Previewing the final Iowa debate of the year

posted at 2:35 pm on December 15, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

I’m not sure whether to feel happy, disappointed, or relieved that the Republican candidates will hold their last major televised debate of the year on Fox News Channel at 9 pm ET.  The debate will take place in Sioux City, Iowa, where our Townhall colleague Guy Benson is on hand to provide local reporting of the event.  With Donald Trump leaving the December 27th Newsmax-ACU debate that would only have aired on Ion TV and Internet streaming, this is the last significant opportunity for the Republican candidates to reach large number of Iowa caucus-goers in one shot to make their final pitch — and to toss a few beanballs at their opponents.

Des Moines Register’s chief political analyst Jennifer Jacobs sets up the stakes well:

In tonight’s nationally televised Republican Party debate in Sioux City, every available line of attack will be exploited, politics watchers say. Few pieces of opposition research will go unused. The most passionate closing arguments will be made.

For some of these candidates, it may be their last time on the stage as a presidential candidate. For one, it could mark the point where he or she began the serious business of becoming the Republican nominee — and possibly the next president of the United States.

“After countless months, in some cases years, of hard work and investment of key resources, this debate will go down as the most important two hours of the campaign for Iowa,” predicted Republican strategist David Polyansky of New York City.

This also sets up what might really be the most important debates in Iowa … the holiday conversations between friends and family members:

“What ultimately will be more important than the debate will be the conversations people have with family and friends over Christmas,” said Iowa caucuses historian Jeff Stein, “so it’s very important for candidates to go into the Christmas weekend on a high note.”

Which candidate has the most potential upside from this debate?  In my column for The Fiscal Times, I argue that it’s Rick Perry:

Which candidate, then, can fill what looks to be an opening to the right of Gingrich and Romney?  At the moment, that candidate may be Rick Perry.  In the Insider Advantage and ARG polls, Perry has more than doubled his support in the last couple of weeks, going from 5 percent to 13 percent in both.  The Texas governor has launched a “saturation” ad buy in Iowa, spending over a million dollars in the three markets over the next couple of weeks on radio and TV spots.  After a disastrous series of debates, Perry has suddenly become pretty good in the format, if not great.  He got the better of Mitt Romney in Des Moines on Saturday, and stayed energetic and focused throughout the event.

After tonight’s debate, Perry has fully committed to retail politicking in Iowa.  For the next two weeks, Perry will make 42 appearances and travel over a thousand miles to press the flesh and remind people of his record on jobs and fighting Washington, a record that got buried under his gaffes for most of October and November.  As anyone who has covered Perry in person can attest, he is a master of retail politicking, turning on the down-home charm and connecting with social conservatives.  It’s a strength that has served Perry well in Texas, perhaps the main reason why he’s never lost an election in his career.

The campaign’s current dynamics will help Perry in tonight’s debate.  Everyone on stage will attack Romney and Gingrich as insufficiently conservative, and the two front-runners will mainly attack each other.  Romney made a tactical error in going after Perry in the last debate, allowing Perry to rise to the occasion and resulting in the awkward $10,000-bet moment, so Romney won’t make that mistake a second time.  Perry’s poll bounce might bring fresh attacks from Michele Bachmann, who has also risen back into low double-digits in the ARG and Insider Advantage polls, and she has scored points off of Perry in the past.  Bachmann needs to get voters away from Gingrich more than she does Perry, however, so most of her attention will be elsewhere, and the same can be said for Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman.

With Gingrich slipping and Romney still among the frontrunners, it’s very possible that Perry can spend the debate focusing exclusively on his jobs record and his fight against Washington on energy production, two areas of domestic policy near and dear to Iowa Republicans.  A bad performance would probably mean that Perry can cancel his Christmas campaign and enjoy the holidays in Austin, but he has improved his debate performances steadily over the last several weeks.  Keep an eye on him tonight, and then on the polling in the next week.  There’s room for him to move up, if he can pull off another good performance.

How about the other candidates?

  • Mitt Romney — He needs to ignore attacks from lower-tier candidates and deny them any ability to get extra screen time by dialoguing with them.  He excelled at staying above the fray until about a month ago, and he’s not doing terribly well in exchanging blows.  Romney needs to get back to looking presidential.
  • Newt Gingrich — The only thing Gingrich needs to do here that doesn’t involve being his usual brilliant debater self is to make the argument that he can go the distance, and that his record is more conservative than it isn’t.  I’d expect Fox to focus a little less on Newt-centric questions than ABC did on Saturday, but the same issues will come up, and if Newt can knock them down like he did on Saturday, he should be fine.
  • Michele Bachmann — Like Perry, her numbers have started coming up a little, too.  She had a very good debate on Saturday, especially with the “Newt Romney” zinger.  She needs to stay centered, not get hyperbolic, and pepper both frontrunners on their heterodoxies.
  • Rick Santorum — He also had a good debate on Saturday.  Santorum has spent the most time in Iowa in retail politicking, and he needs to make an emotional connection to Iowa voters in tonight’s debate.  He also needs to go after Romney and Gingrich in a calm and detailed manner.  If he can do that, he might get some momentum.
  • Ron Paul — Like Gingrich, he just needs to do what he usually does in debates.  He’s going to go after everyone on stage, of course, as he usually does, and his base of support will love it.
  • Jon Huntsman — He missed the cut for CNN’s debate on Saturday, and I’m not sure why he’s bothering to come tonight.  Huntsman seems to have gained momentum in New Hampshire, and he’s not going to be spending a lot of time in Iowa after this debate.  Why not just have an event tonight in New Hampshire instead?  Huntsman needs to poke more holes in Romney than in Gingrich, and since he’s playing for New Hampshire, that’s what he should do.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Unexpectedly!

Washington Nearsider on May 7, 2013 at 10:44 AM

How do you like your dose of Lean Forward, Libyans? Right into the mass grave.

Good job, Preznit Smart Power.

Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Whats the difference….h clinton……

crosshugger on May 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM

“This is some rescue. When you came in here, didn’t you have a plan for getting out?” -Average Libya citizen
“He’s the brains, sweetheart!” -Hillary, pointing at Barack

Chris of Rights on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Well, this is going much better than expected, isn’t it?

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Who might those be?

Clearly tea party… Err. LIBYAN tea party.

Gatsu on May 7, 2013 at 10:50 AM

How do you like your dose of Lean Forward, Libyans? Right into the mass grave.

Good job, Preznit Smart Power.

Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Samantha Powers takes a bow !

Jabberwock on May 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM

One stupid step for Obama…

One giant leap for Jihad.

coldwarrior on May 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM

“This is some rescue. When you came in here, didn’t you have a plan for getting out?” -Average Libya citizen
“He’s the brains, sweetheart!” -Hillary, pointing at Barack

Chris of Rights on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM

“Into the garbage chute, no-fly-zone-boy” – (pointing at Barack)

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM

And once again, we see why a POTUS must have Congress on board when going to war.

Had Congress given its imprimatur, they too would be on the hook for this mess, and would be under pressure to fix it. But, no. Team Liar and President Gutsy Call just had to do it on their own.

And now, the music has stopped, and they are the ones without a chair…

JohnGalt23 on May 7, 2013 at 10:57 AM

I note Ms. Power hasn’t been heard from lately.

R2P = R2FU

PattyJ on May 7, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Because Chaos is Progressive…

Lean Forward!

workingclass artist on May 7, 2013 at 10:59 AM

So this was another war for oil,right?

docflash on May 7, 2013 at 11:04 AM

And just who are these “militias,” anyway? Bloomberg doesn’t say, but it suffices to point out that even the Muslim Brotherhood party in the legislature supported the Isolation Law. That means the militias in play here are more radical than the Muslim Brotherhood.

Are we even sure that that wasn’t the intended consequence?

1) Allow radical muslims to come to power.
2) Be able to blame riots and attacks on a video no one’s seen
3) Get on board the muslim push for a UN treaty that outlaws blasphemy
4) Get rid of the First Amendment, along with the Second etc., which are part of a charter of negative rights anyhow.

rbj on May 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Legacy baby

cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Take heart, Libyans because this situation was brought to you by a dude who won a Nobel Peace Prize, that’s worth something, right?

Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Are we even sure that that wasn’t the intended consequence?

1) Allow radical muslims to come to power.
2) Be able to blame riots and attacks on a video no one’s seen
3) Get on board the muslim push for a UN treaty that outlaws blasphemy
4) Get rid of the First Amendment, along with the Second etc., which are part of a charter of negative rights anyhow.

Hmmm, looks about right.

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM

And dear leader went around Congress for this boondoggle didn’t he

cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I’m sure the Administration will see this as a simple ‘evolution’ in the ‘process of transition’. “Nothing serious, nothing to worry about. Hey! What time do you want to head to the course and do nine holes?”

Liam on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

JohnGalt23 on May 7, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Which would be true, but this wasn’t a “War” in the traditional sense.

This was probably the worse ‘Covert Action’ ever run by a Administration…

For what?

Was Khadaffi replaced by a more open minded government?

Was any Strategic or National Intelligence gained by this move?

Are we better off now, before this boondoggle was launched?

Talk about a deficit of political capitol.

BlaxPac on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

BlaxPac on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Libs care not for outcomes, but only for intentions.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Arab Spring!

myiq2xu on May 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM

What if we hadn’t intervened? Ghaddafi’s tanks would have leveled Benghazi and thousands would have died. There would have followed a period of intense repression and Ghaddafi would have ceased any cooperation with the West. There would be the probability of ongoing conflict and Islamification…another Syria, as rebels fought a diehard regime.
That’s not happening now and there is gratitude in Libya for what we did.
That being said, Obama’s intervention was at the 11th hour, reluctant and short-lived. He let the war go on too long and botched the aftermath. That’s his real legacy.

breffnian on May 7, 2013 at 12:04 PM

What if we hadn’t intervened? Ghaddafi’s tanks would have leveled Benghazi and thousands would have died. There would have followed a period of intense repression and Ghaddafi would have ceased any cooperation with the West. There would be the probability of ongoing conflict and Islamification…another Syria, as rebels fought a diehard regime.
That’s not happening now and there is gratitude in Libya for what we did.
That being said, Obama’s intervention was at the 11th hour, reluctant and short-lived. He let the war go on too long and botched the aftermath. That’s his real legacy.

breffnian on May 7, 2013 at 12:04 PM

I actually disagree with the bolded part above. I actually think Ghaddafi would have done exactly the opposite. He would have attempted to increase his ties with the West as an act of self-preservation.

I think he would have pointed gone to the western nations and said he was fighting their enemies vis-a-vis Ansar al Sharia. He would have asked why we would want to support the rebels, backed by jihadist groups that hate us. He also probably would have said that supporting his regime would provide a bulwark against the Arab Spring spreading further and throwing the entire region into chaos… witness Syria. That once one nation stands up against this regime change, other rebel groups in other nations… Syria, Bahrain, etc… will be less emboldened to begin or continue high profile protests and outright civl war for regime change in their states. I think he probably would have acknowledged privately that he knows we don’t like him, but our choices would be his Libyan state or turning Libya into another Somalia in North Africa.

And it’s certainly looking like we are going to get the latter… Somalia Redux in Libya.

gravityman on May 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Al Watan, the MB party, is founded by Bel Hadj, he was the leader of the Libyan Fighting Group, he runs camps for Syrian jihadists in the desert, he brought in Bin Qumu, head of Ansar al Sharia, to train the militants during the war,

narciso on May 7, 2013 at 1:35 PM