Republican presidential candidates engaged in a much more subdued debate last night, refraining from their usual arsenal of snipping and insults and giving them a chance to showcase their substantive policy proposals. Those proposals were just as extreme as you would expect. We begin today’s roundup with Bloomberg’s Jonathan Bernstein:
The circus was not in town. No personal insults, no demeaning taunts, no candidate bragging about his ... well, you know. Instead, thanks in part to some solid questioning from Jake Tapper and CNN's other moderators and a strategic recalibration from Marco Rubio after his collapse in recent primaries and caucuses, we had what passes for a serious policy debate on the Republican side.
It was not impressive.
Donald Trump either knows nothing about government and public affairs, or is playing a character who knows nothing. In most cases, his answer to everything is that every deal the United States government has ever made on anything is a disaster, and he would make much better ones. What was wrong with the old ones? What would the new ones consist of? How would he get there? He has nothing, because of course there is nothing; it's just an empty boast. When he tries to talk about specifics, he gets lost, changes the subject -- usually to himself -- or just flat out lies.
Robert Schlesinger at US News & World Report:
[T]ranquilizing Trump doesn’t cover up his manifest and polarizing flaws as a person and candidate. He still displayed an amazing lack of grasp of policy or interest in filling in those blank spots. Here’s an easy way to tell that Trump is out of his depth: He falls back on the hoary chestnut that eliminating “waste, fraud and abuse” will cover revenue gaps, or he dismisses questions about the details or real-world feasibility of his policies with a promise to make a great deal. [...]
Tapper’s recitation of Trump’s exhortations to violence was a high point for what was a well-moderated debate – and a low point for the audience, some of whom started cheering the litany. It was, disturbingly, probably the sound of Trump’s poll numbers going up.
It’s true that this was the tamest, most substantive debate the GOP has had in months, in other words. But that scarcely made it any less appalling.
Here’s Josh Marshall’s take at TPM:
The big takeaway from tonight's debate - perhaps 'confirmation' is a better word for it - is that Donald Trump can turn the bully boy shtick on and off like a spigot. Watching this debate was like being transported back to the pre-2016 GOP debate world where one candidate ranting "Little Marco" ten times or another putting up his hands to show how big they were was essentially unimaginable. The tone of this gathering made it seem almost unthinkable again. [...]
The upshot is that Trump has decided he has little need to attack his opponents any more and much to gain by smothering his opponents and defanging GOP stakeholders with expressions of unity and demonstrations of restraint. On the driving themes of his campaign though, economic nationalism, xenophobia and revanchist anger at losers, freeloaders and protestors, there was no shift at all.
Everything I saw tonight made me think that Trump is well on his way to becoming the GOP nominee. I see no big obstacle stands in his way. Just as important, if for whatever reason Donald Trump isn't the nominee, it is now extremely difficult to see how the nomination won't go to Ted Cruz. Maybe you can steal the nomination from one factional, plurality winner. You can't steal it from the guy who came in a close second too. That just won't fly.
Olivia Nuzzi at The Daily Beast highlights the fact Republican candidates failed to fully condemn Trump’s violent rhetoric:
It was the debate that dealt with everything calmly—including the issue of violence.
And what a shame.
Because more than at any other time in his nine-month campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, the word civil does not apply to Trump or his operation this week.
Ryan Cooper at The Week:
This was the last debate before a series of enormous primaries on Tuesday, including in Kasich's home state of Ohio and Rubio's home state of Florida, when Trump may well lock up the nomination. If he does, it will be because the Republican Party resolutely failed to confront Trump and everything he represents. Instead, they allowed him to plausibly present himself as presidential.
Steven Shepard at POLITICO takes a look at Marco Rubio’s strategy:
Debating in his hometown – and at the University of Miami, where Rubio attended law school – the Florida senator was credited by insiders with conveying a positive, forward-looking message and displaying unique strength on a question about the Obama administration’s move to normalize relations with Cuba.
But even some insiders who said Rubio performed well also indicated that he did little to damage Trump, who is leading both public and private polling ahead of next Tuesday’s winner-take-all primary.
On a final note, don’t miss Ashely Parker’s piece at The New York Times on violence at Trump’s rallies:
The response when a protest breaks out can seem almost biological.
Trump supporters typically begin shouting, pointing, jeering — and sometimes kicking or spitting — at the protester, surrounding the offender in a tight circle, like an antibody trying to isolate and expel an unwanted invader from the bloodstream. [...]
Maria Alcivar, 27, a student at Iowa State whose family is from Ecuador, helped organize four protests at Trump events in Iowa. At the first, outside a football tailgate party, she said her group’s signs were ripped and people shouted. [...] Ms. Alcivar said she always felt nervous before protesting, fearful of being physically assaulted. But once she begins, she said, Mr. Trump no longer has control over her, or her message.
“Yes, I’m scared and nervous in the moment,” she said. “But once I start chanting, I feel superpowerful.”