Last week, Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump, while in a feud with Fox Moderator Megyn Kelly, announced that he would be boycotting the debate.
In a discussion of what this means in the context of the Iowa caucuses, NPR political correspondent Mara Liasson said (prior to the debate) that, with the Iowa caucuses so close, Trump took a significant risk in skipping the debate.
“…if the headline on Tuesday is, Trump loses Iowa, I think that will be a big deal. His whole campaign is based on winning, not losing. He hates losers. That’s his biggest epithet – winning the polls, winning the debates…”
According to a Vox article, however, by boycotting the debate Trump managed to avoid several hours of confronting his opponents while still receiving publicity and emerging from the night looking better than the remaining Republican candidates. Because frontrunners run the risk of misstepping and costing themselves in the polls, participating in the debate for frontrunner Trump might have been harmful to his standing in Iowa and New Hampshire. In multi-candidate fields, debates are even riskier for frontrunners, as it is unlikely that all of the frontrunner’s opponents produce a bad performance.
Because Republican candidates don’t believe Trump is capable of winning the nomination, as said by Vox, the candidates attacked each other instead of focusing their attacks on the one candidate who was absent and unable to defend himself. Bush, Rubio, and Cruz all accused each other of inconsistency in addressing illegal immigration, strengthening a previous claim by Trump that he is the only candidate serious about illegal immigration. Had Trump attended the debate, his own inconsistencies might have been challenged, but because he wasn’t, they weren’t.
Perhaps though, Trump’s absence was beneficial in that the remaining candidates were better able to get across their own platforms?
While other candidates did get more opportunity to speak, says the New York Times, it still wasn’t particularly helpful to them.
“There was more time for Mr. Cruz’s image as a consistent conservative to come under relentless attack. There was more time for Mr. Rubio’s past alliance with Democrats on an immigration overhaul to come under scrutiny. There was more time for former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio to discuss policy, in hopes of helping their chances in New Hampshire, but neither man had particularly electrifying moments.”
In fact, Frank Bruni, writing for the New York Times’ Opinion Pages, says that Trump’s absence hurt both Cruz’s and Rubio’s performances. Accustomed to Trump as the main target, in his absence these two candidates drew the most attacks.
In addition, Bruni writes that several political observers predicted this debate to be Rubio’s breakout moment. It wasn’t, according to Bruni.
“[Rubio] came across as overly programmed, one-dimensional and itchy to go to war.”
Meanwhile, Trump hosted an event in Iowa honoring and raising money for veterans and garnered 2.8 million viewers on CNN and MSNBC combined, says the New York Times. This is in comparison with the 12.5 million viewers that tuned in to the Fox hosted Republican debate. On the one hand, the viewership was lower than the 18 million viewers that watched the December CNN debate, but viewership did not fall as drastically as Trump predicted it would.
The Iowa caucuses will begin tonight at 8pm Eastern time.
