The post-debate narrative is about as bad as it gets for Jeb Bush. We begin today's roundup with
Stephen Collinson at CNN:
Jeb Bush's presidential campaign is facing a full-blown existential crisis.
The former Florida governor's attempt to revive his White House hopes during Wednesday's Republican debate by taking on his former protege, Sen. Marco Rubio, backfired badly.
Instead, he delivered a performance drained of passion, fire and inspiration followed by a testy post-game interview that added up to a disastrous night for Bush.
[...] But his performance only confirmed and deepened damning perceptions of his political skills and questions about his stomach for the fight. And Bush is already trying to stave off the stench of decay that quickly gathers around losing campaigns.
David Lauter, Seema Mehta and Noah Bierman at The Los Angeles Times:
The enormous fundraising success that Bush showed in the first half of the year has long since subsided, with new donors slow to join a campaign that has languished. The campaign has had little success with grass-roots fundraising, leaving it highly dependent on wealthy donors. And the establishment figures who flocked to back him in the spring have grown jittery as winter nears.The candidate, who once talked of the importance of campaigning with “joy in your heart,” now projects an air of bewildered resignation.
More on the day's top stories below the fold.
Josh Voorhees at Slate goes meta:
What’s the opposite of an exclamation point? A question mark? An ellipsis? Whatever it is, Jeb Bush’s performance on the CNBC stage on Wednesday night was the equivalent of slapping it on his campaign signs in place of his chosen punctuation. [...]
The Jeb is toast narrative will only make that more unlikely. Jeb began the year as the favorite for his party’s nomination—and, until recently, remained a favorite—exactly because the political and media establishments saw him as one. But while he benefited from that self-fulfilling prophecy, he’s now in danger of falling victim to a new one. If the establishment no longer sees him as a man who can bring order to a chaotic nominating contest, voters won’t either. The media used to present him as the smarter Bush, the more capable Bush, the Bush who should have been president. Now that’s all gone. And as Nate Silver points out, the conventional wisdom matters for Bush more than most “because Bush is running a conventional campaign.”
National Journal's
S.V. Dáte:
[...] Bush faces perhaps the first real gut-check moment of his political career. While the super PAC that supports him outraised the other GOP candidate-specific super PACs combined in the first six months of the year, the fundraising for his actual campaign is not matching its lofty expectations. Bush has been forced to slash payroll by nearly half and shrink what had been designed as a general-election-capable campaign and refocus it on the early-voting states.
Such a move invites media coverage suggesting a “death spiral,” and Bush’s weak performance at Wednesday night’s debate, particularly his instantly famous exchange with Rubio, further feeds into the Bush-on-the-ropes storyline.
But those predicting that the current state of affairs is so demoralizing for Bush that he will decide to drop out—or that he would rather withdraw than hurt his “protégé” Rubio—likely are misunderstanding that relationship and certainly do not understand Bush’s competitive nature.
Turning to other Republican candidates,
The New York Times editorial board says Governor Chris Christie should exit the race:
It’s that time in the ever-long presidential campaign when candidates lacking money and mojo are starting to go back to their plows. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey should join them. [...] The point is that New Jersey is in trouble, and the governor is off pursuing a presidential run that’s turned out to be nothing more than a vanity project. Mr. Christie’s numbers are in the basement, and he’s nearly out of campaign cash. This is his moment, all right: to go home and use the rest of his term to clean out the barn, as Speaker John Boehner would say.
And here's
Paul Krugman's take on the debate:
At one point during Wednesday’s Republican debate, Ben Carson was asked about his involvement with Mannatech, a nutritional supplements company that makes outlandish claims about its products and has been forced to pay $7 million to settle a deceptive-practices lawsuit. The audience booed, and Mr. Carson denied being involved with the company. Both reactions tell you a lot about the driving forces behind modern American politics.
As it happens, Mr. Carson lied. He has indeed been deeply involved with Mannatech, and has done a lot to help promote its merchandise. PolitiFact quickly rated his claim false, without qualification. But the Republican base doesn’t want to hear about it, and the candidate apparently believes, probably correctly, that he can simply brazen it out. These days, in his party, being an obvious grifter isn’t a liability, and may even be an asset.
And, on a final note, this from
Eugene Robinson:
Trump was brassy, Carson was serene. Neither said or did anything to dissuade their legions of followers. When pressed on glaring contradictions, they simply denied saying or proposing things they said and proposed. All the politicians are still playing second fiddle to a real estate mogul and a retired neurosurgeon who somehow have stolen the Republican Party. All the politicians are still playing second fiddle to a real estate mogul and a retired neurosurgeon who somehow have stolen the Republican Party.