubio was left as the odd one out seemingly defending Obama. Rubio’s canned response and Christie’s relating it to Washington’s dysfunction allowed the three governors in the debate (Christie, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich) to portray each other as harbingers of results and leadership and Rubio as an inexperienced Washington mouthpiece versed in polished speeches but unable to step away from those practiced lines.
For the governors, this debate was anything but the wash the past debates were. Bush managed to appear tough on issues and successfully interject himself into the debate a few times, a feat he has consistently struggled to accomplish. Kasich stole Rubio’s mantle of hopeful conservatism and hammered home his image of bipartisan dealmaker, an appealing path in New Hampshire, where Independents can vote in the primary and moderates abound. Christie, …show more content…
You might not have noticed it, given that they were rarely attacked, but Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz may have actually gained the most from this debate. They both made strong statements and rarely faced attacks. As the two frontrunners nationwide, it was odd that they faced so few challenges. This was, of course, because Kasich, Bush, and Christie are all fighting for the establishment vote that they fear Rubio will win, but it had the effect of allowing Cruz and Trump to score a victory in the debate by coming away unscathed.
Interestingly, this also may have been Trump’s best performance. Trump appeared more presidential than he has ever appeared, though that is not saying much. He rarely attacked or insulted people (though he did get mad at the audience, claiming they were planted to boo him), refused to draw red lines, and even made some good points, such as drawing attention to the use of eminent domain in the Keystone XL pipeline (though, he lost that exchange in the conventional
While Republicans tend to argue that Obama is incompetent and does not understand the actions that he takes, Rubio has pushed the narrative that he can replicate Obama’s success—for the conservative cause as opposed to the liberals’ fight. It’s a general election argument: Obama is smart (which offends many voters less) and Rubio can achieve similar successes (making voters more likely to vote for him). It fell flat, of course, at the Republican debate, where all the other candidates came together to attack Obama and Rubio was left as the odd one out seemingly defending Obama. Rubio’s canned response and Christie’s relating it to Washington’s dysfunction allowed the three governors in the debate (Christie, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich) to portray each other as harbingers of results and leadership and Rubio as an inexperienced Washington mouthpiece versed in polished speeches but unable to step away from those practiced lines.
For the governors, this debate was anything but the wash the past debates were. Bush managed to appear tough on issues and successfully interject himself into the debate a few times, a feat he has consistently struggled to accomplish. Kasich stole Rubio’s mantle of hopeful conservatism and hammered home his image of bipartisan dealmaker, an appealing path in New Hampshire, where Independents can vote in the primary and moderates abound. Christie, …show more content…
You might not have noticed it, given that they were rarely attacked, but Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz may have actually gained the most from this debate. They both made strong statements and rarely faced attacks. As the two frontrunners nationwide, it was odd that they faced so few challenges. This was, of course, because Kasich, Bush, and Christie are all fighting for the establishment vote that they fear Rubio will win, but it had the effect of allowing Cruz and Trump to score a victory in the debate by coming away unscathed.
Interestingly, this also may have been Trump’s best performance. Trump appeared more presidential than he has ever appeared, though that is not saying much. He rarely attacked or insulted people (though he did get mad at the audience, claiming they were planted to boo him), refused to draw red lines, and even made some good points, such as drawing attention to the use of eminent domain in the Keystone XL pipeline (though, he lost that exchange in the conventional