Republicans are the Party of Ideas, but They All Have the Same Ideas

The dust has cleared from the first Republican debate, and the candidates' polling positions have settled out. Vox echoed many of my thoughts from last Monday, after the insurgent candidates' bumps turned out to be real. We'll see how long the outsider vote remains strong, but in the meantime, let's talk about whether it matters.

From Many, One Opinion

The story so far this season has centered on the triumph of Outsider candidates over the Establishment, but the distinction between Outsider and Establishment seems to be a matter of branding rather than substance. We've all laughed at Donald Trump's shallow incoherence, but his positions aren't very different from those of his rivals. Paul Krugran wrote an excellent column in the New York Times about this recently:

For while it’s true that Mr. Trump is, fundamentally, an absurd figure, so are his rivals. If you pay attention to what any one of them is actually saying, as opposed to how he says it, you discover incoherence and extremism every bit as bad as anything Mr. Trump has to offer. And that’s not an accident: Talking nonsense is what you have to do to get anywhere in today’s Republican Party.

It's very early in this primary race, but we've already seen the candidates stake out their ideological territory. Each candidate has a position or two on which he differs from Republican orthodoxy, but the rest of their platforms are the strict party-line. Again, from Krugman:

Mr. Trump, famously, is a “birther” — someone who has questioned whether President Obama was born in the United States. But is that any worse than Scott Walker’s declaration that he isn’t sure whether the president is a Christian?

Mr. Trump’s declared intention to deport all illegal immigrants is definitely extreme, and would require deep violations of civil liberties. But are there any defenders of civil liberties in the modern G.O.P.? Notice how eagerly Rand Paul, self-described libertarian, has joined in the witch hunt against Planned Parenthood.

And while Mr. Trump is definitely appealing to know-nothingism, Marco Rubio, climate change denier, has made “I’m not a scientist” his signature line. (Memo to Mr. Rubio: Presidents don’t have to be experts on everything, but they do need to listen to experts, and decide which ones to believe.)

It's hard to see where this race is going, as long as the 16 candidates struggle to differentiate themselves. I once had high hopes for Rand Paul, for instance, but he's abandoned his different-thinking mindset and become a Libertarian In Name Only. He's done this in a crass attempt to court votes from Republicans who oppose abortion rights, same-sex marriage, and who support huge defense spending. "Libertarian who supports government regulation of women's health choices and bedroom activities" may be the definition of cognitive dissonance. 

Priorities and Facts

In another great New York Times column, Timothy Egan summarizes the lowlights of policy positions released by the candidates so far:

Other Republicans think we should be living in a theocracy. “It’s time we recognize the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being,” said Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, testing the latest version of his church-lady demagogy. He wants to ignore the high court on both gay marriage and abortion — breaking the law while waving his Bible.

Huckabee would also use the force of government to intervene with any woman seeking an abortion, claiming a constitutional right, the 14th and 5th Amendments, to protect a zygote. When he mentioned this Brave New World idea in the debate, no one challenged him. Instead, other candidates were equally extreme, refusing to make abortion exceptions even when the life of a woman is at stake. This is junk women’s health care, driven by religious fanaticism.

More empty calories: Scott Walker, the governor whose foreign policy experience is limited to breakfast at the old International House of Pancakes, threatens to start at least two wars upon taking office. He promises to use military action if necessary to coax Iran into doing what he wants it to do. He also wants to pick a fight with Russia, sending weapons to Ukraine and erecting a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Many of these pronouncements earn huge cheers during debates and stump speeches, but they're all based on either magical thinking, deception, or both. Any candidate who calls for an amendment to the Constitution is just spouting unactionable talking points, while most of the illegal immigration blustering is happening on false pretenses.

This summary of common arguments about illegal immigration and border protection is worth reading in full. The context here is that Donald Trump released a position paper on this subject this week, though these arguments have been made by most of the Republican candidates recently. My favorite bit is about the number of illegal immigrants in the US declining in recent years, but please do read the whole thing.

The old formula was for a center-right candidate to throw red meat to the fringe, and ride their support to the nomination. Recently, this approach has pulled the nominee too far, to a point that was ultimately unrecoverable. When misconceptions and magic are the starting point in an ideology, can anything rational result? 

Polls had bumps like a Trump, Trump, Trump / I's like what, what what

In my Republican Debate Wrap-Up on Friday, I said the following about Donald Trump's performance:

To quote the New Yorker, Donald Trump was more heinous than previously thought. He defended himself, at all times, by lashing out at others. This made him hugely entertaining, despite the layers of misogyny and incoherence. Republican operative reactions, after the debate, were that he was terrible. I suspect the base loved it. His answers were utterly incoherent. I suspect the base loved that too. [Emphasis added today]

Horrifyingly, that initial reaction has been confirmed by today's polls. To rational observers, Donald Trump had the worst performance of any candidate in the Varsity Debate. His answers were all insulting, mostly non-sequiturs, and generally indecipherable. He actively insulted Megyn Kelly, a popular host on a popular network with Republicans. He refused to commit to support the party's eventual nominee.

Trump's situation seemed to degrade after the debate, when on Friday he continued insulting Kelly, and implied that her tough questioning was motivated by hormones. Just like after "the Mexicans, the rapists", just like after Trump's insults to John McCain and POWs , national pundits speculated that Trump's poor debate performance and misogynistic comments would end his campaign.

These pundits misunderestimated* Trump's appeal to his base.

Trump's style of snappy, irrelevant come-backs may be appealing to an audience that isn't critically thinking about the debate. He lacks any cogent policy position, but he knows how to insult Rosie O'Donnell! 

*Ok, "misunderestimate" isn't actually in that video, but it contains too many classics to avoid sharing it.

Other Movers

Look closely at the plot of polling numbers, in the link at the top. Most candidates' numbers stayed flat, or decreased, over the time period depicted. The biggest gainer, other than Trump, is Ben Carson. Carson was among the most Googled candidates during the debate, and he began the night with nearly the lowest Name ID (John Kasich was lower). I thought that Carson had a bad showing at the debate, offering quiet, non-specific answers to questions. He had a memorable closing statement, but otherwise I figured he'd be eclipsed by some of the serious candidates on-stage. The exposure Carson gained, here, must have outweighed his middling performance. Like Trump, he's an outsider with a populist message. While it's hard to characterize Trump according to the Four Faces, Carson is obviously in the Very Conservative, Evangelical camp. These outsider/populist candidates may be creating sub-factions of each of the classical Republican groups, where each group has an Establishment candidate and a Populist candidate. 

If that theme holds, then Carly Fiorina will be the Populist-Very Conservative, Secular candidate. She was the other candidate to gain a measurable amount of support after the debate. She was clearly the best at the Kid's Table, and was more impressive than several of the Varsity debaters. Just like Trump and Carson, Fiorina has no political experience. 

Jeb Bush has been consistently fading, though by only 1 point per week. Scott Walker lost a bit more than Bush, and the rest of the field remained pretty flat. Trump's Bump seems to have been pulled pretty equally from across the primary.

What's Important

We'll continue tracking this potential theme of splitting the Four Faces into eight, with Establishment and Populist candidates for each. There is obviously a (large) segment of the Republican party that is represented in these polls, but ignored among the chattering class. It's meaningful that virtually all of the increases in support, after the debate, went to these Populist candidates. 44% of the vote, in that poll, belongs to the combo of Trump, Carson, and Fiorina. With three of the four "Faces" covered, it seems like there'd be an opportunity for a Populist-Liberal candidate.

Oh, wait, that's Bernie Sanders.

The Four Faces of the Republican Primary

Anyone who wants to understand Republican primary politics needs to read this article, by Henry Olsen. Rather than framing the primary as a struggle between the establishment and the base/insurgents/Tea Party, this more nuanced view compares four distinct sets of voters:

• Moderate or liberal voters
• Somewhat conservative voters
• Very conservative, evangelical voters
• Very conservative, secular voters

Republican primary voters are spread unequally among these four categories. While the very conservative, secular voters represent the smallest group, their money and lobbying make them a big influence on the party platform. Other groups, though, tend to drive the decision on the nomination.

Let's walk through each category, and assign candidates to them. What can we draw from breaking down the race this way? Let's use FiveThirtyEight's similar Five Ring Circus diagram for help:

Moderate or liberal candidates

Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Chris Christie, George Pataki

I expected to struggle differentiating this group from the "somewhat conservatives"; other than Bush, it was pretty easy. These guys are demonstrably more liberal than the somewhats. "Demonstrably more liberal", in the Republican party, means that they've got one or two issues where they hold center-left positions (that's why I decided to put Bush here). These issues mostly include Medicaid expansion, immigration, gay rights, or the environment. 

Note, here, the first hint of influence from the "very conservative, secular" constituency. All of those moderate policies are important, but you'll never find one of these moderates who espouses higher taxes on the wealthy, despite the balanced-budget dream that's at the core of their economic messages.

If this election cycle plays out like 2012, either Kasich or Christie will get a ton of love from the media, moderate Republicans, and some Democrats. I'd put my money on Kasich, solely because of Christie's Bridgeghazi scandal. This is similar to the trajectory of John Huntsman in 2012, but he failed pretty early in the campaign. Huntsman's voters mostly went over to Romney in 2012, and it's easy to see the Kasich/Christie voters settling for Bush in this cycle.

Somewhat conservative candidates

Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Rand Paul, Lindsey Graham, Jim Gilmore

The favored candidate of somewhat conservative voters always wins the nomination, though they sometimes choose a candidate who'd also slot into the moderate/liberal wing. From the article:

These voters’ preferred candidate profile can be inferred from the characteristics of their favored candidates: Bob Dole in 1996, George W. Bush in 2000, John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012. They like even-keeled men with substantial governing experience. 

Among my 'somewhat conservatives', Rubio most closely fits the profile of past winners, from a policy perspective. If you roll in Jeb Bush, Kasich, and Christie, it becomes a much muddier picture. Viewed this way, Trump and Paul are clearly irrelevant to the nomination race. Graham and Gilmore have no discernible support, and I'll probably never discuss them again.

Very conservative, evangelical candidates

Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum

Welcome to the Right Wing. It's scary in here. These candidates prioritize a Bible-based worldview over almost all other considerations, provided that you ignore the parts of the Bible that say you should take care of the poor. They must be too busy for that part, I guess. Ben Carson, on Meet the Press, failed to answer the question, "Does the Bible have authority over the Constitution?"

This category of voters makes up about 20% of GOP voters, but they're organized, and they're loud. While these characteristics force candidates in other categories to address their priorities verbally, their favored candidates never win anything in the Presidential race. This group does have a tendency to back the runner-up:

The evangelical favorite, for example, surprised pundits by winning Iowa in 2008 and 2012, and supplied the backing for second-place Iowa finishers Pat Robertson in 1988 and Pat Buchanan in 1996. Their strength in the Deep South and the border states also allowed Mike Huckabee rather than Mitt Romney to emerge as John McCain’s final challenger in 2008, and that strength combined with their domination of the February 7 caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado allowed Rick Santorum to emerge as Romney’s challenger in 2012.

You'll hear a lot about this group in the lead-up to, and recovery from, the Iowa caucuses. Their preferred candidate may even win Iowa. One barrier to that outcome is the profusion of choices in this category this year. Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee have been polling well so far, but Santorum is an old favorite, and Jindal will say anything to garner votes. Whoever emerges from this scrum, you can be confident he won't win the nomination.

Very conservative, secular candidates

Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Rick Perry

This is the smallest group of Republican voters, but they back some prominent candidates. Some might argue that Trump fits in this category, since he's a rich, political outsider (like Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, and others). His policy history, such as it is, doesn't appear to support this categorization. The candidates here are different than those of the past, though, as none seem to have a purely low-taxes and small government message. Scott Walker's propensity to wade into culture wars unnerves these voters, as they feel it's a distraction from their economic priorities. Ted Cruz brings xenophobia to the table, which is starkly counter to the Chamber of Commerce's message. 

Carly Fiorina may be the wildcard here. BallotPedia rates here as a center-right candidate, but her history is so sparse that I suspect their assessment will change when the sample size grows. So far she's presented herself as a pro-business, anti-Hillary, candidate, and I think that could appeal to this group. Ultimately, very conservative, secular voters will back whomever isn't the Evangelical candidate.

Aside

What happened to the Tea Party? You used to hear a lot about their preferences as a bloc, but perhaps they've been fragmented by the huge field? It's also possible that Sarah Palin dragged the group out of prominence when she descended to insanity. We'll see if they resurface once the main contenders come into focus.

Summary

Hopefully the Four Faces article serves as a useful lens through which to view this primary. You can take the long view, and realize that while many candidates will make a splash, they ultimately need to appeal to both the moderates and the somewhat-conservatives. 

Fox News' Republican Primary Debate: We Grill, You Decide

Thursday night brought us the first of nine Republican primary debates this season. The Republican National Committee (RNC) is attempting to tame the chaos that reigned in 2012, and I believe they're off to a good start. Fewer debates, so far competently moderated, might bring some sanity to the process. Will the countless candidates be up to this challenge?

The Main Stage

Fox, famously, split the 17 major candidates into two groups. I'll address the performances of the Top 10 first, and then hit the Kids' Table below. These are my thoughts on each candidate's performance relative to the others; I'm surely not in the core constituency of any of these people.

Moderators

Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace dominated this debate by keeping the candidates on-topic and off-balance. They directed cutting questions at each candidate, probing major flaws in the backgrounds of each. Fox News was the only news outfit that could pull off this aggressive approach, as any other channel would be accused of having a liberal agenda. This may have been the best-run debate I've seen, despite having the most-ever candidates on stage.

Top 10

Some candidates made the most of the spotlight, lapping up exposure they've lacked so far. Others wilted. 

• John Kasich, the Governor of Ohio, was the winner for me. He barely qualified for this debate, but he was engaging, positive, and espoused moderate policy positions. Kasich passionately defended his decision to expand Medicaid, opening up some daylight between him and his opponents. He managed Trump better than anyone, by brushing off the man but addressing his constituency. His campaign brilliantly timed his official entry into the race, allowing his post-announcement bump to carry him into the Top 10 in the polls. Given his nascent name-ID so far, this exposure may have served him better than anyone else.
• Chris Christie also did a good job of mixing personality and policy accomplishments. His personality is bombastic, and he clashed with others onstage, but I thought it was a good showing. 
• Rand Paul's strategy was obviously to create buzz by arguing with others. He went after Trump, Christie, and others. This diminished him. He came away looking like a petulant child, and his unique Libertarian viewpoint was lost. 
• Jeb Bush: Remember when I mentioned wilting? He wilted. Like a Bush. If you didn't know he was supposed to be the front-runner, you never would have guessed it from this debate. He didn't do anything ruinous, but he did have some strange remarks:

"I've got a record in Florida. I'm proud of my dad, and I'm certainly proud of my brother. In Florida, they called me Jeb, because I earned it." 

• Marco Rubio had a great night, according to a lot of pundits. I must have missed something. He seemed inoffensive, and he spoke well, but he mainly stayed away from policy. He tried to make an electability argument, but it feels early in the process for that sort of thing. 
• I'd forgive you for forgetting Ted Cruz was in this debate. Expectations were high for this former Ivy League debate champion, but he didn't really do anything. Borrowing a sports phrase, he came across as "just another guy". 
• Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson were about as absurd as you'd expect. Huckabee always sounds angry anymore. His hectoring style lingers from his years as a talk show host. This was all that was memorable about his performance. Carson, meanwhile, got lost in the fray due to his mild personality. When given the chance to speak, he didn't have any obvious policy knowledge. Pressed on his record of apparently not knowing anything about politics, government, or international relations, he answered that he's "smart, and can learn quickly". Reassuring. 
• To quote the New Yorker, Donald Trump was more heinous than previously thought. He defended himself, at all times, by lashing out at others. This made him hugely entertaining, despite the layers of misogyny and incoherence. Republican operative reactions, after the debate, were that he was terrible. I suspect the base loved it. His answers were utterly incoherent. I suspect the base loved that too.
• Scott Walker. I almost forgot about him. Maybe that's his strategy? Remember when Kramer got a job by just showing up at an office, and blending in by pretending to work there? He learned that he couldn't be fired, since he was never hired. That seems to be Walker's approach.

The Kids' Table

You didn't need to look hard to figure out why these seven candidates couldn't make the Top 10. This group hewed closely to their talking points. Charisma was forgotten. The Republican field will lose nothing if six of these seven are never seen again during this cycle.

• Coming in, I expected to like Lindsey Graham the best of these seven. I expected him to have a cogent national security position, coupled with moderate views at home. Other than the pointless Jim Gilmore, Graham may have been the least impressive candidate onstage. His answers were both preachy and boring, while delivering some extreme-fringe views. Graham went to absurd lengths to focus on ISIS, here pivoting to ISIS in response to a question about Planned Parenthood:

• For some reason, I seem to retain a soft spot for Rick Perry. Despite his new glasses, he still doesn't seem smart. Mispronunciations abound, and he's far too proud of himself each time he finishes answering a question. His answers, in this debate, were basically nothing but his stump speech. Regardless, there's something charming about how Texan he is.
• Carly Fiorina was by far the most competent among the seven, and with more exposure, she could do some damage to the more preposterous candidates in the top 10. I've mostly hated everything she said prior to this debate. The thesis of her campaign has been that she's a woman, and Hillary Clinton is a woman, so she can attack Clinton. That's a pretty low bar. Still, she showed in this debate that she deserved to be on the main stage, and I hope to see her there in the next debate.
• The moderators' questions were astoundingly somnolent. They seemed to be trying for "thorough, precise questions". What they achieved were paragraphs-long, indecipherable questions. By the time the moderators were done talking, I forgot what the premise of the question was. I felt bad for the candidates.
• The most surprising policy position I saw was broad distrust of Muslims. Lindsey Graham advocated for a standing surveillance program in mosques, and George Pataki seemed to say that Muslim religious speech is not a protected category of speech. I thought these guys were the moderates?
• Bobby Jindal was there too, but he's too silly to dwell on. Rick Santorum refused to speak to the camera, instead hunching toward the moderators. By this point, you know who he is. America's economy needs to look like the coal and steel heyday of Pennsylvania. Booo abortions. Yay God.

Overall, it was clear why these candidates were the undercard. None had any supporters in attendance, and they largely failed to deliver eloquence. Fox said that this first debate was closed to the public. That was a strange choice, if true, as the candidates clearly suffered from the empty room. They were literally yelling into a partisan echo chamber.


Wrapping Up

Much more to come soon. I'm new to blogging, but this should collect things that I'd otherwise be posting on Facebook. Here, formatting options abound!