“You’re just scum!” screeched former South Carolina governor, Trump-administration U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley at her rival, the dodgy yet bombastic entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. This outburst was heard at Miami’s Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts on Wednesday evening. Ramaswamy had just, bizarrely, told Haley to monitor her 25-year-old daughter’s activity on TikTok, prompting Haley to admonish him to “leave my daughter out of this,” as though she were some sort of troubled adolescent. Ramaswamy also earned audience groans for calling Haley “Dick Cheney in three-inch heels,” a reference to neoconservative strains in Haley’s foreign policy, only to be corrected that Haley’s heels are in fact five inches in length, even if she did not deny that her broadly interventionist views recall the worst excesses of neoconservative foreign policy debacles earlier in the century.
The exasperating occasion for these low lights of contemporary American political theater was the third debate of qualifying Republican candidates for president, other than former U.S. president and faraway front runner Donald J. Trump. Trump is leading the Republican field by over 50 points in some pre-debate polls, and according to others he defeats U.S. President Joe Biden in a hypothetical rematch. He has cited as reasons for his absence his massive lead and his unwillingness to meet the Republican National Committee’s requirement that debate participants pledge to endorse any eventual Republican nominee. Indeed, Trump’s lead has only increased with each successive debate, all of which have been almost entirely dedicated to his rivals tearing each other down for two hours on national television while he looks on with bemusement. As USA Today’s Susan Page opined the morning after this third occasion, “Count the Republican front runner who wasn’t there as the big winner. Again.”
Just as in the previous two cases, Trump held a simultaneous event all his own. This time it was one of his signature rallies, held in nearby Hialeah, Florida, where the only notice he took of the debate was to remark on its low ratings and cite the recent polling data favoring him by an enormous margin. He also remarked in passing that it is harder to speak to a massive gathering than to exchange cheap shots with five people who have no chance of beating him. He had a strong point. According to NBC, which broadcasted the debate along with the Salem radio network, only 7.5 million viewers—or less than 4.5% of all American voters—tuned in for all or part of the occasion. The figure was two million lower than for the second debate and 5.3 million lower than for the first. In other words, over 95% of those will decide the 2024 election simply had no interest in hearing what Trump’s Republican rivals had to say.
The debate exercise among the non-Trump candidates has been wearying, but the third debate’s higher threshold for participation shrank the participants to a more manageable five individuals instead of the eight competitors who faced off in August and the seven who met in September. By the time of this contest, former Vice President Mike Pence had dropped out of the race, telling the Republican Jewish Coalition’s recent annual meeting that “it is not my time,” as if it ever had been. Two other poorly performing contenders, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum and former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, remain in the race but failed to qualify for the third debate, which was open to candidates polling at a dismal 4%.
The five-person format, however, proved more manageable than the larger debates, and at times the atmosphere came closer to approaching professional. Haley, who has in recent weeks seen some upward movement at the expense of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who had held a distant second place to Trump since entering the race earlier this year, was the most targeted. Sometimes—including at the “scum” line—she came unglued in a way that inspired little confidence in how she might react to a more serious challenge from Iranian, Russian, or Chinese leaders. Still, she came away with what the 538/Washington Post/Ipsos poll found to be the greatest resonance among the tiny number of Republican voters who watched, with some 34% saying she performed best of the five.
The New York Times’s token conservative columnist David French prematurely celebrated that “Neoconservatism made its comeback tonight.” French was referring to Haley’s broadly interventionist stance, which allowed her to sound resolute and more inspirational than DeSantis, who avoided taking a strong position on the war in Ukraine, and simultaneously less unhinged than Ramaswamy, who exuberantly rejected almost any commitment of American power abroad. On the pressing question of specifically what measures the candidates would take in defense policy and how they would pay for those measures, the answers were fleeting and adverted more style than substance. Only former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, for example, could identify a specific weapon of war that he believes America will need in a prospective defense build-up—the nuclear attack submarine.
The number of Americans who vote on foreign policy issues alone is vanishingly small, and domestic issues were largely hedged to avoid antagonizing voters who may disagree with what the candidates have been putting out. Haley waffled massively on abortion, declaring herself pro-life while claiming not to judge people who are pro-choice and expressing a transparent hope that they would not judge (i.e. vote against) her either. The evasion resonated sourly in light of the off-year elections held in a number of states the previous day, where the abortion issue led to some high-profile Republican defeats. On other issues, including border control, immigration, drugs, and energy independence, the candidates broadly agreed with each other—and with Trump.
The preliminary results suggest that there was almost no movement in any candidate’s position relative to the others. Only Haley and Christie, who was unusually restrained and avoided his tedious anti-Trump monologues, saw any increase in popularity, and then only marginally. The others saw equally marginal declines, while Trump’s commanding lead remains intact.
Despite this inertia, the Republican establishment is undeterred from its odd debate model. In its latest desperate grasp at relevance in a Trumpian world, it has scheduled yet a fourth debate for GOP candidates, which will take place in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, on the 6th of December. It will be broadcasted on something called “NewsNation,” a cable television channel of which I was previously unaware. It claims only 65,000 nightly viewers. The threshold for participation will increase to 6%, which will likely eliminate Christie and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, potentially reducing the non-Trump debating field to three candidates. Two of them might have a shot at a decent cabinet post if Trump is reelected, or go on to create some institutional memory about politicos for renewed campaigns in 2028. I’m not certain I will be among those watching, however.
The Third Republican Debate Falls Flat
Juli Hansen / Shutterstock
“You’re just scum!” screeched former South Carolina governor, Trump-administration U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley at her rival, the dodgy yet bombastic entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. This outburst was heard at Miami’s Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts on Wednesday evening. Ramaswamy had just, bizarrely, told Haley to monitor her 25-year-old daughter’s activity on TikTok, prompting Haley to admonish him to “leave my daughter out of this,” as though she were some sort of troubled adolescent. Ramaswamy also earned audience groans for calling Haley “Dick Cheney in three-inch heels,” a reference to neoconservative strains in Haley’s foreign policy, only to be corrected that Haley’s heels are in fact five inches in length, even if she did not deny that her broadly interventionist views recall the worst excesses of neoconservative foreign policy debacles earlier in the century.
The exasperating occasion for these low lights of contemporary American political theater was the third debate of qualifying Republican candidates for president, other than former U.S. president and faraway front runner Donald J. Trump. Trump is leading the Republican field by over 50 points in some pre-debate polls, and according to others he defeats U.S. President Joe Biden in a hypothetical rematch. He has cited as reasons for his absence his massive lead and his unwillingness to meet the Republican National Committee’s requirement that debate participants pledge to endorse any eventual Republican nominee. Indeed, Trump’s lead has only increased with each successive debate, all of which have been almost entirely dedicated to his rivals tearing each other down for two hours on national television while he looks on with bemusement. As USA Today’s Susan Page opined the morning after this third occasion, “Count the Republican front runner who wasn’t there as the big winner. Again.”
Just as in the previous two cases, Trump held a simultaneous event all his own. This time it was one of his signature rallies, held in nearby Hialeah, Florida, where the only notice he took of the debate was to remark on its low ratings and cite the recent polling data favoring him by an enormous margin. He also remarked in passing that it is harder to speak to a massive gathering than to exchange cheap shots with five people who have no chance of beating him. He had a strong point. According to NBC, which broadcasted the debate along with the Salem radio network, only 7.5 million viewers—or less than 4.5% of all American voters—tuned in for all or part of the occasion. The figure was two million lower than for the second debate and 5.3 million lower than for the first. In other words, over 95% of those will decide the 2024 election simply had no interest in hearing what Trump’s Republican rivals had to say.
The debate exercise among the non-Trump candidates has been wearying, but the third debate’s higher threshold for participation shrank the participants to a more manageable five individuals instead of the eight competitors who faced off in August and the seven who met in September. By the time of this contest, former Vice President Mike Pence had dropped out of the race, telling the Republican Jewish Coalition’s recent annual meeting that “it is not my time,” as if it ever had been. Two other poorly performing contenders, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum and former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, remain in the race but failed to qualify for the third debate, which was open to candidates polling at a dismal 4%.
The five-person format, however, proved more manageable than the larger debates, and at times the atmosphere came closer to approaching professional. Haley, who has in recent weeks seen some upward movement at the expense of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who had held a distant second place to Trump since entering the race earlier this year, was the most targeted. Sometimes—including at the “scum” line—she came unglued in a way that inspired little confidence in how she might react to a more serious challenge from Iranian, Russian, or Chinese leaders. Still, she came away with what the 538/Washington Post/Ipsos poll found to be the greatest resonance among the tiny number of Republican voters who watched, with some 34% saying she performed best of the five.
The New York Times’s token conservative columnist David French prematurely celebrated that “Neoconservatism made its comeback tonight.” French was referring to Haley’s broadly interventionist stance, which allowed her to sound resolute and more inspirational than DeSantis, who avoided taking a strong position on the war in Ukraine, and simultaneously less unhinged than Ramaswamy, who exuberantly rejected almost any commitment of American power abroad. On the pressing question of specifically what measures the candidates would take in defense policy and how they would pay for those measures, the answers were fleeting and adverted more style than substance. Only former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, for example, could identify a specific weapon of war that he believes America will need in a prospective defense build-up—the nuclear attack submarine.
The number of Americans who vote on foreign policy issues alone is vanishingly small, and domestic issues were largely hedged to avoid antagonizing voters who may disagree with what the candidates have been putting out. Haley waffled massively on abortion, declaring herself pro-life while claiming not to judge people who are pro-choice and expressing a transparent hope that they would not judge (i.e. vote against) her either. The evasion resonated sourly in light of the off-year elections held in a number of states the previous day, where the abortion issue led to some high-profile Republican defeats. On other issues, including border control, immigration, drugs, and energy independence, the candidates broadly agreed with each other—and with Trump.
The preliminary results suggest that there was almost no movement in any candidate’s position relative to the others. Only Haley and Christie, who was unusually restrained and avoided his tedious anti-Trump monologues, saw any increase in popularity, and then only marginally. The others saw equally marginal declines, while Trump’s commanding lead remains intact.
Despite this inertia, the Republican establishment is undeterred from its odd debate model. In its latest desperate grasp at relevance in a Trumpian world, it has scheduled yet a fourth debate for GOP candidates, which will take place in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, on the 6th of December. It will be broadcasted on something called “NewsNation,” a cable television channel of which I was previously unaware. It claims only 65,000 nightly viewers. The threshold for participation will increase to 6%, which will likely eliminate Christie and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, potentially reducing the non-Trump debating field to three candidates. Two of them might have a shot at a decent cabinet post if Trump is reelected, or go on to create some institutional memory about politicos for renewed campaigns in 2028. I’m not certain I will be among those watching, however.
READ NEXT
Jaguar: All Virtue, No Vehicle
Mazan Affair: A Trial of Moral Misery
Milei Disrupts the Cosy Consensus at the G20