The Change in Republican Debates

The republican debate on Fox Business news was drastically different from the first three debates. This debate featured very little trash talking, although there was some, and much more substantive debate, although not without candidates taking shots at each other. Governor Kasich took shots at some candidates for their economic policies, and Donald Trump fired back with a patented humble-brag insult directed towards Kasich, but overall there was very little fireworks compared to the first three debates (Link).

The change in this debate is due to a couple factors. The third republican debate, hosted by CNBC, was widely considered a train wreck. The moderators seemed more interested in setting up confrontations between the candidates and less interested in substance. Chris Christie had a moment where he openly bashed the moderators for being rude, and received praise for it (Link). As a result of the CNBC debate, the candidates, who previously had no objections to the moderators provoking conflict, began to take on an anti-media frame.

A very popular opinion among republican voters is that the national media has a liberal bias, and Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio took a stand against the liberal media, saying "This is not a cage match" (Link). This anti-mass-media, anti-liberal media bias is a very popular frame amongst republican candidates. Even further, it was the perfect response to the absurd moderating style that had been used in all three debates, but boiled over the top in the CNBC debate.

Not only did the CNBC debate provide the opportunity for a candidate to publicize the widely supported anti-liberal frame, but it also allowed the candidates as a group to appear as sophisticated, above the nonsense, and presidential, which benefitted each candidate. It even allowed them to take a stand collectively, regain some bargaining power in terms of how the debates will be run in the future (Link).

All of this reaction stemming from the debacle that was the CNBC debate was in stark contrast to the reaction, or lack thereof, from the same style of moderating highlighted a change in the way that the republican debates will be run from now on. In the first two debates, it almost seemed like the candidates welcomed the verbal combat prompted by moderators, seemingly planning attacks out ahead of time in certain cases. But after the backlash CNBC and their moderators got, combined with the momentum the republican candidates received, look for the debates to be much more substantive from now on.

Comparing the Democratic Debate With the First Republican Debates

The first democratic debate was held this week, after much anticipation. The republican party had already held two high-profile debates, each with an "A" and "B" debate. One main reason for the republican party having more debates and having their debates sooner than the democrats party is because the republican party has more candidates than the democratic party. At one point, there were 17 major republican presidential candidates, with a few more obscure candidates running as well. Meanwhile, the democrats only have 6 candidates. I believe that this shows a sort of fracture in the ideology of the republican party. There are more moderate candidates, more extreme candidates from the Tea Party or Freedom Caucus, and then candidates like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina who are not politicians and are almost "free agents" within the republican party. All of these candidates and their intra-party associations each represent different views and ideologies about major issues. There is an identity crisis within the republican party. On the other hand, the democrats have only 6 candidates, and only one, Bernie Sanders, is not strongly associated with the democratic party as a whole- Lincoln Chafee was once a republican, then and independent, and now a democrat. The democratic party has no identity crisis, and their first debate showed.
       One of the biggest differences between the republican debates and the democratic debates was the focus of the conversation. In the republican debate, much more time was spent addressing ad hominem attacks between candidates. While this might draw in viewers, clicks, and other sources of revenue for the media companies that run the debate, but as far informing viewers as to the ideas of the politicians. At certain points, it even seemed as if the candidates genuinely disliked each other as people outside of their conflicts in the realm of politics. In stark contrast to the republican debate was the democratic debate, which featured very little, if no, dedication to ad hominem attacks. Rarely, Anderson Cooper or one of the other moderators would try and provoke a candidate, but it almost always got little response. An example of this was when Anderson Cooper asked Hillary Clinton to respond to Lincoln Chafee's statement on her email account, and Clinton responded with a simple "no", which also drew much applause from the crowd. I think that shows not only is there less of a fracture in the democratic party than the republican party in terms of ideologies, but also in terms of the actual candidates being more fond of other candidates, or at least being apple to appear so, during the debate.
      In addition, there were actually moments that displayed unity and positivity. When the topic of Hillary Clinton's emails came up, Bernie Sanders replied that people are sick of hearing about her "damn emails"(Link). This prompted an eruption of laughter and applause from both the audience and Clinton herself and was followed by Clinton saying "thank you" and offering a smiling handshake towards Sanders, which Sanders accepted. Although the candidates did disagree on certain issues and policies, they usually did so in a much more controlled and mature manner than in the republican debates.
     I believe that the differences in the democratic and republican debate show a few things. First, I believe that the sheer number of candidates in the republican debates has actually hurt their appearance with the public. It has lead to debates that seem to be more interested in forcing a candidate into saying something regrettable, and thus dropping out of the race, thinning out the field. This takes away from the substantive portion of the debate, or the part of the debate that is supposed to inform the public and help them make a smart voting decision. If this trend in republican debates continues, it could become so dangerous that voters are voting in primaries not knowing a candidate's view on a specific issue. Also, the republican debates have revealed split in the republican party between the extreme right in the Tea Party, the moderates, and the "free agents" like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina. On the other hand, the first democratic debate showed more party unity, and a more civil way of discussing policies, with much less focus on ad hominem attacks.
   
   
   

Trump and the Media

As of today, polls show that Donald Trump leads all Republican candidates with 27% of the vote, followed closely by Ben Carson at 23%. If you were to watch conventional news channels such as Fox, CNN, or MSNBC, or read any daily newspapers such as the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, you might think that those poll numbers were made up. It seems like every week, there is a headline or a segment called "Did Trump Go Too Far This Time?", or "Another Trump Crisis?". However, Donald Trump's sustained success atop the polls is a result of manipulating both the old and new media in ways that appeal to certain groups of the population. 

Normally, when politicians interact with old media, such as giving an interview for a newspaper or on one of many political television shows, or a televised debate, it is a chance to appear polished, well thought out, and present a clear and concise vision for the future. Instead, Trump almost always appears brash and bold, speaking what comes to his mind without putting what he says through a filter. He even stated he didn't prepare at all for the first republican debate, televised across the country. Compared to other politicians who can appear robotic, Trump seems more like a real person, or your crazy uncle at Thanksgiving depending on who you ask, but for some voters who are fed up with politicians, it's a refreshing change. Politicians in the past have appeared old media as edited versions of themselves, sticking to a script and talking points. Trump has clearly broken the mold, and for Americans who are fed up with robotic politicians, he has become a beacon of change in the American political atmosphere. 

For instance, in his presidential announcement speech, which in theory, should be very polished and without inflammatory comments, Trump took serious heat for claiming that the Mexican government was deliberately sending its criminals to the U.S., and he even added that they are rapists and drug dealers(Link). While it is true that crime and drugs do cross the U.S. Mexican border, whether those people are staying in American is unknown, and the idea the Mexican government is deliberately sending these people across the country is ludicrous. Clearly, this comment resonated with voters who feel border security is a big deal. In addition, Trump used his announcement speech to present his agenda of immigration and border security reform to the country. 

In terms of new media, Trump has both a facebook and twitter page, with his twitter being the most active and controversial. Twitter is currently the best way for the largest amount of people to interact and share ideas as quickly as possible, and politics is no exception. Trump has for the most part been the only presidential candidate to claim personal responsibilities for their twitter account as opposed to a social media manager. As with his use of old media, Trump's twitter page has drawn criticism as well. 

After the first Fox News debate, in which one of the moderators Megyn Kelly confronted Trump, he began a sort of twitter war with her. This war culminated in Donald Trump retweeting someone else's tweet calling Kelly a "bimbo"(Link). Although Trump did not say that himself, a retweet general means either an endorsement or some sort of validation of what the tweet says. Obviously, this drew serious criticism from both political parties. But, just as Trump's comments on Mexicans resonated with certain voters, his twitter feud with Megyn Kelly drew support from a surprising number of people. 

On both old and new media, Trump continues to say or do things that conventionally seem like serious blows to his campaign. However, not only does Trump not dip in the polls after these blunders, up until recently he had been soaring and soaring. This is due to his expert manipulation of old and new media. Trump understands there is a certain part of the republican party that feels their party is not conservative enough for them, and Trump has found a way to engage and inspire these voters through old and new media.