Who is going to have a "moment" in the debate?
Sizing up the candidates
Wednesday night’s Republican presidential debate offers us a rarity — the chance to actually hear from a variety of candidates without Donald Trump in the room. And with cameras on them and people paying some kind of attention, there’s a chance one or two of them could have an unexpectedly good (or bad) night and generate some buzz, maybe even changing the shape of the contest.
To me, the archetypal “dynamic” race was the Republican contest in 2012 (see below), where nearly every candidate got to be the poll leader for a little while, and debate effects were pretty large. This one isn’t going to be quite like that — Trump’s lead is quite dominant and he’s not likely to be affected much by what goes on on stage. But for the other candidates, whom most Americans just haven’t heard that much about, this debate could have some substantial effects.
A pattern we tend to see in such contests is that of discover-scrutiny-decline, in which a little-known candidate gets some attention after having a good debate night, or giving a good interview, or in some other way distinguishing themselves. They start to rise in the polls as people hear about them. Then, because attention is on them, reporters start digging into their stances and their record, and coverage becomes more critical. This often leads voters to sour on them, and their standing declines. We saw that over and over again in 2012, and we’ll likely see some version of that over the next several months.
So who is due for some discovery? Generally, it’s those who a) have low or no expectations about them already and b) have the ability to draw some positive attention to themselves in the heat of the moment. Below is my list of this week’s debate candidates in declining order of how likely they are to have a polling surge following the debate:
Vivek Ramaswamy. Y’all, I’ve been telling you to watch this guy all year. And now he’s in third place! Anyway, I’ve seen him speak a number of times this year. He’s lively, he’s informed, he’s aggressive, and he has some sense of what he’s trying to do in this race. He hasn’t done much debating (in the campaign sense of the term), so he’s a bit of a wildcard here. But at the moment, there aren’t particularly high expectations for him, and a reasonable chance that he’ll eat up a lot of debate time saying (and defending) a number of controversial things, such as his call to raise the voting age or to treat transgender people as part a religious cult or to hand Putin some of Ukraine. He also may be attacked by Ron DeSantis, which will get him some more attention. He’s also been the candidate who most overtly and obsequiously vows to defend Trump no matter what Trump is accused of. If the night turns into a contest of how far one will go to keep Trump out of prison, Ramaswamy will whip out a cake with a metal file baked inside it.
Tim Scott. Scott isn’t a great extemporaneous speaker, but his prepared work can be quite good, as he demonstrated at the 2020 RNC. He’s been impressing some conservative activists in the early-contests states, while most of Wednesday night’s viewers don’t know much about him. He could have a good night.
Ron DeSantis. This is a tricky one. A lot of the other candidates will be gunning for DeSantis, as the front-runner in the contest to be the alternative to Trump. The political media has set expectations very low for DeSantis, who has (unfairly, I think) been branded as someone who is constantly awkward and dull with crowds. (Please read Bernstein on this.) DeSantis should have some sense of what the other candidates are going to use against him. If he has pretty competent responses, he could be due for some good press. Indeed, the “DeSantis blew it” story is getting pretty tired and the media are due for a shift on that anyway.
Nikki Haley. In general, I would say not to underestimate Haley. She rose quickly to a position of power in the South Carolina legislature, and, as a woman of color in a southern state, won in a competitive four-way Republican gubernatorial primary in 2010. The debate this week, however, may not be her particular milieu; she has a knack for playing it pretty safe in public statements, and that won’t win a lot of camera time.
Doug Burgum. Who? Exactly. Things working in Burgum’s favor are that he’s managed to get elected governor in North Dakota and almost no one outside of North Dakota knows a thing about him. So he’s got room to grow! But he didn’t seem to have a lot to say in his Meet The Press interview this past weekend. Chances are, the candidates will be asked some version of the question Chuck Todd asked him, which was basically whether they think it’s okay for Trump to be running while under indictment. Burgum’s going to need to say something better than “That’s up to the voters” to be able to get a bounce out of this debate.
Chris Christie. Christie is saying a lot of important things extremely well and it’s a message that pretty much no one in his party wants to hear. Trump supporters despise him at this point and the rest of the party seems not to trust him. Nothing he says is going to come as much of a surprise. That said, he might get some attention from the Beltway media, and he’s pretty lively on the debate stage, but that isn’t likely to help him among Republican primary voters.
Asa Hutchinson. Hutchinson is selling a pretty similar product to what Christie is selling, and he’s a less interesting salesman. He’s perfectly competent and cool on camera and can discuss policy as well as anyone, and it will be interesting to have both him and Christie together on a similar message. But chances are he’s not about to break through.
Mike Pence. The problem with having universal name recognition is that it’s hard to surprise people or exceed their expectations, and Pence isn’t known to be a particularly dynamic speaker or dramatic debater. He’s not likely to embarrass himself, at least, but he’s also highly unlikely to affect his standing among voters.