MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN -- The first Republican presidential debate of the 2024 cycle is in the books, and it's hard to analyze in some respects. If Donald Trump were not in the picture -- in this case, as the absent and commanding frontrunner -- we could break down and parse the event, assessing winners and losers. In my mind, last night wasn't really about big moments or heated exchanges It was about whether or not the trajectory of the overall primary race was altered at all. I'm not sure it was. I attended a watch party of conservative voters and activists here in Milwaukee, hosted by my friends at Americans for Prosperity. These were mostly Trump-skeptical or done-with-Trump right-leaners, but there were Trump fans mixed in, as well. Here's how I described their collective reaction to what they saw:
Just left a debate watch event with a few hundred conservative Wisconsin voters. I asked for some show-of-hands responses, then worked the room for more context and color. A few takeaways:
- Notable positive response for Nikki Haley, especially from women
- DeSantis helped himself, particularly by highlighting his record of getting things done. Still lacks a lighter touch, but that’s just him
- Vivek polarizing. Some loved much of what he said, but also thought he was too glib and too cocky at times
- People like Tim Scott, but thought he was flat
- Some grudging respect for Pence and Christie on certain things, but no support
- Burgum/Asa not a factor
- Trump fans in the house were unmoved from supporting him
My bottom line: DeSantis & Haley may have gained some momentum, but the primary’s overall trajectory wasn’t noticeably altered, which is a win for the status quo…and therefore the far-ahead, no-show frontrunner.
As referenced above, I asked two questions. First, of Trump supporters, I inquired if anything they saw last night had changed their minds. Result: Zero minds changed. Second, among everyone else (the majority at this gathering), by a show of hands, DeSantis maybe had a slight edge over anyone else on the 'who won?' question, with Haley and Ramaswamy running roughly even just behind the Florida Governor. There might have been one or two people who raised their hands for others, but it was a negligible number. A handful of people on stage may have helped themselves or built some momentum, but nobody really crashed and burned either. Without a massive or defining moment, and with no major culling in sight, I'd be surprised if the status quo changed dramatically. Advantage: Trump.
That said, nobody is going to make up a huge deficit overnight, and it's still only August. Some campaigns need some positive news to start chipping away, and I think a few may have achieved that. Whether there's any lasting impact -- especially with Trump choosing to get booked in Georgia today, crowding out next-day coverage -- is a separate question. For what it's worth, some quick thoughts on each showing from yours truly:
DeSantis: High stakes, solid performance. He steered nearly every question to his record, taking command on certain questions (his handling of the climate change raise-your-hand moment was intriguing) and accentuating his strengths. Multiple good answers, no bad ones. If I recall correctly, despite some needling and provocations, he never 'punched down' at anyone else, only attacking the Left. That showed discipline. But what he has in terms of record and focus, he lacks in warmth and levity. As the slang term goes, he has no chill. That's not insignificant as a political matter. He was a bit too shouty. That said, weaving in stories of specific voters he's met was a good move on this front, as was hitting on his biography in relevant and meaningful ways. He also did a nice job stressing the need to focus on the future and the needs of normal voters and their families. This wasn't a do or die moment for him, but it felt somewhat close. He certainly didn't die. How much 'do' comes out of last night is TBD, as we await polling in a few weeks.
Haley: She showed some fire when necessary, but mostly stayed above the fray. Her abortion answer, which was nuanced and strategically palatable to a general election audience, was smart -- and may have landed with extra heft, coming from the only female candidate on stage. She made an electability argument against Trump without coming across as virulently anti-Trump. As mentioned above, the positive reception she received among women in the audience was noteworthy. Some of her biggest lines landed, and she avoided any glaring missteps. All in all, a good night for the former governor and ambassador.
Ramaswamy: Eloquent or glib? Confident or off-puttingly cocky? Brave truth-teller, or shameless panderer? Vivek is something of a Rorschach test. I suspect a lot conservative voters like the cut of his jib and agree with many of the things he says. They may also like his energy and embodiment of generational change. But who is this guy? And what has he done? And why was he so frequently on the attack, suggesting that the other candidates were bought-and-paid for puppets? There's something of a gameshow host quality about him; he's very smooth and silver-tongued, but some of it feels a little oleaginous and superficial. We'll see how much lasting power he has.
Pence: Steady and old school. Surprisingly eager to mix it up with Ramaswamy, sometimes interrupting so often that it seemed to irk moderator Bret Baier. Didn't back down an inch on the 2020 election or January 6th. Hammered away on experience and readiness. Cadence and arguments sometimes sound and feel like those from a Republican politician of a recent but bygone era. Dignified, but it's unclear what his constituency is at this point. At times jarring to see him ardently defending the record of the administration whose leader actively attacks him, and who Pence describes as trying to put himself over the constitution.
Christie: The man is a skilled communicator and clearly enjoys debating. He's good at it, even relishing and leaning into the boos at times to emphasize his points. He gave a smart answer on guns, turning it into a totally clean hit on Hunter Biden and hypocrisy. Elements of his record in New Jersey are genuinely impressive, but aren't terribly current. He's been out of office for half-a-decade. Despite being a villain to many in the audience at times, he opened up certain lines of attack, and had an outsized impact -- even getting big laughs from his faux-incredulous response to an out-of-left-field UFO question. It would be fascinating to see him get a shot at debating Donald Trump, whom he criticized more directly than anyone else last night. Trump likely wants no part of that.
Scott: A good, likable man, and a conservative Senator most Republicans are very happy to have on their team. I've seen him command a room before. That didn't happen last night. He had some nice answers and some decent moments, but nothing really stood out. He didn't seem comfortable up there, even as others settled in after the early jitters. More broadly, are conservative voters remotely in the mood for a happy warrior this cycle?
Hutchinson/Burgum: Both of these men have elements of their records that are impressive and laudable. Both delivered some decent answers in their (fairly generously) allotted time. Respectfully, they're the longest shots within a non-Trump field of long shots, and I'm not sure how they'll continue to qualify for the stage as the bar gets raised.
Moderators: I'm entirely biased because they're Fox colleagues whom I respect, but I thought Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum performed ably and professionally. It's a very tough gig with lots of moving parts, and they handled it quite well, by and large. There was a lot of substance throughout the forum, resulting in several useful, interesting, and elucidating exchanges on key issues. I'm glad the first hour focused on top issues, rather than fixating on drama surrounding the absent frontrunner. One down, more to come...
UPDATE -
…and one more w/ Varney pic.twitter.com/dzsYgKnMdF
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) August 24, 2023
Join the conversation as a VIP Member