On balance, Marco Rubio didn’t have anything like the terrible debate that post-game punditry has suggested he did.
The senator began by delivering a passionate and persuasive defense of the philosophy of conservatism and what the conservative program can offer Americans. He had by far the most comprehensive response to any policy issue that night when he spoke at length about the regional dynamics in the Middle East that led to the rise of ISIS and the Sunni-Shia divide, with which any American president must be familiar. He was forced to defend himself when challenged by moderator Martha Raddatz several times, and Rubio still came out looking like ABC News’ chief global affairs correspondent’s equal. Taking a page from Carly Fiorina’s book, the senator perhaps gave the most compelling answer of the night when he delivered a fiery defense of his pro-life views while also averring that he would not make the perfect the enemy of the good as president. Even from a process perspective, Rubio had a moment. When the Florida senator talked about his brother, a Vietnam veteran, Rubio’s search traffic in New Hampshire spiked. At the close of the debate, he was the most Googled candidate of the night in the Granite State.
Still, it’s likely that none of that will matter. The exchange of the night for Rubio was a losing one with Chris Christie. It was a fairly consequential exchange, too. The junior Florida senator’s greatest weakness among Republican voters was never his support for comprehensive immigration reform. It was always his youthful appearance and his resume. Christie hammered Rubio on his experience by implying that the senator’s robotic repetition of a narrow set of talking points on the campaign trail exposes his amateurishness. For his part, Rubio went ahead and made Christie’s point for him – four times, in fact – by reiterating that same narrow set of talking points.
Before this debate, the Florida senator’s advisors surely admonished their candidate to avoid getting into a food fight with Chris Christie. The brash New Jersey governor is a capable debater, and a back and forth would only yield diminishing returns for Rubio while raising Christie’s still modest stature in the Granite State. Focus on the general election, Rubio’s debate coaches perhaps said. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are your opponents; not Chris Christie. Still, Rubio might have come out better had he shed the script and went with something that sounded a little more extemporaneous:
Governor, we just finished defining conservatism and how the beliefs that we both share can help people lead better lives. Well, part of being a good ambassador for conservatism means being able to comunicate its benefits to those who might not be conservatives themselves. I want to be that evangelist for the cause in which we both believe. I think Barack Obama has been an effective communicator for liberalism, and his ability to win elections and support for his beliefs has fundamentally changed our nation for the worse. Our party’s nominee must be someone who understands the threat Barack Obama poses to this nation. He must also be someone who can persuade others that Obama’s vision for this country is wrong, and not merely yell at them.
Or something like that.
Now, the substance of Rubio’s exchange with Christie will likely be forgotten. Whether or not Barack Obama is a competent agent for liberal change or if he’s simply skipping through life with his shoes untied is a rather pedantic subject. What’s more, while the moment was uncomfortable for debate watchers, part of Rubio’s appeal to donors and lawmakers has been his polish. A vulnerable Republican senator running for reelection in a purple state is far more comfortable with the candidate who doesn’t step on rhetorical land mines by going off script on a whim. But to the extent that Rubio blunted the upward trajectory of his support in the polls by handing Christie a victory last night, the debate could matter quite a bit in the short-term.
For Rubio, the worst case scenario might be unfolding. His performance on the debate stage might have the effect of convincing Republican New Hampshire voters who were flirting with supporting either Christie, John Kasich, or Jeb Bush that this would not be a “waste” of their vote. Before last night, Rubio was emerging the clear leader among “establishment” endorsements. The unmistakable convections of an air of inevitability had begun to swirl around his candidacy, and it was surely dawning on uncertain potential Rubio supporters that their resistance was futile. That’s likely not true anymore.
If Rubio underperforms in a way that leads one (or more) of his more moderate rivals to believe they can continue to campaign in South Carolina, Nevada, and into the March primaries — and to fracture their wing’s voters ahead of the crucial winner-take-all contests in mid-March — not only will Rubio’s campaign have suffered a fatal blow last night but so, too, has the “establishment” wing of the GOP.
While that’s the worst case scenario, it’s frankly an unlikely one. The three frontrunners – Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump – all had disappointing showings last night. It is, however, still the case that neither Kasich nor Christie have the money or organization to run a national race for the nomination. Only Bush has that capacity, and his strong but not blowout performance at last night’s debate probably won few converts to his campaign. Rubio’s flop sweat might have arrested his rise in the polls, but there isn’t much reason to believe he did anything to reverse it. The Florida senator remains the candidate to beat for anti-Trump, anti-Cruz moderate Republicans. For all the hyperbole and concentrated angst that will characterize the commentary on Rubio’s poor showing in the first hour of a three-hour debate, the fundamental dynamics of the race haven’t changed. While he surely hoped to avoid them, Rubio could afford to absorb a few blows (particularly those administered by Christie, who remains the lowest polling of the four moderate lane candidates in New Hampshire). At the very most, this development will prevent Rubio from becoming a runaway train before the delegate-heavy March contests.
Do debates matter this cycle? The last debate mattered a great deal; not only because it was the final contest before the vote in Iowa but mostly because the GOP’s frontrunner declined to take the stage. Will last night’s relatively conventional debate have the same impact as that virtually unprecedented event? It might, but the central complaint against Rubio is a reporter’s lament. It is one of boredom with his programmed responses and canned speeches from those whose job it is to hear them. The notion that Rubio touches on his talking points too much is the grievance of the political junkie. Does Rubio get hammered over and over between now and Tuesday for looking like a youthful, spooked automaton on the stage? Yes. At their most efficacious, those attacks will render Rubio just another of the four moderate candidates in New Hampshire rather than a standout within their ranks. That still unlikely eventuality would only have the effect of prolonging the primary race into the spring without any indication that the outcome of that contest would be altered as a result.
A bias among political observers that favors game-changing events will be on full display over the next 72 hours. The game, however, probably remains the same.
