Who won the debate? Texas

By THOMAS HARTWELL

Thursday's GOP debate was both the most technical and most embarrassing debate of the 2016 Republican race for president. All of the candidates got more into the small details of specific issues (except Trump of course), but if you didn't have the patience or the resolve to wade through the sea of shouting and contorting of faces on the CNN stage, I wouldn't blame you for turning off the TV.

The largest takeaway from the debate was that Trump's downfalls can, in fact, be exposed. Rubio was especially successful in getting under Trump's skin and showing that the reality TV star isn't invincible, but Cruz and even the moderators exposed him a bit too.

RUBIO:
Previously, Republican presidential candidates have seemingly been afraid to attack Trump personally or aggressively. Rubio came to the latest debate prepared to do just that, and it seemed he was on a united front with Ted Cruz (they even shook hands at the end of the debate, looking pretty pleased with themselves).

Rubio attacked Trump relentlessly on use of Polish immigrant work in his early business and real estate endeavors, to which Trump -- visibly annoyed -- responded, "Yeah, 38 years ago," prompting one of the night's most memorable quotes from Rubio: "I guess there's a statute of limitations on lies." Rubio also attacked Trump on the allegations and lawsuits surrounding his "fake school," Trump University. Trump responded to the attacks saying, "I won most of those law suits."  Any time Rubio was able to get a solid punch in, which was pretty often, the crowd went absolutely nuts, proving to me that there are still some sane voters who want just as badly as I do to see Trump fall. Rubio also did well to expose, with some help from Cruz and (probably indirectly) the moderators, that Trump tends to simply repeat general claims -- "It'll be great," "It's gonna be huge," "We're going to win," "There will be many plans" -- over and over instead of getting into the how or why. The best part of all of Rubio's attacks?: He challenged audience members to Google everything he was claiming about Trump -- and it works, for the most part.

Rubio didn't just focus on Trump, though. He defended attacks on his policies and accusations well, remained composed the whole night and eloquently spoke on a range of topics -- most notably to me, when he was questioned on his possible change of stance on Obama's DACA executive order. Healthcare, military presence in the Middle East and the Supreme Court justice appointment were also hot-buttons which Rubio handled impressively. I have to say, I was betting on Rubio from the beginning, but he surprised me on that stage. He made Trump look like a fool, he was aggressive, he joked and genuinely looked like he might have even been enjoying himself. A much-needed strong performance before Super Tuesday. 10/10.

TRUMP:
I've never rated Trump on a debate performance before, and some of you may be thinking, "He HATES Trump -- his evaluation won't be reliable." Well, you might be right. BUT Trump royally stunk it up on that stage, and it was pretty obvious. He was sandwiched between the other two "front-runners," (I use quotations because Trump is up 30 percent nationally on the next closest candidate) and they relentlessly slammed him the whole night. Trump was visibly flustered when he was forced into providing specific answers, or asked to. Most memorably, was when Dana Bash prodded Trump on the specifics of the plan he would use to "replace ObamaCare." After Trump had repeated "their will be many plans," three or four times, Bash almost yelled "Can you be more specific, sir?" Trump dodged the specifics with a comment something like, "That's it."

In a moment of irony that actually made me laugh out loud, Trump also condemned former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, for dropping an F-Bomb on TV in regards to Trump's claims that Mexico would pay for a border wall to be built on the U.S.'s southern border. Trump's condemnation of Fox's comments came only weeks after Trump repeated a rally attendee's criticism of Cruz, calling the fellow Republican candidate a pu*** with many, many cameras rolling. Mr. Trump, those who live in glass houses should not cast stones.

Overall, a terrible performance for Trump that may well have hurt him going into Super Tuesday... not too badly, of course. Somehow, Trump still took any opportunity he could to pat himself on the back, which his supporters always seem to love. He did better toward the end of the debate, when Rubio and Cruz let up a bit, but he was simply exposed by his lack of presidential ability or applicable experience. 3/10.

CRUZ:
Cruz did well on the stage, but was out-shadowed by Rubio. Cruz was well-spoken, and he looked presidential (I guess), but for me it comes down to Cruz being a little too theatrical. He worked well with Rubio on attacking Trump, and he spoke eloquently about Scalia's death and replacement. One of his best sound bytes from the night was on a Cruz-appointed Supreme Court justice, who, according to Cruz would, "vigorously defend the bill of rights for my children and for yours."

I liked his approach to the whole night, which to me seemed to be "fly under the radar, be fairly polite and take second on Super Tuesday." Cruz didn't viciously attack anyone, he walked softly and he even did things like ask for, not scream about, talking time on ObamaCare. During his talking time, he did take an opportunity to attack Trump, in a pretty civilized manner, on his stance on socialized medicine and a specific heathcare plan.

There's not too much to say about Cruz's performance -- it wasn't overwhelming -- but I give him a pat on the back for just that. For not attempting to be a spectacle, 7/10.

KASICH:
I can't say I was surprised by Kasich's strong performance, but I think many people were. Kasich presented many of his ideas clearly and without any real negativity. He kept his word on running a positive campaign in regards to the other candidates even saying at one point, "[Let's] move beyond what they think. I'm going to tell you what I think." I applaud him for sticking in this race to, if nothing else, show American voters that there are still some wholesome candidates available.

Kasich is a pretty moderate Republican, except on abortion, and he tried to show all sides of that onstage. He told the audience about his pathway to legalization plan, citing George H.W. Bush and Reagan (good move), he outlined his ability to negotiate with Democrats and Republicans alike and, most progressively for a Republican, he told America, "the court has ruled, and I've moved on," in response to June's Federal gay marriage law. In one of his best moments, Kasich also made a down-to-Earth jab at one of America's current healthcare issues: "It's easier to interpret the Dead Sea scrolls than to interpret your hospital bill."

Kasich was a realist and a man of integrity on the debate stage, and I genuinely wish he had done better from the beginning of his campaign. Although I won't say he won the debate, it's only because of the kind of race that is happening in the GOP this campaign season. Maybe if he'd been running in a less cut-throat season, I could give the win to him (I wish I could now). From a policy and integrity standpoint, though, 9/10.

CARSON:
What is there to say about Carson? He is no longer running for president; he is performing a publicity stunt. Maybe he's trying to sell books (there you go Carson, there's a plug), maybe he's trying to make friends -- I don't know, but his utter silence on the campaign trail paired with his claim to "stay in it until the end" tells me that he's got some personal crusading he feels he needs to do.

In the debate, Carson had next to no questions thrown to him and even when he did, he answered them with three or four breaths between words and no energy. He answered questions abstractly, at one point saying that if he were to appoint a Supreme Court justice, he would do so by looking at the "fruit salad of their life" and not just one issue. In his best moment of the night, Carson, out of his neglected corner of the stage said, "Can someone attack me, please?" to attempt to reel in some extra talking time. In effect, he was the comedic relief for the tension between the three front-runners.

Carson did do just a couple things that keep him from getting a 0/10 from me: The first was that he cited his personal relationship with Justice Scalia.The second, and the one issue Carson was obviously passionate about, talking passed the bell and saying "Let me just finish. I don't get to talk a lot," was healthcare. The moderators seemed to allow him to talk until he was finished out of sheer pity. Overall, Carson lost this debate and has been ruled out, whether he stays in the race until the end or not. 2/10.

The New Hampshire effect

From New Hampshire public radio

By THOMAS HARTWELL

More records were broken Tuesday when the presidential candidates made their way to New Hampshire. While the Democrat's voter record was not broken, they contributed to the overall high voter turnout of 538,094, edging out the 2008 total voter turnout by around 11,000 ballots cast. The Republican voter turnout shattered previous records; 284, 120 voters cast ballots -- an increase of nearly 12,000 on the Republican side alone over the previous record-setting election (248,475).

There were a number of surprises in New Hampshire. Most shocking to me was Kasich's taking second place and receiving almost 16 percent of the Republican vote. Kasich came off of a debate performance where he looked more comfortable than previously and, apparently, where he impressed potential voters. I was surprised to see this large of a jump in his numbers, even while refusing to use negative ads against the other candidates -- a tactic which has proven very successful in New Hampshire in the past. Kasich needed this revitalization to his campaign after a not-so-strong debate performance on January 28 and a sheer beat down in the Iowa caucuses.

The amount of votes that Trump received was staggering to me, too. I knew going in that he was likely to win New Hampshire, as up to 34 percent of New Hampshire voters register as Independent and are, therefore, more likely to vote away from the "politician choices." What I was not prepared for was Trump's capturing of more than a third of New Hampshire (35 percent). Trump received 10 delegates to the next nearest candidate's four, so it was quite a victory for him... *sigh*

More surprises: Rubio dropped into fifth place, below Bush, who previously received only 3 percent of the vote in Iowa. Bush, like Kasich, desperately needed this attention from voters, but unlike Kasich, has remained extremely positive about his campaign -- easy to do when you have the amount of financial support he does, I guess. Rubio hasn't been doing so hot lately. He's been called "robotic" and "too rehearsed" after, in a couple cases, he has repeated almost exactly the same words several times in speeches. Rubio said it himself, he didn't do well when it mattered leading up to New Hampshire. Cruz did well to fly under the radar and focus his energy on South Carolina, amid some accusations of illegal campaign activity, taking third. I expect him to win there, as he has captured the evangelical vote for the most part. Christie and Fiorina did not receive enough support to justify continuing their campaigns, and as expected suspended them in the following days. If Carson has another performance like that of the 2 percent he earned in New Hampshire, he could be next.

In short, the Republicans' race could turn into a 2-person one. If Cruz does as well as many expect in South Carolina, he and the Trumpster could simply be too far out in front to catch.

As far as the Democratic vote goes... well, what'd I tell you? Bernie received a whopping 60 percent of the vote to Hillary's 38. This is due, mostly, to the state's large number of Independents (Bernie is registered Independent as a Vermont senator). Bernie received 15 delegates to Hillary's 9, but the two are tied going forward, as six out of eight of the "super delegates" have declared for Clinton. I expect that, in South Carolina, Sanders will not be able to overcome the large discrepancy in the African-American vote and will lose, potentially big, to Clinton.

Primary predictions: The Iowa effect and the race to come

By THOMAS HARTWELL

The Iowa caucuses shattered overall attendance records, brought record numbers of first-time caucus-goers and surprised even the most seasoned political analysts and reporters. Trump, contrary to what entrance polls predicted, fell first-loser to Ted Cruz, who finished up 3.3 percent and one delegate on Trump, according to the Associated Press. Followers and critics of both the Trump and Cruz campaigns could see what a large difference there was in the ground games -- something that is critically important to an Iowa caucus win. So Cruz's ground game pulled it out for him, and this win will be critical to Cruz's success in future primaries. Now that voters, especially the undecideds, see that Cruz actually can win a nomination, we could see a shift in attitudes to his advantage.

Oh, and by the way, Trump's second-place finish prompted many -- including myself -- to reference an old tweet of his:

Anyway...

The Cruz win was not the most surprising happening at the caucuses. Sen. Marco Rubio, following a strong debate performance, came in a strong third place, trailing Trump by only 1.2 percent of the vote.

What does this all mean for the upcoming primaries, though? Well, I'll tell you.

A win for any Republican candidate at this stage means plenty of media attention and maybe some spotlight taken off Trump, which is good for all of us. Following the January 28 debate and directly after the Iowa caucuses, though, I thought I knew what was to come in the next primaries. But since then, a not-so-great debate performance by Rubio and continued ridicule for the "voter violation scandal" and the "stealing of Ben Carson's votes" for Cruz have changed my projections. Here they are (for three states):

Trump takes New Hampshire, Cruz takes South Carolina (BARELY) and Rubio takes Nevada.

As far as the Democrats, where do I begin? The caucuses left viewers at the edge of their seats until the early morning hours, until finally Clinton claimed a 0.3 percent win over Sanders.

Clinton, I predict will remain about the same in popularity for the rest of the campaign season -- she has a pretty dedicated following. I will say, though, those who are undecided, I thoroughly expect to start siding with "The Bern." New Hampshire is absolutely going to be Bernie's time, but look out for him in the later states also.

Campaign narratives and candidate success

By THOMAS HARTWELL

A narrative not only makes for a more interesting story and, in turn, campaign season, but also can win a candidate a state, or even a general election. There have been more than a few surprising narratives driving the candidates' campaigns already this season, and I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised to hear me say that I will, again, be mentioning the Trump (I'm sorry, but as one of my professors once said, "He's the gift that keeps on giving"). The other not-so-surprising choice for a narrative-rich campaigner, I think, is easily Sanders.

I'll start with Trump and just get it out of the way.

Trump has capitalized on two things: fear and frustration with Washington. Trump has been unapologetically blunt, crass and, at times, down-right rude. He can get away with this, and even continue to climb in the polls, because his narrative is that he is new -- he's a successful business man, not a politician, and he swears to use his hard bargaining, his CEO know-how and his tell-it-like-it-is-edness to bring his enemy to their knees and to "Make America great again." How, you ask? "Well, first things first, let's get me elected." People go for that. Partly because of Trump's story telling -- "I'm a successful business man who, like you, is fed up with Washington" -- and partly because his followers just want to see what his specific plans are finally.

Sanders tells a similar story of being fed up, but his story is a little more history and policy-based. Sanders tells us that he has been in politics since the '70s, building trust with listeners. He, like Trump, acknowledges the calls for change, but addresses the change with more specific answers that might be harder for some followers to process than a general, "It's gonna be HUGE." His largest success, though has been embodying the "little guy" who takes on the enormous establishment that is lobby groups and Super PACs. Distrust of cookie-cutter politicians makes Washington the antagonist in both of these candidates' cases and, of course, makes themselves the protagonist.

Political Communication: Let's Talk Trump

By THOMAS HARTWELL

The most intriguing definition of political communication that I happened across in several readings included several comments about a collaboration between political science and communication/media studies professionals. The collaboration, said the authors, is a result of these professionals working together on topics of mutual interest instead of “ignoring their colleagues” and conducting their own studies. In regards to the transmission of messages or opinions in “policom,” political communication can be described as how a candidate communicates, verbally or otherwise, through many channels and media outlets to get a message to the public and vice versa. Channels and media outlets for candidates might include their campaign website, social media pages or campaign ads. The public and press may use those same channels to interact with or report on candidates as well as take to their own social media accounts and other public channels to express opinions and communicate with people of similar, and many times varying, political opinion. The press, like the public, may interact with candidates or campaign officials via social media, but the press has a leg up on the public with its ability, in many cases, to reach the candidate personally as well as has a responsibility to report factual and accurate information to the public.

A rather colorful example of the practice of policom concepts is Donald Trump’s use of Twitter this campaign season. Trump has, undoubtedly, been the most outspoken illustrator of many candidate goals, namely, attempting to make himself more desirable to potential voters by making other candidates less desirable. Trump, while more animated than other candidates, exhibits policom marketing techniques that most candidates, especially in national elections, strive for. Trump has derived much of his success in national polls this season by catering to the other two players’ roles – public and press. When he makes “shocker statements,” like his idea to deport 11 million people and build a border wall, the press picks it up, gives Trump free publicity and steals spotlight potential from others. As far as catering to the public, Trump has capitalized on the nation’s yearning for firm action by making general, attractive statements that strike up conversation among voters. It makes sense as a marketing and campaigning tactic – I mean, who wouldn’t want to “make America great again”?