I’ll be honest: I’m not watching debates this presidential election. I stopped watching after the first debate of 2012, in which I thought the president held his own. It took about an hour of watching network reaction to recognize that, on some level, I’m just weird.
So I didn’t watch last night’s debate, meaning I missed the Christie-Rubio exchange that seemed to send Shaun Kenny into a meltdown. I did read the transcript, though, and the result was revelatory. Christie and Rubio weren’t just arguing with each other (and although Rubio remains my choice for president, even the transcript revealed that Christie got the better of the exchange), they were speaking to very different groups of Republican voters, groups which don’t really fall into the usual establishment-insurgent divide, or even the more traditional conservative-moderate one.
Christie was effectively speaking for Republicans who believe the president’s biggest flaw is his incompetence in governing. He – along with nearly every candidate, including Donald Trump – has placed the competency argument at the center of his campaign. The best example of that actually comes from an answer Christie gave later in the debate (transcript by the Washington Post, emphasis added).
That’s OK. New Jersey had its best year of job growth in the last 15 years under five different governors this year in New Jersey. New Jersey cut spending over $2.3 billion and we have 10,000 fewer employees than we had when I walked in the door. John (Kasich) has a bigger government now and more employees than he had when he walked in the door.
But all that doesn’t matter. What really matters is this, that executive experience really matters.
There was no better example of the experience-over-ideology argument.
Note that I said nearly every candidate. Two have differed from that dramatically: Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Both Senators have stated that the president’s ideology is the problem, rather than his lack of competence. Granted, Rubio was rather artless in making the point – I would have rather he asked, “Is there a competent and experienced way to engineer a massive government intervention in health care? Is there a competent and experienced way to throw the peoples of Iraq and Syria under the bus? Is there a competent and experienced way to allow Vladimir Putin to expand his influence and power?” Moreover, Cruz and Rubio have obviously self-serving reasons for emphasizing ideology over experience. This doesn’t change the fact that the New Jersey Governor and the Florida Senator were speaking to very different types of Republicans.
When one divides Republicans by this measure, Trump’s rise – and his ability to stay in front in New Hampshire – makes a lot more sense. For all his bizarre statements on Mexicans, McCain, and Muslims, Trump has essentially been the loudest and the most-media-covered proponent of the Obama-is-incompetent theory. While the rest of the competence crew has avoided Trump to take aim at Rubio or, on occasion, at Cruz, they have essentially let Trump hang on to those voters. This would also explan why Iowa – where Republicans are more ideologically driven – would reject Trump for Cruz (Cruz and Rubio shared 51% of the vote in IA), and why in NH (where competency is a better draw for Republicans, and especially for independents) Rubio’s argument sounds less resolute and more stilted.
So, what does this mean for Tuesday and beyond? Well, I would surmise a few things (and keep in mind, my record in political predictions is awful).
First, if Christie gains, it will be at Trump’s expense. Christie gave competence voters in New Hampshire another option – and in dramatic fashion. That Christie is a fellow northeasterner can’t hurt. Likewise, if Rubio’s rise in New Hampshire stalls or reverses, the beneficiary will be Cruz.
In South Carolina, however, this exchange may actually be to Rubio’s benefit. Not only is it a more conservative state overall, but Republicans there are more willing to see the president as an ideologue more than as a bumbler (to be fair, these aren’t mutually exclusive positions to hold). While Rubio may continue to take flak for being too “on message” – the message itself will resonate more in the Palmetto State.
Of course, this may also explain Rubio’s continuing challenge in winning the “establishment lane”: he’s not using the argument that typically wins that lane in the first place. So even if he does recover from this (and I would argue his recovery began in the latter half of the debate) and build support in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and beyond, he’ll have a harder time than is perceived.
That’s especially true if Trump continues to dominate among competency voters.
