Last night, I thought Harry Enten was, for once, right about a debate.
"I’m seeing a lot stuff in my Twitter feed about how this is one of Trump’s best debates. Maybe it is. Or maybe, just maybe, journalists and pundits have no clue what a good debate performance is. If we did, then Trump should be back in New York and out of this campaign."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/03/harry-enten-finally-gets-debate-right.html
I agree with him for once. The pundits have no idea what constitutes a good debate, certainly not in the 2016 GOP primary cycle. In their minds, a good debate is a civil debate. Is this true? Not necessarily. I mean it depends on a lot of factors.
But trying to take the high road is never a fail safe strategy. Actually, think about being civil as sort of like sitting on the ball and running out the clock. This makes sense if:
1. You have a safe lead
2. You have a conservative offense.
3. Still, if you're down by 21 in the fourth quarter, even conservative teams have to do more.
Yet, the insiders-yet again-have Marco Rubio last night's winner. Just absurd. Yet they are saying this again. If you were to look at the post debate reactions, he's been their winner in most post debates.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/insiders-rubio-wins-debate-too-late-to-matter-220621
Last night everyone was playing prevent defense. Chris Cillizza also thinks Rubio won.
" The Florida senator was poised, confident and knowledgeable. He avoided any sort of personal attacks on Donald Trump and largely steered clear of clashing with the race's front-runner at all. It worked. (It also helped that Rubio had a hometown crowd ready to cheer his every word.) Watching Rubio on Thursday night, I found myself wondering where he might have been in this race if he hadn't a) had brain-lock in the debate just before the New Hampshire primary and b) hadn't spent 72 hours earlier this month getting in the gutter with Trump. Of course, that's besides the point now. Rubio's last hope in the race is to win Florida, denying Trump the state's 99 delegates and praying that, somehow, the race changes drastically and puts him back in the mix. It's a long shot. But Rubio deserves credit for performing extremely well when the chips were down."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/10/winners-and-losers-from-the-12th-republican-presidential-debate/?postshare=2581457670066917&tid=ss_tw
Well, but what happened in NH was a vetting moment. It confirmed that this is a not someone ready for prime time. I agree that getting in the gutter with Trump was a disastrous decision.
Basically he got out of his lane and got hurt. I agree he couldn't go after Trump again. He tried playing run and gun and realized he can't. While it was better for him to not go there again, it still ends up being the case that he played prevent defense down 31-3.
Cillizza then shows the absurdity of saying that Rubio won by saying that Trump was also the winner. Huh?
"Let me be honest here. I have no idea what to make of Trump when it comes to his debate performances. On the good side, Trump was far more measured and under control in this debate than in any of the previous ones. Gone were references to "Little Marco" and "Lyin' Ted" and the general rhetorical nastiness that has been a Trump hallmark since he announced his candidacy. And, Trump was, largely, given a pass by the other men on the stage. Rubio, clearly scorched by his collapse in the wake of his juvenile attacks on Trump, wanted no piece of him. John Kasich, with a campaign built on hope and optimism, ignored Trump. Ted Cruz occasionally engaged Trump -- trying to paint him as a policy simpleton -- but the real estate mogul refused to take the bait. So, that was the good side. Scroll down for the bad side."
Trump is leading 31-3. If he didn't lose, then Marco Rubio did. It's that simple. Being civil was Trump's strategy last night-he realized now was the time for prevent defense.
If it were up to Cillizza and friends, Trump has lost all these debates. Which just proves Harry Enten right. They have no idea. What matters is what the base saw at home. I doubt anyone is even paying attention to Marco Rubio anymore. He's damaged goods no matter what he does.
But Cillizza makes it even more absurd by claiming that Trump was also a loser for the night.
"Imagine where Trump might be if he was willing to pick up a policy briefing book and, you know, skim it. He's often able to coast by in these debates even with an almost total lack of policy knowledge. But, he got caught flat-footed a few times in this one. The most painful? Trump's clear cluelessness about Cuba policy, made all the worse by Rubio's deep knowledge, which he dropped on Trump's head. The question, as always with Trump, is whether he lacks of engagement on policy matters at all. It's nothing new and he continues to win states and rack up delegates. Trump's supporters seem uninterested in the minutiae of his policy positions. Rather they respond to his toughness and his tone. So...."
Come on, Cillizza. Would Trump be where he is now in this race, with this delegate lead and leading all these polls if this mattered? This is my real complaint with pundits like him.
For years, they have engaged in false equivalence between the parties. Matt Yglesias rightly pointed out that George W. Bush was also very ignorant. Correct, and the Cillizzas of the world treated him as perfectly serious.
Mark Halpern gets it with his grading. You have to factor in how much each candidate helps himself. By that gauge:
1. Trump helped himself.
2. Cruz helped himself.
3. Rubio didn't help himself. And he's down 31-3.
4. Kasich didn't damage himself but with everyone being civil it kind of rained on his parade of being the one civil Republican.
Cillizza did correctly grasp 4.
Rubio's problem is this. He got into a slugfest, a shootout, and he's not equipped for it. That was his mistake. While he was right not to do that again, the damage is already done.
It is fitting that his own state which voted for him in 2010 now has the power to correct that mistake. Trump does have some funny 'Keep Marco and his friends out of the White House' ads.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/707697346646245376
Amen.
P.S. Here is Halperin on Rubio:
"After tough backlash, dropped his personal attacks on Trump and returned to earnest and broad policy critiques. Overcompensated to the point of dampening his trademark sizzle. Got stronger in the second half, but likely more in the eyes of a cadre of elites than a mass of voters. Needed a transformational, breakthrough performance from wire-to-wire, and instead showed only flashes of inspiration."
More accurate, though Halperin's 'B' grade seems too generous. If this is also about how much you help yourself, I don't know that he helped himself much and he's down 31-3.
Agreed, he hurt himself less than before, but the damage is already done. He's down by 30 points.
"I’m seeing a lot stuff in my Twitter feed about how this is one of Trump’s best debates. Maybe it is. Or maybe, just maybe, journalists and pundits have no clue what a good debate performance is. If we did, then Trump should be back in New York and out of this campaign."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/03/harry-enten-finally-gets-debate-right.html
I agree with him for once. The pundits have no idea what constitutes a good debate, certainly not in the 2016 GOP primary cycle. In their minds, a good debate is a civil debate. Is this true? Not necessarily. I mean it depends on a lot of factors.
But trying to take the high road is never a fail safe strategy. Actually, think about being civil as sort of like sitting on the ball and running out the clock. This makes sense if:
1. You have a safe lead
2. You have a conservative offense.
3. Still, if you're down by 21 in the fourth quarter, even conservative teams have to do more.
Yet, the insiders-yet again-have Marco Rubio last night's winner. Just absurd. Yet they are saying this again. If you were to look at the post debate reactions, he's been their winner in most post debates.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/insiders-rubio-wins-debate-too-late-to-matter-220621
Last night everyone was playing prevent defense. Chris Cillizza also thinks Rubio won.
" The Florida senator was poised, confident and knowledgeable. He avoided any sort of personal attacks on Donald Trump and largely steered clear of clashing with the race's front-runner at all. It worked. (It also helped that Rubio had a hometown crowd ready to cheer his every word.) Watching Rubio on Thursday night, I found myself wondering where he might have been in this race if he hadn't a) had brain-lock in the debate just before the New Hampshire primary and b) hadn't spent 72 hours earlier this month getting in the gutter with Trump. Of course, that's besides the point now. Rubio's last hope in the race is to win Florida, denying Trump the state's 99 delegates and praying that, somehow, the race changes drastically and puts him back in the mix. It's a long shot. But Rubio deserves credit for performing extremely well when the chips were down."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/10/winners-and-losers-from-the-12th-republican-presidential-debate/?postshare=2581457670066917&tid=ss_tw
Well, but what happened in NH was a vetting moment. It confirmed that this is a not someone ready for prime time. I agree that getting in the gutter with Trump was a disastrous decision.
Basically he got out of his lane and got hurt. I agree he couldn't go after Trump again. He tried playing run and gun and realized he can't. While it was better for him to not go there again, it still ends up being the case that he played prevent defense down 31-3.
Cillizza then shows the absurdity of saying that Rubio won by saying that Trump was also the winner. Huh?
"Let me be honest here. I have no idea what to make of Trump when it comes to his debate performances. On the good side, Trump was far more measured and under control in this debate than in any of the previous ones. Gone were references to "Little Marco" and "Lyin' Ted" and the general rhetorical nastiness that has been a Trump hallmark since he announced his candidacy. And, Trump was, largely, given a pass by the other men on the stage. Rubio, clearly scorched by his collapse in the wake of his juvenile attacks on Trump, wanted no piece of him. John Kasich, with a campaign built on hope and optimism, ignored Trump. Ted Cruz occasionally engaged Trump -- trying to paint him as a policy simpleton -- but the real estate mogul refused to take the bait. So, that was the good side. Scroll down for the bad side."
Trump is leading 31-3. If he didn't lose, then Marco Rubio did. It's that simple. Being civil was Trump's strategy last night-he realized now was the time for prevent defense.
If it were up to Cillizza and friends, Trump has lost all these debates. Which just proves Harry Enten right. They have no idea. What matters is what the base saw at home. I doubt anyone is even paying attention to Marco Rubio anymore. He's damaged goods no matter what he does.
But Cillizza makes it even more absurd by claiming that Trump was also a loser for the night.
"Imagine where Trump might be if he was willing to pick up a policy briefing book and, you know, skim it. He's often able to coast by in these debates even with an almost total lack of policy knowledge. But, he got caught flat-footed a few times in this one. The most painful? Trump's clear cluelessness about Cuba policy, made all the worse by Rubio's deep knowledge, which he dropped on Trump's head. The question, as always with Trump, is whether he lacks of engagement on policy matters at all. It's nothing new and he continues to win states and rack up delegates. Trump's supporters seem uninterested in the minutiae of his policy positions. Rather they respond to his toughness and his tone. So...."
Come on, Cillizza. Would Trump be where he is now in this race, with this delegate lead and leading all these polls if this mattered? This is my real complaint with pundits like him.
For years, they have engaged in false equivalence between the parties. Matt Yglesias rightly pointed out that George W. Bush was also very ignorant. Correct, and the Cillizzas of the world treated him as perfectly serious.
Mark Halpern gets it with his grading. You have to factor in how much each candidate helps himself. By that gauge:
1. Trump helped himself.
2. Cruz helped himself.
3. Rubio didn't help himself. And he's down 31-3.
4. Kasich didn't damage himself but with everyone being civil it kind of rained on his parade of being the one civil Republican.
Cillizza did correctly grasp 4.
Rubio's problem is this. He got into a slugfest, a shootout, and he's not equipped for it. That was his mistake. While he was right not to do that again, the damage is already done.
It is fitting that his own state which voted for him in 2010 now has the power to correct that mistake. Trump does have some funny 'Keep Marco and his friends out of the White House' ads.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/707697346646245376
Amen.
P.S. Here is Halperin on Rubio:
"After tough backlash, dropped his personal attacks on Trump and returned to earnest and broad policy critiques. Overcompensated to the point of dampening his trademark sizzle. Got stronger in the second half, but likely more in the eyes of a cadre of elites than a mass of voters. Needed a transformational, breakthrough performance from wire-to-wire, and instead showed only flashes of inspiration."
More accurate, though Halperin's 'B' grade seems too generous. If this is also about how much you help yourself, I don't know that he helped himself much and he's down 31-3.
Agreed, he hurt himself less than before, but the damage is already done. He's down by 30 points.
P.S.S. The reason why being civil doesn't always work? For one thing, Josh Marshall's 'Bitch slap theory of politics.'
What hurt John Kerry was that he was civil in the face of the Swift Boat attacks. Sometimes 'civil' ends up looking 'weak.'
It depends. Being civil is also less effective if everyone is being civil and that's your niche, like John Kasich last night.
No comments:
Post a Comment