Republican Field Prepares For Its Third Round
And then there were six... or five, really. The Republicans just announced who will be allowed on their debate stage tomorrow night, and they have once again winnowed their field. This time around, only six presidential candidates made the cut: Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, Chris Christie, and Tim Scott. However, Trump has already said he's not going to show up, which will leave only five on the debate stage. Asa Hutchinson did not qualify for his second straight debate (making me wonder why he's still in the race), and this time around Doug Burgum also got shut out (which he is not happy about). Mike Pence completely took himself out of the running last week, so the debate field has shrunk down to manageable proportions. Each candidate should get a decent amount of speaking time with only five of them on the stage, to put this slightly differently. And the moderators won't have to waste time on the longest-of-the-longshots.
The next (fourth) debate cutoff could be even more brutal, as the Republican National Committee just released its criteria for qualification and the magic polling number that candidates must hit has jumped up to six percent (for tomorrow's debate it was only at four percent). This may put both Christie and Scott in danger of not making the stage, but we'll have to wait and see.
Getting back to tomorrow's debate, one of the late-night comics last night (sorry, I forget which one...) joked that it should really be titled: "Who Wants To Be Vice President?" -- which isn't all that far from the truth, since Trump remains so dominant in all the polling. The other candidates are all trying to be "the one" who can take on Trump and win -- if only all the "not-Trump" voters would coalesce behind them -- but at the moment, that realistically has come down to a contest between Haley and DeSantis. DeSantis has been on a downward trajectory for months, and Haley seems to have caught the voters' attention in her first two debates and has seen her poll numbers jump as a result. Nationally, DeSantis still has a lead over Haley, but she's catching up to him in Iowa and is out in front of him in both New Hampshire and her home state of South Carolina. This means she could be on the brink of successfully knocking DeSantis out of the second place position he's held nationally since the start of the race.
The Haley-DeSantis matchup will likely be the source of a lot of the fireworks tomorrow night, since each one will be making the case to all the not-Trump voters (and big GOP donors) that they have a better chance than the other of consolidating all the not-Trump support. But because of the dynamics (Trump not being on the stage), they will probably spend most of their energy attacking each other rather than the frontrunner of the GOP race. This won't be all that different from the first two debates.
Both Haley and DeSantis can probably expect some incoming fire from the other three candidates on the stage as well. Haley probably has a bigger target on her back in this regard, since she's the only one on the stage who has seen a real polling bump since the debate cycle began. DeSantis is already seen as somewhat of a has-been, but Haley is seen as catching fire. So dousing that fire will be critical for all the others.
As I mentioned, the most vulnerable candidates on the stage tomorrow are going to be Christie and Scott. Christie is unlikely to change his playbook much, since he's the only remaining candidate who seems to understand the reality that Donald Trump must be beaten to gain the GOP nomination. Scott is fighting for relevance while knowing Haley is beating him soundly in his own home state. After all, if you can't win your own state (where the voters know you best), how are you going to win any of the others? Scott has been trying a sunny sort of Reaganesque optimism, but that sort of thing is (pretty obviously) not what Republican voters are in the mood for at the present time. Both candidates know that tomorrow night might be their last chance to make their case to a nationwide audience of Republican voters, so they'll both be striving for a breakout debate performance.
How Vivek Ramaswamy will behave is anyone's guess, really. He tried "annoyingly obnoxious tech bro" the first time around, which got him a whole bunch of attention but did not result in any sort of polling bump at all. To put this another way, he made a big impression on a lot of folks who then immediately decided they wouldn't be voting for him. In the second debate, however, he flipped his political personality 180 degrees and tried a sort of "let's all join hands and sing 'Kumbaya'" effort, which was incredibly jarring for anyone who had seen his first debate performance. Which Vivek will show up tomorrow night? It's anyone's guess. Maybe he'll even have a third completely different personality to unveil? The first two didn't do much for him, so it'd be understandable if he tried something brand new once again. At this point he's really got nothing to lose by being inconsistent.
DeSantis, at this point, is getting pretty desperate. He was seen as the big hope to dethrone Trump very early on, but since that point he's never lived up to this hype. He is an awful campaigner, struggling to make any sort of human connection with voters, and instead of going for the "not Trump" segment of the Republican Party, he instead chose to run to the right of Trump and try to steal his MAGA supporters away. But why should they vote for a Trump-like candidate when they can vote for Trump himself? He's never really adequately answered that question.
Haley will likely continue her impersonation of Margaret Thatcher -- a tough-minded conservative-but-realist woman who exudes competence and intelligence and who can give just as good as she gets on the campaign trail. This is what has gotten her to the point she occupies now, so she's not likely to change tactics tomorrow night. Haley has already proven she can be scathing in her put-downs of her fellow Republicans and so far none of the rest of them have torn her down to any noticeable effect.
However, DeSantis and Haley both will be making the same core argument. In essence: "If everyone else would just drop out of the race now, I would be a real contender against Trump. So please, everyone else, just realize you're going to lose and support me instead!" Their problem -- exactly the same as in 2016 -- is that they both fervently believe that they are the one destined to carry this banner. Meaning Haley and DeSantis are going to remain in the race until at least Super Tuesday, and by doing so split all the non-Trump vote to such an extent that neither one of them is likely going to have a chance to win even a single state. Or at least not until it is too late to matter much.
Meanwhile, Trump has the luxury of ignoring the debates. His popularity within the GOP base is so sky-high that he can afford not to even show up. Why should he? He'd just get a lot of incoming flak, he might wind up saying something monumentally stupid, and the joy of insulting the other candidates directly to their faces just isn't worth the risk. And that -- just like in the first two debates -- is the dominant theme. Trump is already winning "bigly" (as he might say) and nobody else has come even remotely close to threatening his position.
That dynamic doesn't seem likely to change, either. So sure, I'll be watching tomorrow night's debate, but without much hope of seeing any sort of major shift in the Republican nomination race afterwards, no matter how standout a performance anyone may achieve.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Meanwhile on Israel/Palestine, I have no solution to offer.
I say that the state ... has no right to exist, and there is no such thing as a ... people. I still say that both clauses are true when you add "of Israel" to the first and "Palestinian" to the second; they just become completely unhelpful.
I have no problem saying that Hamas is evil. I think Israel should stop trying to recruit more fighters for Hamas, and the world should pressure Iran to eliminate Hamas.
But that doesn't add up to a solution, or anywhere close to a solution. If I were stuck with dictatorial powers and a geas not to resign until I do something about Israel/Palestine, I would probably resettle everyone on empty land in places like Nebraska, give each of them enough money to make up for the cost of shipping goods to the middle of nowhere, not allow any of them to leave unless they sign a pledge renouncing all claim to any land anywhere in the Middle East, and turn the whole place into a no-humans-allowed nature preserve for the next hundred years.
Good luck with that, Dan. The Israelis would dominate the Omaha commodities market, hamas would dig smuggling tunnels to Oklahoma, and the lizards in the Negev would declare statehood.
I am starting to think Republicans are like two old men arguing over what AM radio station they want to listen to while ignoring the fact that they just drove thru a road block and barely missed running over the flagger trying to get them to stop before they discover that the bridge is out all by themselves. They are focused on what they want to focus on and ignore what will surely be the end for them if they don’t take action immediately. I wonder if they haven’t just given up all hope and welcome the end coming with open arms. Their voting base got tired of being lied to by people who they had put their trust in and chose to elect a man who they knew was lying to them, but who at least made them laugh while he lied to them. The Republicans lack a party platform that goes beyond, “We support whatever Trump says we support until he tells us that we never supported that thing and we support the exact opposite thing…until we don’t.” They either stand for nothing or know that they cannot say publicly what their goals are for our country.
[2]
Not all in Nebraska. Scattered across empty places. So even for the ones in Nebraska, Omaha would be part of the outside world, that they couldn't go to unless they sign the pledge. There's more than enough land in upstate New York, the Dakotas, and so on, that they wouldn't have to have more than ten people within a mile of each other. Maybe give a bunch of them some prime real estate in the Australian outback.
Joshua,
Vladimir Putin took the choice away by invading, and all evidence suggests that would have happened regardless of all things NATO
Could this war in Ukraine have been avoided if NATO expansion to include Ukraine wasn't a thing? Who the heck really knows for certain.
What is for certain is that Biden made sure we'd never find out by announcing repeatedly that Ukraine's eventual membership in NATO was non-negotiable. And, the funny thing is that NATO has no real intention of welcoming Ukraine into its fold now, anytime soon or ever. But, they were willing to subject Ukraine to death and destruction and other vagaries of war ... for WHAT!?
When did Biden attempt to coerce Ukraine into joining NATO? Or is it that he rejected an attempt by Russia to dictate the terms of a treaty to its existing signatories? The North Atlantic Treaty specifies the process by which additional countries can join, and the criteria that have to be met at each stage. Changing that treaty to say "except Ukraine" is something that the member states could do if they so chose. It's not something that Russia has any justification for. If we went to the CSTO ("collective security treaty organization", the current legal framework of the Russian Empire) and told them that they have to alter the terms of their treaty just because we said so, we would be in the wrong. We have no authority to do that. Neither does Russia have any authority to say that we have to add "except Ukraine" to the process for joining NATO.
Well, the legal framework of empire beyond Chechnya, Dagestan, and so on. There's plenty of territory that's not Russia but is in the Russian Federation.
Dan,
When did Biden attempt to coerce Ukraine into joining NATO?
Seriously? The West has been expanding NATO for decades and the Ukraine project has been ongoing for a very long time. Of course, clearer heads in NATO are against it, as well they should be for reasons that I have explained already and that are, after all, quite obvious.
This has NOTHING to do with allowing Russia to dictate the terms of NATO membership or altering treaties. Not even in the very least!
Could this war in Ukraine have been avoided if NATO expansion to include Ukraine wasn't a thing?
no.
Who the heck really knows for certain.
me.
and anyone else who understands the subtext of statements Putin has made since new years, 1992. for him, any actual ukranian independence was always going to be met with force. NATO expansion is just as much a pretext as "de-nazification."
Liz,
But, they were willing to subject Ukraine to death and destruction and other vagaries of war ... for WHAT!?
That’s a great question… you want to blame everyone but Russia for Russia attacking Ukraine while pointing out that that it makes no sense for anyone to provoke such an attack. Why would anyone subject the Ukrainian people to such horrors? It makes no sense, as you point out, for anyone to cause Russia to attack the Ukrainian people. There is nothing to be gained…well, almost no one would gain anything. The only one who could possibly benefit from this would be, obviously…, Russia.
This started years ago when Russia first annexed Crimea and the Crimean Peninsula because “the Crimean people wanted to be part of Russia” again. Yeah, NO! It was done because Russia was tired of paying the large tariffs they had to pay to get their oil and natural gas onto tankers in the Black Sea and shipped to Europe. Russia is landlocked and have relied on Crimea to get their product to their consumers for decades. All oil pipes run from Russian oil fields to Crimea. Russia’s economy would collapse without Crimea. Once Ukraine kicked the Russian puppet out of office that Putin had placed in power, the Ukrainian government raised the tariffs so the Russians weren’t getting to use the port for “free”. Putin was losing money, so Russia took Crimea to avoid paying those tariffs.
Russia was clearly planning to take back Ukraine for a while. They discovered that despite their claim of Crimea being part of Russia, the international community refused to recognize that. The world said Crimea was still part of Ukraine. So to own Crimea, Russia had to take back Ukraine or wage a war in the hopes of getting Crimea as part of a treaty to end the war.
Remember when Trump took all that money from military projects and used it to build his wall on the Southern border? The press loved to cover the stories of much needed military housing that were nixed by Trumps money grab, but they did not give coverage to where most of the money came from — projects on building up the Ukrainian border with Russia to prevent an invasion. If Trump had still been in office, Putin would have marched into Ukraine with little resistance. Trump would not have allowed our military to offer any aid or support to fend off Russia.
Russia attempted to discredit the Ukrainian president and cause the American public to think he was interfering with our elections. It failed thanks to Lt.Col. Vindman’s whistleblowing actions. Putin was not going to pay tariffs and lose money to the Ukrainians no matter how many lives it cost to make that so.
Elizabeth your victim blaming isn’t playing very well in this space because telling Putin to help himself to Ukraine because the West doesn’t care is counterintuitive — and that’s putting it mildly.
Besides ducking my would you defend Ontario question you also haven’t offered
links to whomever has convinced you to parrot the Russians. Was the guy’s name William Bradley? I googled him and didn’t find any of the William Bradleys that turned up was remotely close to being a geo strategist or even a politics pundit. So how about a couple of links?
Ok, a step closer to a strategy on Israel / Palestine: both sides must come to see their respective approaches as failures.
I've already said that Israel should stop trying to recruit more fighters for Hamas. Having 1400 Israelis killed and 250 taken hostage isn't a failure for the total-war faction in Israeli politics: it works wonders for them, changing a lot of people's attitudes toward genocide from "never again" to "the problem is that it happened to the wrong people ". Likewise, having tens of thousands of Palestinians killed, hundreds of thousands made homeless, and millions impoverished and humiliated isn't a failure for Hamas.
We need to find something that is failure for each side, and inflict it on them. Problem is, the only thing I can think of that would fit the bill is peace and prosperity for ordinary Palestinians and Israelis. If we knew how to do that, then the problem of how to do that would already have been solved.
Polling shows 83% of Ukrainians in favor of joining NATO. Did Biden go around answering all their phones and telling the pollsters that they wanted to? Or did he go around holding a gun to their heads and telling them to tell the pollsters that, or what?
Dan,
Polling shows 83% of Ukrainians in favor of joining NATO. Did Biden go around answering all their phones and telling the pollsters that they wanted to? Or did he go around holding a gun to their heads and telling them to tell the pollsters that, or what?
Ah, or what. Good God.
Why is it so difficult around here to hold more than one thought in our heads at the same time, particularly when considering complex geopolitical games?
Yes, the vast majority of Ukrainians favour joining NATO. I'm sure that number has gone up increasingly over the years and dramatically most recently. Does that make it a good idea, geopolitically? No, it does not.
The West has been pushing the boundaries of NATO for decades. We are not really discussing the merits for or against the expanding of NATO. But, people who understand how Russia has viewed this ever-eastward expansion also clearly understand that the move to include Ukraine in NATO's overall strategy over the years, if not in its actual membership, was a game-changer for reasons I shouldn't have to enumerate.
Leaving aside what Ukrainians want and understanding what NATO is willing to accept, tell me why you think it is a good idea to even contemplate Ukrainian membership in NATO. Why do you think the same US crew who advocated for the Iraq War in 2003 have been pushing for Ukrainian membership in NATO?
Russ,
you want to blame everyone but Russia for Russia attacking Ukraine
Actually, I want and have done no such thing. I'm not about laying blame. And, of course, it is Russia that invaded Ukraine and so it is Russia who carries full responsibility for this foolish, stupid, futile war.
My main point in this ongoing discussion - my only point, essentially - is that the US has pushed NATO enlargement too far by postulating - non-seriously, I might add - that Ukraine should eventually be in NATO and that its eventual membership is non-negotiable.
I have been hugely disappointed in how Biden has handled the Ukrainian file since becoming president. I think the developing regional security crisis between Ukraine and Russia that existed since 2014 and even before was manageable, especially for a foreign policy wonk like Biden who was always about elevating the diplomatic track over the military options. Which is why I applauded his choice of a statesman like William Burns to head up the CIA.
This started years ago when Russia first annexed Crimea ...
My point is that we must look back much further than the annexation of Crimea to understand the dynamics of the geopolitical game being played here by the US, Russia and Ukraine. All sides have thus far been playing it very badly. And, for that, the Ukrainian people have suffered immeasurably.
In this nuanced discussion we are all trying to have here on the question of the war in Ukraine, let's try not to insult each others intelligence. I would be very interested in understanding how you see this war ending.
the US has pushed NATO enlargement too far by postulating - non-seriously, I might add - that Ukraine should eventually be in NATO and that its eventual membership is non-negotiable.
That is an inaccurate characterization of US policy toward NATO, lifted straight from Russian propaganda. If you want a serious discussion, start with serious facts.
Joshua, why do you choose to ignore the facts about NATO expansion?
What are you going to argue when this war ends with Ukraine in a worse position than it was when it began?
I've noticed a rather amusing tactic around here - whenever an argument about NATO expansion can't be refuted it's just called Russian propaganda or I'm called a Putin apologist.
Yeah, that's a great way to move a discussion forward. ;)
I've noticed a rather amusing tactic around here - whenever an argument about NATO expansion can't be refuted it's just called Russian propaganda or I'm called a Putin apologist.
neither a tactic, nor correct. your argument that NATO expansion is somehow responsible for Russia's invasion of Ukraine is both easily refuted AND an element of russian propaganda.
@liz [17-18]
it's not "ignoring" a fact to consider it irrelevant. i've carefully considered the potential impact of NATO expansion on russia-ukraine relations, and concluded that it had negligible impact on putin's determination to subjugate ukraine, if any at all.
as far as what constitutes a "worse position," the only opinion that ought to matter is that of ukranians. the longer this goes on, the better it looks for ukraine. they're fighting for their freedom, and that seems to be worth quite a bit to them.
JL
Joshua,
your argument that NATO expansion is somehow responsible for Russia's invasion of Ukraine is both easily refuted AND an element of russian propaganda.
What we have here is a failure to communicate as that is decidedly NOT my argument.
I have no problem with NATO expansion, per se. I do believe, though, that expanding NATO to include Ukraine makes no geopolitical sense and was, is and will always be a bad idea. Would Putin have decided against invading Ukraine outright if Biden was willing to discuss Ukrainian neutrality, as even Zelensky was willing to do at one point? I don't know and Biden's firm stance on this made sure we would never find out.
My argument since before this war began is that the US has recklessly pushed the notion of Ukrainian membership in NATO and has acted inside Ukraine through military exercises and through programs like the Partnership for Peace to keep that notion alive. Part of my argument is that the long relationship between Ukraine and Russia makes Ukraine a unique case amongst other recent additions to the Western military alliance and that the continued push to move Ukraine towards the NATO fold has caused consternation in Russia and not just in the head of Putin. The point I have been trying to make for the last 21 months is that Biden chose badly when he decided to make a stand on the idea that Ukraine's destiny is in NATO and that it was not a subject for negotiation.
Part of my argument has also been that Ukraine is going to be hard pressed to win a war against Russia. We just have to look at a map to see the lack of progress Ukraine has made in pushing Russia back from Eastern Ukraine. NATO member countries have certainly recognized this, as well.
the longer this goes on, the better it looks for ukraine
Well, I see no battlefield evidence of that but, I do hope you are right!
Caddy,
Elizabeth your victim blaming isn’t playing very well in this space because telling Putin to help himself to Ukraine because the West doesn’t care is counterintuitive — and that’s putting it mildly. Besides ducking my would you defend Ontario question you also haven’t offered links to whomever has convinced you to parrot the Russians. Was the guy’s name William Bradley? I googled him and didn’t find any of the William Bradleys that turned up was remotely close to being a geo strategist or even a politics pundit. So how about a couple of links? Answer, please.
My patience with you is wearing thin and your incessant badgering about things already asked and answered has become a complete waste of my time. Just so you know, I am going to try my best to refrain from any more discussion here on the war in Ukraine until Chris writes a headlining piece about it.