Debatable Outcomes

The third GOP presidential debate was the most substantive yet—but did it matter?

By , and
465

Happy Thursday! The Smithsonian National Zoo’s panda family—Mei Xiang, Tian Tian, and Xiao Qi Ji—left Washington for China yesterday aboard a FedEx flight, leaving Zoo Atlanta the only remaining place in the United States with the lovable bears (don’t tell Jonah we said that) on display. China’s loan agreement with that zoo expires next year, meaning America could soon be panda-less for the first time in decades. We can only hope this is on the top of Biden’s agenda when he meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping next week.

Quick Hits: Today’s Top Stories

  • The European Union (EU) on Wednesday endorsed the start of negotiations for Ukraine and Moldova to join the bloc. The European Commission recommended that accession talks be opened as both countries have made progress on the bloc’s various prerequisites, but ultimate membership in the EU could take years and would require Ukraine to make additional reforms reducing corruption and the influence of oligarchs in the country’s economy. “Ukraine continues to face tremendous hardship and tragedy, provoked by Russia’s war of aggression,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Wednesday. “And yet, Ukrainians are deeply reforming their country.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine deserves membership for its defense of European values and efforts to reform.
  • United States fighter jets conducted an airstrike against weapons facilities used by Iranian proxy groups in eastern Syria, Pentagon officials announced Wednesday. The move comes amidst a major uptick in attacks against U.S. military personnel in the region by Iranian-backed militias since mid-October. “This precision self-defense strike is a response to a series of attacks against U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria by IRGC-Quds Force affiliates,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in a statement. “The President has no higher priority than the safety of U.S. personnel, and he directed today’s action to make clear that the United States will defend itself, its personnel, and its interests.” A U.S. military official told reporters yesterday that “a couple” people were at the warehouse when the strike occurred, but that the U.S. believes no civilians were killed.
  • Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Wednesday that the U.S. expects to see a significant Palestinian role in governing a post-Hamas Gaza, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said earlier this week that the Israeli military will control the Gaza Strip “for an indefinite period” following the war. “We’re very clear on no reoccupation, just as we’re very clear on no displacement of the Palestinian population,” Blinken said, urging that any future plans “must include Palestinian-led governance and Gaza unified with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority.”
  • The House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas on Wednesday for Hunter Biden and James Biden—President Joe Biden’s son and brother—and requested interviews with Hunter’s wife, a former business associate of Hunter’s, and several other Biden family members. The committee “has followed the money and built a record of evidence,” Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said. “Now, [the committee] is going to bring in members of the Biden family and their associates to question them on this record of evidence.” Hunter’s legal team and the White House decried the development as part of a GOP “smear campaign” against President Biden. “This is a yet another political stunt,” said Abbe Lowell, an attorney for the younger Biden. “Nevertheless, Hunter is eager to have the opportunity, in a public forum and at the right time, to discuss these matters with the Committee.”
  • The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a case attempting to keep former President Donald Trump off the state’s primary ballot under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. “There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office,” Minnesota Chief Justice Natalie Hudson wrote in a brief order. The court did, however, leave open the possibility of a petition challenging Trump’s eligibility for the general election ballot. “The petition must be dismissed,” Hudson wrote, “but without prejudice as to petitioners bringing a petition raising their claims as to the general election.”
  • SAG-AFTRA, the actors’ union, reached a tentative deal with Hollywood studios Wednesday night, ending the strike that had lasted for months. The deal—valued at over $1 billion—reportedly includes increased pay for actors, a streaming participation bonus, boosted pension and health benefits, and compensation stipulations related to the use of AI, among other provisions. “We have achieved a deal of extraordinary scope,” the union said in a statement. The strike was officially suspended last night while the deal is pending full approval.

Miami Vice (Presidential Debate?)

Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Tim Scott take the stage at the third Republican debate at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in Miami, Florida, on Wednesday, November 8, 2023. (Photo by Thomas Simonetti for The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Tim Scott take the stage at the third Republican debate at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in Miami, Florida, on Wednesday, November 8, 2023. (Photo by Thomas Simonetti for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Before the five qualifying candidates took to the debate stage in Miami, Florida, last night, biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy gave an ABC News reporter a taste of his strategy: “Be unhinged,” he said.

Twelve minutes into the program, he had lamented that Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and Elon Musk weren’t co-moderating the debate, and called both former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, “Dick Cheney in three-inch heels.” Promises made, promises kept, we suppose.

Ramaswamy’s “unhinged”-ness aside, the third GOP debate was remarkably tame—and even substantive—compared to the candidates’ first two outings. The five contenders on stage addressed questions on the war in Israel, the economy, and Republicans’ recent electoral struggles under strict instructions from the moderators—Kristen Welker and Lester Holt of NBC News and Hugh Hewitt of Salem Radio—not to interrupt each other, on the threat of receiving fewer questions. But for all its relative depth on policy, the debate nevertheless did little to provide an answer to the only question that mattered: Why one of the Republicans on stage, and not former President Donald Trump?

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
465
By , and
Comments (465)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Jack H Wolf

    538 did a deep dive on the debate with pre and post metrics measuring what Republican primary voters thought. ( https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/republican-debate-november-poll/ )
    The good news for Nikki Haley supporters like myself is that she saw the biggest movement in support and was considered to have performed best.
    The percentage of voters considering voting for each candidate increased only for her and Chris Christie and down for all the other debaters as well as for Trump. Haley was considered doing best in the debates and Ramaswamy the worst, so their head to head had winner Haley. Methinks her calling Vivek scum showed she had sufficient uncivility for the Jerry Springer types in the GOP base.
    The bad news is that the shifts are minimal and Trump is still standing with a fairly insurmountable lead. What also looks bad for Haley is that several polls of second choices show that the populists tend to stick together so most of the second choices for Trump, DeSantis, and Ramaswamy go to one of those three and not to Haley, and since those three account for 77% of the votes, I think Haley likely would do better running in the Democratic primary.

    Collapse
  2. Jah.Jacobsen

    I can appreciate Haley, but I need one thing from her: When she's asked why she should be president and NOT Trump, she needs to audibly sigh and say, "Because we need a friggin' adult for God's sake!" If she could show that level of gut-level exasperation with how ridiculously stupid it is that this country is still flirting with that corrupt, narcissistic, pumpkin-headed jackass, she could land my enthusiastic support. It's what she thinks. I'd just like to see her have the courage to say it.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Theirnscott

    QotD: There was a clear winner, Nikki Haley and it was pretty much a useless exercise if you don't count the entertainment value of seeing Vivek getting slapped around yet again.

    Collapse
  4. R. James

    I'm glad the field was narrowed down for this debate. However, I think the qualifying criteria is still too low for this past debate and the December debate. Until you can get a 1 v 1 debate between the top two non-Trump candidates, the debates at this point are a waste of time. I am really sick of having to watch Trump's Stalking Horse Vivek throw bombs and distract from a substantive candidates who are not running to be Trump's VP.

    Collapse
  5. MWegemer

    This was my first time watching these debates. My less well-informed thoughts:

    1. Christie - the only one who seemed sober and serious.
    2. Haley - less sober and serious, but pretty good.
    3. DeSantis - he just looks like a politician, doesn't he? A desperate, pleading robot of a politician whose circuits can just sense his chance slipping through his alloy fingers. But man, ain't he tough?
    4. Scott - Even more the politician's politician than DeSantis.
    5. Ramaswamy - Clown show, which is too bad because I'm intrigued by a lot of what he says. If only he didn't behave like such a jackass (but I guess that's what's cool these days). As someone who listens to and enjoys Joe Rogan, I found the Rogan, Carlson, Musk reference to be a pathetic pander.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Dennis

    Why are we exposing fighter pilots to enemy anti-aircraft and SAM fire rather than using surface to surface missiles? (Excuse me if this question is naive about military matters.)

    Collapse
    1. R. James

      Surface missiles launched from where exactly? There are issues of range and overflight of countries that are not failed states. Carrier Fighter Jets launched from the Med. through Syria or USAS jets launched from regional air bases balance the issues of range and access.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Dennis

        Thanks.

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Trump's Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 disqualification problem is going to play out differently in different states because of variations in state election codes. I presume that the Michigan Supreme Court is correct in its analysis of its own state law as including "no statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office."

    But at least according to the verified petition in the Colorado case — which so far remains on track for a decision by the trial judge, which she plans to announce by November 17, 2023, and which the Colorado Supreme Court has already directed be completed in time to permit expedited appellate review of all issues — Colorado has exactly the sort of statute that Michigan doesn't:

    ===begin quote===
    To gain access to a presidential primary election ballot, a major party candidate must submit to the [Colorado] Secretary [of State] (and the Secretary must accept) “a notarized candidate’s statement of intent,” C.R.S. § 1-4-1204(1)(c), in which the candidate must expressly “affirm” to the Secretary that the candidate “meet[s] all qualifications for the office prescribed by law.”
    ===end quote===
    link: https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/District/Case_Details.cfm?Case_ID=5240

    Trump would obviously prefer delay, delay, delay, and his lawyers will hope (not unreasonably) that while the Michigan Supreme Court claims it's not passing on his eligibility for the general election, the higher stakes then will work in his favor in any balancing of equities that might be involved.

    But if I were advising the Haley or DeSantis campaigns, I'd tell them to beef up their ready-response team in all the appropriate states, to be prepared to deal with, and hopefully to capitalize upon, any and all state rulings that Trump's disqualified. The Colorado Supreme Court's order notes that "the Secretary of State’s deadline to certify ballots for the primary election is January 5, 2024," strongly suggesting that the Colorado Supreme Court intends to rule before then. There are strong indications that the trial judge in Colorado may rule against Trump, and the rival campaigns ought to be making the biggest possible deal of that — with potential voters, but also with state and national party leaders — to position themselves as the logical answer to the question, "If Trump can't be on the ballot, who do we put on the ballot as the GOP candidate?"

    ===compulsively nerdy late-night half-backed addition, from 2am 13 Nov 23:

    Something I am pondering, and trying to write up comprehensibly, has to do with the nature of the upcoming written post-trial decision in Colorado.

    If I correctly understand the Colorado election code and the trial judge's pretrial rulings about what discretion and responsibilities she believes she has under it, as the factfinder in this bench trial — a very BIG IF! and I'm obliged to note that no, I'd not admitted in Colorado!:

    We're about to get very long, very detailed set of written, numbered findings of fact (cross-referenced to exhibits and testimony, probably hyperlinked), and an accompanying or integrated set of conclusions of law (with footnotes and legal citations). And this has been a full bench trial — a contested evidentiary adjudication, on the merits, in a manner contemplated and indeed directed by statute. This is, after all, a civil proceeding to determine and declare, and to direct the Colorado secretary of state regarding (per his promise and request), the ballot eligibility of Donald J. Trump for the 2024 Colorado Republican Presidential Primary Election.

    This isn't preliminary at all. It's the whole enchilada for the trial court level, the place where records must be made and evidence presented and credibility determinations made while weighing competing testimony and documents and expert opinions. "This is a true statement of operative legal fact; this isn't." This is your bite at the apple as far as presenting evidence goes. And do you know what else happens, a lot, in merits trials? Inadequately prepared or rushed or stressed trial lawyers fail to make the objections and obtain the rulings, ON THE RECORD, to set up their possible appellate grounds. Merits trials are when you run the gauntlet of potential waivers that will sink you if you're trying to mount an appeal. Waiver arguments can either let an appellate judge sidestep a point of appeal, or give the appellate court an alternative ground upon which that result can be justified. In general, you can't bring anything up for the first time on appeal; you have to raise the issue or argument and give the trial judge the chance and reasons to get things "right," and sometimes another chance to change his/her mind, on the record, at the right time, in the right magic words — failing which, you've blown your chance to argue on appeal that the trial judge got that thing wrong.

    I don't know whether there's any argument that Trump ought bear any burden of proving his eligibility. That might matter. He's the one seeking the boon of the State of Colorado by allowing him to appear on its GOP Presidential Primary Election ballot. Ought he not be the proponent of his own eligibility? I don't know the answer to that; but might the burden shift to him to prove he's eligible, by disproving that he was engaged in rebellion or insurrection? This seems to me likely a pure question of procedural interpretation and effect of Colorado election code. (But then, so was a lot of the procedural interpretation and effect of the Florida election code; that is the nature of this beast!)

    The statute contemplates this one, final bench trial, and one quick appeal, with no further trials or appeals. (Everything is subject to an implicit "Unless the SCOTUS so orders.")

    So when this goes up to the Colorado supreme court (in a guaranteed expedited one-shot appeal-as-of-right), and potentially thence to the SCOTUS :

    The factual determinations upon which relief will be granted, or denied, will not be reviewed like provisional findings made from a preliminary injunction hearing seeking some sort of stay or mandatory injunction (think: Bush v. Gore).

    The trial judge here will have been sitting by statute as fact-finder, and that will likely result in the most favorable possible standard of review — which is to say, the highest presumption of validity, and the hardest burden to overturn on appeal. "No reasonable jury (or judge sitting for a jury) could have reached this factual conclusion from this evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to that factfinder, and respecting the factfinders' determinations as to the credibility and weight of the evidence presumptively."

    Smart trial judge often include alternative findings and conclusions, like, "These conclusions of fact are based on the This Court's evaluation and weighing of evidence while applying a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard. But for the reasons explained in part __, the same conclusions are also supported by clear and convincing evidence, if the law were to compel that higher burden [implicitly: which I, the meticulous trial judge, don't think it does, but if the appellate court disagrees, I can save you trip back to ask me].

    No one's criminal jeopardy is at risk. No one affected is entitled to invoke or benefit from a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard; that's for criminal proceedings, whereas this is a civil ballot-eligibility dispute. Likewise, Trump hasn't chosen to testify, and since he's in no criminal jeopardy, there's been neither basis nor opportunity for him to claim a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. (That's not a civil litigation thing; factfinders in civil litigation can and regularly draw adverse inferences from silence, when there were circumstances to justify that inference!)

    In a sentence: Because they're going to be made in the context of a final, "merits" trial, THE FACT FINDINGS IN COLORADO ARE LIKELY TO BE AS BULLETPROOF AS FACTS CAN EVER BE FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL.

    This lets the appellate courts say: "The trial judge, as factfinder, reviewed the evidence, weighed and tested it, evaluated the witnesses whose live demeanor we can't second-guess, and explained her finding methodically in ways that are supported by ample and powerful evidence from the petitioners [Trump's opponents]. We therefore decline to find the trial judge's findings of fact to be 'clearly erroneous,' and therefore reject Mr. Trump's evidentiary-based grounds for appeal."

    But there's another consequence to the fact that this may be an ultra-fast-track FINAL MERITS adjudication after notice & opportunity to respond, due process, blah, blah:

    These very features may satisfy key prerequisites for the application in OTHER CIVIL BALLOT ELIGILITY CASES in OTHER STATES of something called the doctrine of issue preclusion. (Sometimes also called collateral estoppel; distinct in nature from claim preclusion aka res judicata. Stick to "issue preclusion.")

    If Trump loses in Colorado at the trial court, and loses in the Colorado Supreme Court, and loses in [his discretionary but yeah they'll take it] cert petition before the SCOTUS, there are serious, and I think persuasive, arguments that he WOULD NOT be entitled to re-litigate, over and over, state by state, the same factual conclusions adjudged against him in Colorado.

    Which is to say: I can imagine scenarios in which the SCOTUS resolution of the Colorado lawsuit effectively resolves the entire controversy for the entire United States and for this election cycle, deux ex machina. There are ways in which this might snowball across state lines — although again, it's going to vary wildly state to state, which is to say, there are a barbershop mirrors progression of scenarios that seem superficially plausible.

    YES, I'M SPITBALLING and wish-casting. But this is what I'd be assigning minions to research and brief, in 50 states plus territories whose primary votes count. (Ms. Isgur's digital rolodex could just be updated, I suspect.)

    And note well: Trump winning in one state, based on its election codes, doesn't force any other states to "copy" or "honor" those resolutions. That was Colorado arguing they're own particular law, judge, not something we ourselves, here in the State of ___, ever had a chance to oppose with counsel after notice and due process. In other words: I think the issue preclusion risk runs asymmetrically and exclusively against Trump.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      Thanks for continuing to follow this story, since it seems TD has made an editorial decision to treat it as a silly pipe dream, not much different from hoping for a well-placed lightning strike that stops Trump. I understand this decision to some extent. TD still has limited resources and can't cover everything. But it's still IMO a newsworthy story. And quite fascinating.

      Collapse
    2. Pohl

      Yes, it’s pretty sad that one of our best hopes is effectively a piece of political arcana. C’mon, Colorado, which, by the way, I’ve always regarded as one of the most beautiful states.

      Collapse
  8. Bad Pops

    Gov “Stone Cold Dead” was the clear winner. He has a vision based on his proven track record. And I will no longer be embarrassed to be a Republican. Bad Pops

    Collapse
  9. Pwjohns1983

    Sununu has said he is “getting closer” to endorsing Haley. If this debate puts him over the top, that would be big news.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Philomills18

    IMHO Nikki Haley won, followed closely by Chris Christie. Ramaswany was next to last, followed only by Trump, who didn’t show and, therefore, should not have been mentioned at all during the debate. Maybe that way we’ll be able to forget about him!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Mike B

      The trouble with ignoring Trump is that Trump won't be ignored. He's not going to let people forget about him.

      Collapse
Load More