The New Hampshire Republican debate of February 6 likely accomplished something that few debates manage: It has probably shifted the dynamic of the GOP primary contest.
There are, at this moment, three lanes to the GOP nomination. There is the lane occupied by Donald Trump. Let's call it the populist/nativist lane. While other candidates, especially Ted Cruz, make the occasional dog whistles to Trump supporters, there is no other contender who looks likely to fill this lane (and for that we can be grateful).
Then there is the conservative hard-right/religious-right lane. Ben Carson and Ted Cruz are the main competitors here. Cruz looked for a while like he was going to seal the deal with this wing of the GOP, but his campaign's premature email announcing Carson's withdrawal from the race, published in the hours before the Iowa caucus, has hurt him. While I believe that Cruz will eventually occupy this lane to himself, he will have to deal with Dr. Carson politely and diplomatically. After all, when the time is right, Cruz will want Carson's endorsement, and right now he is very far from receiving it.
Then there is the GOP Establishment lane. When Marco Rubio finished third in the Iowa caucus, many leaders in the Republican Party, and many members of the press, were ready to anoint him the Establishment standard-bearer. He began accumulating endorsements from former or sitting United States Senators (Rick Santorum and Tim Scott), and it looked like he would gather momentum. Doubtlessly, he was hoping for a strong finish in New Hampshire. A close second would allow him to declare himself a virtual victor, and his many Establishment enthusiasts were prepared to echo that acclaim.
It was Rubio's performance on Saturday night, however, that has now called into question his seeming inevitability. Let's begin by pointing out that the worst debating errors are those that seem to confirm negative perceptions about a candidate. And the charge against Marco Rubio has always been that he is an "empty suit." He tries to take both sides of important issues and he misses Senate votes that would force him to choose. Thus in December, 2015, he skipped the vote on the Omnibus Spending Bill. Why? To vote in favor of the spending bill would have meant siding with the Establishment, and to vote against it would meant throwing in with those, like Ted Cruz, who favored government shutdowns as a negotiating tactic. Best to be truant.
There is little doubt, furthermore, that Rubio is a carefully-rehearsed candidate. It took Chris Christie, however, to expose just how much this is so. Rubio, it seems, has a well-practiced applause line that talks about how President Obama has deliberately sought to change America, to make it more like the rest of the world, while Rubio wishes to restore an old-fashioned American exceptionalism.
The questioning began when David Muir asked Rubio to discuss his accomplishments in the Senate. Rubio tried to paper over his relative lack of achievement by saying that Vice President Biden accomplished a great deal in his decades in the Senate but that few Republicans would like to see him as President. And then he recited his well-rehearsed line about Barack Obama deliberately changing America.
Called upon to respond, Christie pointed out that Rubio lacks managerial experience and that he has systematically avoided making tough decisions. Rubio answered awkwardly with his applause lines criticizing Barack Obama. Christie interrupted, observing that Rubio had become repetitive and robotic, and Rubio replied yet again by once more tediously reciting his applause lines. Long after this colloquy ended, Rubio was still repeating his rehearsed lines about President Obama. Fox News documented around five repetitions.
What impact will this performance have? I can foresee at least two negative consequences: First, voters are likely to take a close second look at Rubio. He will have to reintroduce himself to them as someone less programmed, more real. He will have to show himself as someone of substance. This slows his momentum. Secondly, Rubio's performance must leave the GOP donor elites rattled. After all, the donor elites want to invest in a winning candidate. They are not interested in ideology, but a return on their money. They must now be asking: Will Rubio really prevail against the rest of the field, and against the eventual Democratic nominee? Would you invest another ten million dollars in his Super PAC? Surely, some well-heeled members of the financial class are asking themselves these questions.
At the same time, the other Establishment contenders acquitted themselves well. John Kasich revealed a genuine sincerity in discussing hot-button issues. He stood against the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. He does not believe in a path to citizenship (I disagree with him, I believe a path to citizenship is mandatory). Nevertheless, Kasich at least gave voice to the immense human tragedy that would result from mass deportations (homes and families broken up, children or parents removed to live in foreign countries).
Kasich revealed a similar human touch elsewhere, as when he spoke about the need to reintegrate veterans into civilian life and in expressing his commitment to bipartisanship. Gone was the cranky shrillness of his early performances. Kasich has done his homework in New Hampshire, participating in 100 town halls. The question is, will it be enough?
Jeb Bush also enjoyed a strong evening. He was on his game when he challenged Donald Trump on eminent domain. Trump had made a sound point -- eminent domain is a necessary public function. Bridges could not be erected, tunnels could not be excavated, highways could not be plotted, without the power of eminent domain.
But Bush came right back: He accused Trump of manipulating and profiting personally from the eminent domain laws in the construction of his casinos. He had sought to have a compliant local government condemn the property of an elderly widow for a limousine parking lot at one of his projects. In reply, Trump lapsed into sputtering incoherence.
What happens next? That question has embedded within it two components. What happens in the New Hampshire primary, now less than forty-eight hours distant? And what happens in the weeks to follow?
Regarding New Hampshire first. The polls more or less unanimously have Donald Trump running in a strong first place. I am not sure that anything topples him from his pinnacle, but I suspect that his margin of victory will be less than the polls suggest. He will win, but I don't think it will be by double digits. If, however, I am wrong, and he finishes strongly, he is well-positioned for South Carolina and perhaps Super Tuesday.
There were signs in a few polls late last week showing that Marco Rubio had some momentum on the basis of his third-place showing in Iowa. I was skeptical about these reports and I am now more skeptical. His debate performance was weak, and I will be surprised to see him finish much above 20 percent. Indeed, he may well finish in the teens. Ted Cruz, meanwhile, should outperform. He is running a quiet, well-organized campaign, and his voters will turn out. A strong second place would allow Cruz to seize the banner of momentum.
Kasich, Christie, Bush? One or maybe more of these three should show well enough to keep the fight going through Super Tuesday and maybe beyond. My unsolicited advice to the Establishment -- look to one of these three, not Rubio, as your standard-bearer.
More significantly, however, the field now has a scrambled appearance to it. And there is still a possible candidate lurking off-stage, awaiting an opportunity to enter as a third-party challenger. That would be Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York. My guess is that Bloomberg may see the New Hampshire results as giving him an opening. I am sure that in the days after the New Hampshire primary, there will be some interesting phone calls placed between Bloomberg's political team and the Republican Party's elite donor class.