One of the conventional wisdoms of this election cycle has been that the myriad debates have been a decisive factor in the primary process. In a way, it’s not surprising; Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich have all risen in the polls based on their strong debate performances and Governor Rick Perry’s campaign has collapsed based on his poor to disastrous debate showings. So the debates have been the most critical factor right?
If you were to look at the results from Iowa and New Hampshire, the answer is less clear. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, the top three candidates were not made or destroyed by the debates. Governor Romney, as the frontrunner, has been strong and steady during the debates, but his campaign was never defined by his debate performances. Congressman Paul’s fervent support was never created from a standout debate.
The other two candidates who have finished in the top 3, Senator Santorum and Governor Huntsman, both achieved their showings in Iowa and New Hampshire respectively not through their debate performances, but through retail politics. Senator Santorum spent more time in Iowa than any other candidate, which resulted in his extremely strong 2nd place showing. Yet, the Senator was never considered the winner of any of the debates. He simply worked the ground in Iowa longer and more strenuously than his rivals. The same thing occurred in New Hampshire with Governor Huntsman. It wasn’t his debate performances that gave him the bronze medal; it was those 150 public events that held throughout New Hampshire. Both Senator Santorum and Governor Huntsman finished ahead of Speaker Gingrich, whose debate performances have been a cornerstone of his popularity.
This isn’t to say that the debates haven’t had an impact on the Republican race; they certainly have. Yet, when it came down to actual Iowa and New Hampshire voters making their decision, the debates had less impact than actually being on the ground, meeting voters and making the case in person, face-to-face.
January 17th, 2012 at 7:41 pm
They haven’t been critical (save for Perry) because there are so many. Have a bad debate – don’t worry just do better in 3 days time!
January 17th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
We’ll see how Mitt’s numbers look post last night’s debate. Conservative talk has been praising Newtie to the high heavens all day. It depends on how quickly people forget about Newt’s problems off the debate stage, I guess.
Newt’s debate last night could spell trouble for Mitt in SC; now Newt’s on a (manic) high and will be hard to match Thursday night–unless, of course, Mitt and Paul PACs can throw Newt off his game and into a big fat tizzy fit again.
The ever-volatile Newt is a little hard to predict, and THAT, of course, is the reason he should never be POTUS. I guess we’ll see in SC sees it.
January 17th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Let’s see what we learned from the debates:
Paul: crazy
Santorum: whiny baby
Gingrich: egomaniac
Perry: idiot
Romney: presidential
Yeah, I think they were important.
January 17th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
The Debates haven’t helped anyone but as Heath above says, they have helped destroy some hopes.
Perry’s comments in the debate destroyed any hope he had.
They gave rise to Newt,but the barrage of negative ads destroyed his hope. (his own record also).
You don’t need to do well in the debates, but you can’t to horrible either, ask Perry who finally had one of his best debates the other night, but way to late.
One of the reasons, hardly the only reason Romney is doing so well is because he has become rock solid in the debates. That’s why running for President in the Republican side usually takes two tries to get the nomination.
Having said that, I don’t see any of the current candidates except for Romney having any future as presidential candidates. They simple do not have what it takes. An except to this actually could be Rick Perry as he is now just getting an idea what it is like to be on the national stage. In some future year, it is very possible that Perry could be a much better candidate just as Romney is this year. Unfortunately for Perry, his timing is very bad as Romney is likely to get the nomination and who ever Romney picks as the VP, assuming they are acceptable, will be the next in line. Though many disagree with me, some do, the best VP Romney could take and a guy who will have a stake in the next in line after Romney is Mike Huckabee.
January 17th, 2012 at 7:53 pm
hard to say whether they’ve really been critical. For Perry, I think the obvious answer is “yes”…absent his bad debate performances, it would have been much easier for him to compete right up at the top with Romney (and probably prevent Gingrich from surging).
For the others….I would argue they WERE critical for Cain, and a big boost to Newt. But beyond Perry, no, they haven’t destroyed a candidate.
Unfortunately, the debates have also become a circus. I’ve seen more talk today about the unruly audience last night than about the actual content of the debate.
But I’m skeptical either the public or the media would accept a more…eh….intellectual format.
January 17th, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Huge deal. Huge part of why Pawlenty never took off, and let’s be clear, he would have won Iowa easily if he had stayed in. He flopped on Obamneycare and because of that couldn’t get enough money to go on after Iowa.
Also, it is the main reason Perry dropped and can’t get back off the floor.
Those two would have been by far Romney’s best competitors. If they had stayed at the level everyone expected nobody would be talking about a weak GOP field.
January 17th, 2012 at 7:57 pm
The debates had a huge impact — maybe just not the 2 just prior to IA and NH.
Without ANY debates, it’s unlikely Perry would have sunk beyond repair.
Without ANY debates, it’s unlikely Newt would have recovered from his campaign’s meltdown in July.
Without ANY debates, it’s unlikely Cain would have gotten any traction on 999.
Without ANY debates, it’s unlikely Bachman would have tanked so badly.
No, the debates have had a huge impact in this race, so far. But, the PERFORMANCE of the debates just prior to the voting in IA and NH probably had little impact on the actual voting.
January 17th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
6 Oh, yeah, you’re right. Pawlenty got torpedo’d because of his chickening out in attacking Mitt to his face in the debate.
January 17th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Sarah Palin just told South Carolinians to vote for Newt. LOL!
January 17th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
on Hannity, that is.
January 17th, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Assuming Romney still wins South Carolina and the nomination, I would bench Gingrich and Palin for the duration of the next eight years. Let them reap what they sew.
January 17th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
I think Romney ought to be hoping that they officially announce Santorum winning Iowa tomorrow. Anything that will give Santorum momentum over Gingrich should help Romney since Gingrich is ahead and likely to surge more based on the debates.
Ideally they both get 20-22% with Paul and Perry getting another 20% combined. Romney sweeps to a double digit victory.
January 17th, 2012 at 8:17 pm
“I think Romney ought to be hoping that they officially announce Santorum winning Iowa tomorrow.”
That would throw Romney’s history-making achievement out the window and damage HIS OWN position.
Hardly worth the risk.
January 17th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
9. Sarah Palin has become as irrelevant as Craig for Losers. There is a reason she didn’t run for president. No one likes her.
January 17th, 2012 at 8:19 pm
12.
Romney will be declared the winner tomorrow, bank it.
Even if Santorum drops out, there are a number of his supporters who have ROMNEY! as their second choice, so it is a moot point all together.
Let’s end this thing already folks, Mitt will win by at least 10 on Saturday
January 17th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
12
No way. If Mitt’s win gets rescinded in IA, it hurts Mitt a lot more than it helps Santorum, and here’s why:
Santorum already got the bounce from Iowa.
Mitt is relying on momentum and inevitability that stems from him winning Iowa. He would lose that if he had lost Iowa.
January 17th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
7. Keith, That is excellent analysis. I agree.
Hey, did you guys see this?
Not an endorsement but…
Sarah Palin: “If I lived in S.C. I’d vote for Newt”
January 17th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
9 – I saw….Instead of announcing on Hannity her support for Newt, Palin should have tweeted her suggestion and then indicate that if you don’t vote for Newt, Romney will follow through on Obama’s death panels himself. It would have gotten more news…
January 17th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
This may be why:
Romney: “I joined my mother in 1970 when she said she was in favor of legalizing abortion.”
January 17th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
or this:
Gingrich: “Defund Planned Parenthood and give the money to Adoption Services”
January 17th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Tele,
Newt Gingrich’s wife got multiple sclerosis and he cheated on her with a staffer.
Mitt Romney’s wife got multiple sclerosis and he became a stay-at-home dad and dedicated all his life’s passion to her.
January 17th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Teledude,
Are you going to go away after Newt drops out Sunday?
Or will you support Romney and quit spewing your venum?
Newt is done my friend, he just said if he loses SC he is out, its over!
January 17th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
2 state conservatives tag team tele at the exact same time
Nice Mass. Conservative!
January 17th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Teledude,
Gingrich is also a philandering adulterer. Romney has been married to the same woman for 40 years, and is the last person you would expect to have an affair.
Going to claim Newt has changed his ways? So has Romney.
January 17th, 2012 at 8:43 pm
“Newt Gingrich’s wife got multiple sclerosis”
I thought it was Cancer?
====
“Are you going to go away after Newt drops out Sunday?”
Gingrich is in until the money dries up, which is at least until after Florida.
January 17th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
14 – Sarah Palin is about as dumb as teledude. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were the same person.
January 17th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
You have to admit, the debates have revealed Mitt has a certain je ne sais quoi about him.
Go figure
if you know what I mean.
January 17th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
25
That was the first one. The second one got MS. The third one is Callista.
January 17th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Gingrich and Santorum rely on the debates and free media…They have no money and no organization…and either don’t know how to get money and organization or they are just lazy…
I hope Romney drops out of the debates and stops giving them a chance to live another day…..without Romney, the debates becomes a second tier event and will probably be cancelled.
January 17th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Tele, do you have anything to say about comment #21, or are you a squish?
January 17th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
29
Mitt needs a strong performance on Thursday or he could be in trouble.
January 17th, 2012 at 8:57 pm
I think poor debate performances have hurt, long-term, but strong debate performances haven’t helped, long-term. Perry has been a genuinely decent candidate for a few months now (sans the vulture capitalist stuff) and has turned in a few strong debate performances. But voters never gave him a second look after his two months of terrible, awful, no good, very badness. I’m also skeptical re the possibility of a Newt “surge” in South Carolina in part because strong debate performances are already priced into the Newt stock and they don’t seem to have been dispositive for many voters.
I think partisans tend to think candidate image is more mutable than it is. That’s why lots of Sarah Palin supporters were convinced she could make a comeback despite her atrocious favorables. It’s why the few remaining Perry supporters, even smart, savvy ones like Ace, seem to think he could make a comeback (if not in the primary, at least in the general if events conspired to make him the nominee). But it really doesn’t work that way. Really doesn’t. Bad first impressions are pretty lasting and they’re particularly likely to stick in a game like politics where you have opponents diligently working to reinforce them.
January 17th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
21. Wow!. Game. Set. Match.
January 17th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
31.
Romney just has to show up, this thing is over.
As long as he has Ok answers he will be fine. Just be cool.
The debate moderators will try to pick fights
Mitt just has to be the bigger man,and don’t agree to any more debates!
This thing is over guys
January 17th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Poor Sarah can get no love on this site. The woman is just giving her opinion. We may not agree with it. I know I don’t but I respect her opinion. She wasn’t being anti-Mitt just pro-Newt. She wants to the race to go on for awhile and have the eventual nominee truly vetted in way the dems, libs, and media would be shooting blanks at the nominee. Nothing wrong with that. She more that anyone else knows what it’s like to be in front of that dem, lib, media firing squad.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
28,
So Callista needs to get some illness before Newt dumps her for another woman he’d have an affair with while she was sick?
January 17th, 2012 at 9:04 pm
30. re: comment #21. that’s called a non sequitur
the things you mention have nothing to do with being President… or turning this economy around, lowering taxes or balancing our national budget. Those things, while interesting personal factoids, are irrelevant to how one might perform their duties in elected office.
A far better metric would be to look at their actual records while in office, and there, Mitt fails in comparison. Badly.
touché
if you know what I mean
January 17th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
34
My concern about yesterday is that Mitt looked weak and boyish as well as unprepared. He needs to take charge of the debate Thursday the way he always has and he wins.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
38. are you sure you just didn’t hear Rush say that on the radio? You seem to know a lot about what he says now.
go figure
January 17th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
37
Bill Clinton had an affair as president. It caused serious problems.
First of all, it caused the House and Senate to focus entirely on Clinton’s affair and the lies about it.
What happened was, the Congress basically did nothing for an extended period of time.
When Bill Clinton asked for money to kill Bin Laden, the Congress thought he was trying to distract everyone from his affair.
Bin Laden survived, and 3,100 Americans died, the stock market tanked, interest rates plummeted, and we went to war.
And the rest is history.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
39
That comment of yours was weak and boyish. What is your point?
January 17th, 2012 at 9:11 pm
Oh Mitt!
2007 – Romney: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice.”
January 17th, 2012 at 9:11 pm
That’s one area where I think voters are smarter than partisan pundits. 60+% of Republicans think Romney is the most electable candidate in the field. I doubt the number is nearly so high among conservative pundits. But voters implicitly understand something pundits miss: politics isn’t really all that important. Honest. I have not had a single person initiate a political conversation with me in the last 6 months. Occasionally, I’ll overhear ill-informed discussion but it rarely lasts more than a minute or two. Then folks are back to discussing Boardwalk Empire or the the Giants/Packers game or their work or their children or their boyfriends girlfriends and spouses (occasionally all 3). And they’re just never going to drastically reassess their opinions of candidates who flit into their lives for 30 second intervals.
Beyond that, candidates with poor favorables are simply abandoned by the establishment. They have no money. They can’t organize or microtarget. Folks move on, trying to salvage downticket races. You can’t debate your way out of problems like that (Newt), or skate by with a poorly funded ad campaign which has the advantage of having a candidate with a nice mug and powerful screen presence (Perry). There are plenty of smart conservative pundits who are skeptical of the notion that Romney is the most electable candidate but I think they’re frankly projecting their own hyperawareness onto the rest of the electorate.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
41. I tend to agree. I’ll try harder.
if you know what I mean
January 17th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
42
2011 – Gingrich: “Sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi was one of the dumbest things I’ve ever done.”
January 17th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
42,
I recall you mentioning that Romney is your second choice in this race after Newt. I must admit, you really show alot of loathing and hatred for your # 2 choice.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
I heartily disagree with those proclaiming that Mitt’s got SC in the bag.
Newt has a very good chance of pulling off a win in SC. And, if he does that, he steals the wind from Mitt’s sails.
All the media who want a horse race will be touting Newt’s comeback and playing up Mitt as a weak front-runner.
I don’t think it would take away Mitt’s eventual nomination, but I do believe it would delay it quite a bit.
Let’s not get over confident.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
1994 – “Romney…cited his support for the assault rifle ban and the Brady gun control law.”
January 17th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
teledude,
George W. Bush supported the Assault Rifle Ban and the Brady gun Control law. Your point?
January 17th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
46. no, that is just a demonstration of how weak the field is this cycle.
I do not hate Mitt. At. All.
I am not convinced he would be a good choice to go against President Obama, and I am not sure he would make the radical reforms needed to get our country back on track if elected…but he’s light years ahead of Santorum or Perry. Paul gets zero consideration.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
48
1994 – Romney: “I don’t believe in a federal government takeover of our health care system.”
January 17th, 2012 at 9:19 pm
49. Bush was a squishy moderate pretending to be a conservative too.
this is our concern, dude.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
If anyone is a moderate pretending to be a Conservative, it’s Gingrich.
The man thinks it’s wrong for people to be laid off when they are over-burdening a company.
The man thinks it’s wrong for a private equity CEO to make money restructuring companies.
The man thinks it’s wrong for a private company to make a 900% ROI on a private investment.
These are bedrock Conservative principles, and he is to the left of Obama on them.
Occupy Wall Street needs to be defeated, not endorsed.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
50,
But, he is a far better choice than Newt Gingrich.
January 17th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
54. tomato, tomahto, dude
January 17th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
55,
potato, potahto, teledude
January 17th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
The real Gingrich was the man who first ran for office in the 70′s, the Rockefeller Republican who worked against Reagan, sought the endorsements of feminists and radical environmentalists, and who only shifted after getting his ass kicked by a more conservative Democrat twice.
January 18th, 2012 at 2:17 am
Teledude is the new Craig for Losers.
January 18th, 2012 at 4:57 am
58. Sometimes I think so, too. But, really, Tele is much more playful in his barbs. And, every so often Tele posts something meaningful. CraigFer never did.
I always got the impression that Craig for Losers was just purely being mean spirited.
I have to put Tele a notch or two above CraigFer, but Tele is clearly stepping into the void created by CraigFer’s hopefully permanent departure.
January 18th, 2012 at 8:41 am
Jonathan,
Good points. They have been more influential in national polling, than the early states, for reasons you touch upon.
One could then argue the significance of national support vs early state.