Scorecard: September 7, 2011 Republican Debate
Tonight’s Republican presidential debate was the first to feature Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has rocketed to the top of several national polls.
This debate will be remembered primarily for one thing: clarifying the GOP campaign as a two-person race between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney (barring the entry of another big name candidate).
No shortage of pundits will review how well the candidates did tonight. But this scorecard is different – it’s based on seven specific communications criteria that have accurately predicted the outcomes of every general election in the 24/7 media age, which began in 1980.
Here are tonight’s grades, in order of best to worst:
THE TOP TIER
RICK PERRY (First Place, tied, Grade: A-) Despite a few stumbles, Rick Perry passed his first big test tonight. He appeared amiable but tough – a trait voters have rewarded by voting in Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
Gov. Perry came out of the gate strong, attacking Mitt Romney in his first few answers. He was unapologetic for his record and controversial previous statements, saying: “Maybe it’s time to have some provocative language in this country.” He delivered a few lines passionately to the camera, speaking directly to potential voters.
Perry faltered in the homestretch, and should hope that’s not a metaphor for his campaign. He evaded some of the accusations made against him – and although it didn’t matter tonight, he’ll have to answer them eventually.
His gaffe regarding climate change and Galileo (he seemed to make the opposite point he intended by comparing the fact that Galileo was scientifically marginalized in his time, just like climate scientists are today) might be a sign of more gaffes to come. And why was Perry attacking Ron Paul? Come on, Rick Perry. Remember that in politics, you’re supposed to punch up, not down.
Follow politics and the media? Like our Facebook page to keep up with our latest posts.
MITT ROMNEY (First Place, tied, Grade: A- ) Mr. Romney appears to be positioning himself as the consensus candidate, a la John McCain and Bob Dole. His goal seems to be to become the candidate who’s not necessarily loved by his party, but is deemed to be the most “electable.”
When attacked by Mr. Perry, Gov. Romney did a nice job counterattacking, and even compared Mr. Perry unfavorably to Al Gore. Romney wisely positioned himself as a pro-Social Security candidate with Rick Perry as its enemy. But whereas Perry looked aggressive when he went on the attack, Mr. Romney looked defensive.
In basketball, the rule of thumb is that when trailing by two points with seconds remaining, the visiting team should go for the win by shooting a three pointer while the home team playing on friendly turf should just tie it up with a two-pointer and use their home team advantage in overtime. Romney’s strategy seems to be to let Rick Perry go for the risky three-pointer while he plays as the more risk-averse home team.
MIDDLE OF THE PACK
NEWT GINGRICH (Third Place, Grade: B-) Mr. Gingrich had some good moments with several applause lines. He once again attacked the mainstream media and tried to re-direct the moderators to cover more important ground. But he still looks angry, not inspirational – and that will almost surely prevent him from reaching the top tier.
MICHELE BACHMANN (Fourth Place, Grade: C+) Rep. Bachmann is the rapidly disappearing candidate. She became a star in the first Republican debate in May and followed it up with a narrow win in the Iowa straw poll. But Ms. Bachmann was a complete non-factor tonight. She will need a big moment (or for Rick Perry to self-immolate) to re-enter the top tier.
TRAILING THE FIELD
RON PAUL (Fifth Place, tied, Grade: C-) As usual, Ron Paul offered a strong defense of libertarianism. But he continues to take the bait on off-topic questions that aren’t at all aligned with the main concerns of the American people. Lecturing about vaccines for HPV, abolishing TSA agents, and eliminating FEMA isn’t likely to expand his base.
HERMAN CAIN (Fifth Place, tied, Grade: C-) Mr. Cain got off a good line tonight when he said of taxes: “If 10 percent is good enough for God, nine percent should be good enough for the government.” And he tried to redirect the moderators to cover more important issues. But he’s failed to improve in these debates, and is unlikely to have a breakout moment.
RICK SANTORUM (Seventh Place, Grade: D+) Mr. Santorum is passionate, but his facial expressions make him look like he’s permanently annoyed. He still speaks in Senatorial language, getting far too in the weeds with his policy answers. Like Mr. Cain, he’s failed to improve in these debates.
JON HUNTSMAN (Eighth Place, Grade: D) Mr. Huntsman looked like he was about to have a James Stockdale moment – it wouldn’t have been surprising to hear him say: “Who am I? Why am I here?” Sure, it’s often a good idea to offer a contrast to the rest of the field, but Mr. Huntsman isn’t doing it effectively. He’s still trying to act as a diplomat for a depressed electorate that is demanding some heat. And was it really a good idea to cite a statistic from the Milken Institute, given that its founder spent two years in prison for securities fraud?
Do you agree or disagree with my analysis? Please leave your opinion in the comment section below, but remember the blog’s comment policy – no ad hominem attacks or pejorative name-calling will be posted.
Related: August 11, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard
Related: June 13, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard
Related: May 5, 2011 Republican Debate Sco
recard
Share this article
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Email
I certainly disagree with your C+ for Bachman as her answers to the questions received were articulate and with meat in them.
Obviously as Mr Gingrich stated this was a debated organized by the enemy to do damage to the Republican Party.
No, Mrs Bachmann is going to continue in being a problem to the frontrunners first and then to the frontrunner later as she is a persistent person with integrity and character.
the only winner here was Obama
Your commentary is foolish. Ron Paul won this debate easily. He is the only honest person on the stage.
Jeff – My commentary is based on seven specific communications metrics that have decided the past eight general elections. If Ron Paul becomes President next year, well, I’ll question everything I know about politics. And I’ll buy you a beer.
Ron Paul was the only candidate who was honest and he certainly won in my opinion.
I agree with your analysis.
The grading system in this article is terrible. Perry is all but done after spouting off like a hell bent preacher. Bachmann is an idiot, nothing she says makes any sense to anyone ($2.00 gasoline, c’mon). Huntsman makes the most sense for the middle of the road. Santorum is fanatic, dangerous. Ron Paul said all the same things he always says, boring freedom, crazy financial stability, and ridiculous individual liberty.
Perry and Romney are the same old NWO approved candidates. As long as a potential candidate supports
the FED, the military / industrial crowd and the big
corporations, then he / she will be part of the inner
circle. Just keep the suits the same and change the
occupant.
I agree with about 60% of what Ron Paul says (stopping all our wars, ending the FED reserve, ending the drug war, controling our spending). However I agree with about 5% about what any other candiate says… democrat or republican. Ron Paul, it appears, is our best hope.
I agree with your analysis, about the leaders. Perry on substance was more correct and inspiring, but Romney is better at ducking.
Ron Paul’s problem is that he looks like a nut. There I said it. He will never be elected POTUS so give it up.
Your analysis seems to be based on the rigged polls at gallup and from the media that aren’t open, don’t publish sample sizes, sample demographics, or have any transparency. In all of the open, transparent polls I’ve seen it’s always Bachmann or Paul that win. Cain was actually winning some of the first polls and after this debate he might move up again (in the honest polls). The MSM media polls will always show Romney and Perry winning because they support the special interests of the media and the robbing of taxpayers.
Look at the official msnbc poll, it proves your analysis to be a farce!
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-think-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library
Really? An unscientific poll which shows Ron Paul winning the debate proves my analysis to be a farce? I’d remind you that Rep. Paul won many such polls in the 2008 election, and they led to exactly 35 actual delegates (he needed 1,191 to win). My analysis will be proved a farce when Dr. Paul wins the nomination. Until then, I wouldn’t hold your breath.
It is obvious that Ron Paul supporters are jacking up the results at msnbc. By telling us to go look, makes it more obvious.
Congratulation. All 70 thousand Ron Paul supporters showed up on msnbc today. If anything, it just makes your candidate look like more of a nut. Too bad, he has some decent ideas. Enough with the wars… all of them!
I’m not talking about “scientific”, I’m talking about how people really feel. If Ron Paul supporters are “jacking up the poll” is that not the idea of a poll, to vote for the person you like??
If we want to talk about the truth instead, it’s already been decided behind closed doors that Perry will be president, and if he doesn’t win drinks are on me sheeple 🙂
Ignoring Ron Paul will not make him and the truth he stands for go away. He is the only one of all the candidates to be coherent.
I agree that ignoring him will not make him go away. And there’s no doubt that he has a passionate base. But it’s not a big one. His passionate base was only able to generate 35 actual delegates for him in 2008 (he needed 1,191 to win). I haven’t seen any evidence that his base is significantly broader this time around.
Ignoring your 7 criteria, I ranked the participants (perceptions):
1. Huntsman (sane, mature, intelligent, less specific)
2. Romney (engaged, professional, slightly defensive)
3. Gingrich (comfortable, assertive, funny)
4. Perry (assertive, self-righteous, evasive)
5. Santorum (passionate, inexperienced, desperate)
6. Cain (straight talker, crisp, naive “999”)
7. Paul (defensive, tight, cynical)
8. Bachman (pretty, Palin-like, learning on the fly)
The winner was Huntsman as far as I could see. Romney came close. Mr. Huntsman offers a conservative balanced approach with a very reasonable thinking mechanism. He has what it takes to get along with other nations. He is a realist and sounds like he will deal with situations in a logical and compassionate way. He is not a warmonger. Conservatives may not like that but most conservatives have reason and they will probably appreciate this man. He does not make promises that depend on the voting of the congress. So he’s honest. He might want to take some of Herman Kane’s suggestions or put him on his cabinet.
I must say i disagree with your grades. Huntsman’s grade was based on his not appealing to the conservatives. That could be true, but I’d rather give the conservatives an opportunity to judge for themselves. I give Huntsman an A. Yes i am an independent but a reasonable one. I mostly vote democratic but Mr. Huntsman appeals to me as he appeals to everyone not just his base.
Margherita
I do want to make a comment about Ron Paul. I think his thinking could be good if one lived on a far away island with just 500 people. then you don’t need any government at all. Just the fish, the sun, some coconuts and lots of tents and people to just care for each other. The problem is once you have 300 million people plus, it’s going to get harder to have no government. Just think about what government affords us with our tax contributions. After all you have to pay for services rendered. It’s only fair. Of course it would be nice if the super rich would pay their fair share of taxes. Did you know that the very rich only pay social security taxes up to the first $106,000 the rest they go scot free. I think Ron Paul should address the real parasites of this country.
I thought Romney won the debate and appeared the most Presidential. Perry made too many idiotic statements – the worst was calling Social Security a ponzi scheme. Michelle Bachmann again seems to be unrealistic and definitely losing ground. I read today that she is scheduling a news conference tonite right after Obama. In a time when the world is pointing fingers at us because Congress can’t get along she is going to prove it once again. She doesn’t seem at all concerned with the fallout of her actions. The first was when she voted against raising the debt ceiling. Whether you thought we should or not you certainly didn’t want to see what would have happened if we didn’t. The one thing I will give her when compared to Sarah Palin – at least Michelle has a brain. After the debate I could see a Romney & Huntsman team.
There is a lot of RP talk here for him to be so insignificant – in the author’s opinion. Search it out, he’s got an even bigger margin on NBC. He also won Iowa by a large margin before Bachmann started buying votes
http://2012iowacaucus.com/2011/05/ron-paul-win-first-2012iowacaucus-com-straw-poll/
People like his message even imperfect he is honest.
As for Obama winning, his numbers are lower than ever before and continue to sink.
I think Santorum should bow out, as well as Ron Paul at this time. Newt seems to be losing it a bit and is attacking the media for doing their job. I thought it was a weak way to handle the hosts of the evening. He could have answered the question without making a fool of himself. I agree that Michelle at least has a functioning brain in comparison to Palin. Unfortunately, Michelle’s ideology is too rigid to attract the majority of Americans in her favor. Rick Perry’s ideology gets in the way of reality. The questions he was asked about the death penalty, education and healthcare were never answered. He did a magnificent job though at skirting the issue and presenting it in a way that would fool some. The fact that many companies flock to Texas because of the tax benefits tells me that Texas is cheating America out of revenue that would contribute to the very social issues Perry is cutting funds on.
Rick Perry is the new guy in town so he’s a novelty. But like all novelties they wear off in time. As to his honesty, he is fooling himself in believing that Texas is doing well in education and healthcare. He’s uneducated in the issues that are truly important to the majority. You should do a search on RP regarding abstinence. He give sick, uninformed answers without being able to cite facts and figures.
There are a few polls out now that show Ron Paul with a gigantic lead over the other “front-runners” and I agree with the majority in these polls that Ron Paul is the best choice. Any source that states that “he cannot win,” or “he will never be elected” should be compared to a fortune teller. Instead of trolling the forums they should use their advice to pick the next stock investment so they can become millionaires. Ron Paul stands for the Constitution as my ancestors wrote it. I can’t say that for any of the other candidates.
People are learning that the republican and democratic parties are one in the same. Ron Paul is not just the best candidate. He is our only hope for a free United States. We are on the edge of complete failure as a country. The politicians in the white house and congress have completely ignored their responsibility in exchange for polling numbers.
I think that Huntsman did a good job presenting his case. Romney maintained a classy rhetoric. Cain still is having trouble resonating. Bachman is her own worst enemy. Gingrich is fighting his own past. Santorum is passionate but I wonder where his true loyalties lie. Perry ducked way too many questions to be credible. While I don’t believe this was Ron Paul’s finest performance, I think that is at least partially due to the tiny opportunity he had to speak compared to his performance in the race. I, like so many others, am a new and strong supporter of Ron Paul. I understand the love for metrics, but if the input is skewed so is the output. Regardless, he is far better at explaining his positions and using the constitution,which was written by individuals that were far superior to those in Washington D.C. today, to set precedence for his views.