Des Moines, Iowa Fox News Republican Debate (January 28, 2016)
Ballotpedia's scope changes periodically, and this article type is no longer actively created or maintained. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.
This article focuses exclusively on the Seventh Republican debate hosted by the Fox News on January 28, 2016. Click here to access Ballotpedia's full 2015-2016 presidential debate coverage. A schedule for Republican primary debates can be found below.
Ballotpedia's coverage of the seventh Republican debate—which took place January 28, 2016—includes an overview of the event's basic information, the results of our Insiders Poll, statistics, and post-debate commentary written by guest writers and members of our senior writing staff. The debate consisted of back-to-back halves. Polling data was used to determine which candidates participated in each segment. More information on participants and rules for inclusion can be found in the "Basic Information" tab below.
Basic Information
Date: January 28, 2016
Time: 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm EDT
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Venue: Iowa Events Center
Sponsors: Fox News and Google
Moderators:
Primetime Debate Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace
Undercard Debate Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum
Rules for inclusion: Donald Trump boycotted the debate due to concerns he had over his treatment by Fox News.[1][2]
Candidates were required to meet the following criteria in order to participate in the debate:[3]
| “ |
|
” |
The criteria to participate in the debate factored in both national polls, as well as those based in Iowa and New Hampshire conducted and released prior to Tuesday, January 26, 2016, at 5 p.m. EDT.
Participants
Primetime debate
|
|
Early debate
|
|
Statistics
This article analyzes the central themes of the Republican presidential debate held on January 28, 2016, in Des Moines, Iowa. The transcript prepared by The Washington Post was used to measure candidate participation and audience engagement.[5] Footage from the debate was consulted where there were ambiguities in the text.
To compare the statistics of this debate to those of the previous Republican debate, see the analysis of the FBN Republican debate in January 2016.
Segments
The seventh Republican presidential debate featured 29 unique discussion segments covering domestic and foreign policy and political issues like electability and experience. These discussion segments were measured by any shift in the theme of a discussion prompted by one of the moderators: Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace. The candidates also fielded several questions from YouTube personalities.
- Donald Trump
- Anti-establishment sentiment and the Republican Party
- Bipartisanship
- Rand Paul and the Liberty Movement
- Practical government experience
- Ted Cruz's record and national security
- Qualifications to be commander-in-chief and national security
- Counterrorism, Muslims and discrimination
- Veterans charity fraud
- Police body cameras
- Reducing the federal budget
- Healthcare reform
- Puerto Rican statehood
- Water crisis in Flint, Michigan
- Climate change and cap-and-trade
- Immigration reform and amnesty
- Legal immigration and discrimination
- Electability
- Christianity and anti-poverty policies
- Religious liberty and same-sex marriage
- Chris Christie's record
- Federal vs. state regulation of abortion
- U.S.-Russia relations
- Iran nuclear deal
- Military intervention in Libya
- Hillary and Bill Clinton
- Tolerance in the U.S.
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Closing statements
Including the discussion segment dedicated to Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, the Clintons were invoked 30 times throughout the debate. Donald Trump, who declined to attend the debate, was also frequently mentioned, for a total of 12 times.
Overall participation
Participation in a discussion segment was defined as a substantive comment related to the discussion segment's topic. Jokes and attempts to gain permission from a moderator to speak were not considered participatory speech acts. In some instances, candidates who participated in a discussion segment diverted from the prompted topic.
The median number of discussion segments was nine. Marco Rubio participated in the most discussion segments at 12, while Ben Carson and John Kasich each participated in only six.
More than half of the discussion segments, such as those relating to the use of police body cameras, Puerto Rican statehood, and the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, involved only one candidate. Excluding the candidates' closing statements, the discussion segments with the most candidate engagement covered national security and counterterrorism.
Candidate participation by behavior
Participation in the debate was also measured by the candidate's behavior at the start of each discussion segment. This study considered whether a candidate was initially prompted by a moderator to speak during a discussion segment or whether he or she independently engaged in the discussion segment by interrupting another candidate or calling on the moderator for permission to speak. A candidate's conduct after they joined a discussion segment was not considered.
Although the candidates seldom interjected themselves into a discussion segment in this debate, there was a notable exchange between Ted Cruz and moderator Chris Wallace on whether Cruz should be granted rebuttal time because his name was invoked in a question. When Cruz pointed this out, Wallace responded, "It's not my question that you get a chance to respond to, it's his answer."
Cruz said shortly after, "I would note that that the last four questions have been, 'Rand, please attack Ted. Marco, please attack Ted. Chris, please attack Ted. Jeb, please attack Ted.'" Throughout the debate, the moderators asked the other candidates five questions relating to Cruz's record or statements.
Candidate participation by speaking time
According to speaking time estimates from NPR, Rubio and Cruz each spoke for more than 13 minutes.[6] Carson spoke least, logging only 6.2 minutes.
Candidate participation by speaking rate
Each candidate's speaking rate was calculated by dividing the total word count of the candidate's speech during the debate with his speaking time as measured by NPR. As in previous debates, Rubio spoke at the fastest rate. With the exception of Carson, who decreased his speaking rate by nearly 20 words per minute, every candidate increased his speaking rate since the previous debate.
Candidate participation by segment vs. speaking time
The amount of time a candidate spoke did not necessarily align with the number of issues he or she covered during the debate. For example, although Cruz spoke approximately four minutes longer than Bush and Christie did, all three candidates participated in the same number of discussion segments.
Audience engagement
Audience engagement was measured by noting applause, cheering, or laughter in The Washington Post's transcript. Footage from the debate was consulted when the text was ambiguous about to whom the audience was responding.
With 22 and 21 instances of positive audience engagement, respectively, Rubio and Cruz had the strongest response from the crowd. Nearly one-fifth of the total audience engagement in the debate occurred during the two discussion segments on immigration-related issues.
Candidate speech analysis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ballotpedia's Insiders Poll
Instead of doing an insiders poll, Ballotpedia conducted a Presidential Nominating Index days before the debate.
113 Republican Insiders were asked to rank the top five contenders for their party's 2016 presidential nomination. In tallying the rankings, a first-place vote was worth 5 points, a second-place vote was worth 4 points, and so on. The Ballotpedia Presidential Nominating Index is determined by the percentage of points that each contender receives compared to the maximum possible points a contender could receive. For example, Trump earned a .782 index rating, having received 78% of the maximum possible 565 points—565 being how many points he would have received if all 113 Republican participants had ranked him first for the candidate most likely to win the nomination. |
Debate Commentary
The columns below were authored by guest columnists and members of Ballotpedia's senior writing staff. The opinions and views belong to the authors.
The question is: did Donald Trump’s absence from the GOP debate last night matter?
January 29, 2016
By Karlyn Bowman
Karlyn Bowman, a widely respected analyst of public opinion, is a senior fellow and research coordinator at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.
All recent polls in Iowa have shown Donald Trump in the lead, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in either a close or distant second place, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio in third. But as we also know, it is difficult to know who will really show up on caucus night, and we should treat all the polls with caution. Recent polls show that significant numbers of potential caucus voters aren’t certain of their choice yet.
Certainly the debate was more cordial and focused on policy than earlier ones, though I wouldn’t be surprised if many viewers felt they were lost in the weeds during the long back and forth between Cruz and Rubio on immigration. The issue put both men on the defensive, and neither one scored points.
In past debates, Cruz appeared to be a formidable debater, but he lost his footing several times last night, especially in an early exchange with Fox debate moderator Chris Wallace when he appeared to be whining and the audience booed him.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul had very good nights, but their performances are unlikely to propel any of them into the winner’s circle in the Iowa contest. The strengths they showed last night may help them later. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush also did very well, reminding the audience of his command of policy, but he will remain stuck in the bottom tier. Sadly for him, the politics of 2016 seems to have passed him by.
So, did Trump hurt himself? Did his absence cause any voters to move away from him to another candidate? It’s possible. I watched the debate on Fox and not on the networks that showed the split screens with the debate and the Trump veterans’ event that was held simultaneously. In the polls, Trump has a sizable advantage among a lot of people who don’t usually show up in substantial numbers at Iowa caucuses. Will he be able to bring them out and expand the size of the electorate? We will know the answer soon.
More Rooted, Rand and Jeb Coulda Been Contenders
January 29, 2016
By David Kusnet
David Kusnet is a former chief speechwriter for former President Bill Clinton. He is the senior writer and a principal at the Podesta Group, a government relations and public relations firm in Washington, D.C.
Last night’s debate showed two front-runners trying to explain their previous support for immigration reforms and two also-rans belatedly embracing their own backgrounds and beliefs. The tantalizing conclusion: If the trailing candidates had displayed the “authenticity” much in demand this year, they might also be credited with the “toughness” that Republicans claim to crave.
Confronted by Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly with evidence that they’d be willing to tread a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio both backed away and attacked each other.
For his part, Jeb Bush seemed more sympathetic to immigrants, documented and undocumented, while finally reciting a rehearsed, but endearing, explanation of why he is comfortable with being a member of the much-maligned “establishment: “Look, I am in the establishment because my dad, the greatest man alive was president of the United States and my brother, who I adore as well as fantastic brother, was president. Fine, I’ll take it. I guess I’m part of the establishment Barbara Bush is my mom. I’ll take that, too.”
Less predictably, Rand Paul, who trails the field, was also asked about his daddy issues: “So did you make a mistake by not fully, more fully embracing your father [the Libertarian Ron Paul] politically at the beginning of this campaign?”
Paul’s response was shrewd. Explaining that it is uncertain “where that liberty vote goes that my father brought to the Republican Party is,” he added, “I don’t think they’re necessarily going to go for Ted.” In a sense, the remainder of Paul’s responses also answered that question. He advocated an unapologetically libertarian agenda, defending civil liberties at home and non-interventionism abroad while presenting himself as the most fiscally conservative candidate.
When police misconduct was addressed, Paul offered an intriguing glimpse of the distinctive contribution he might have made to the national debate had he been willing to break the mold of conventional politics more often.
Explaining African American views of law enforcement in terms that Tea Party tax protestors might appreciate, Paul said: “I've been to Ferguson, I've been trying to look for solutions to our criminal justice problem. One thing I discovered in Ferguson was that a third of the budget for the city of Ferguson was being reaped by civil fines. People were just being fined to death. Now you and I and many of the people in this audience, if we get a $100 fine, we can survive it. If you're living on the edge of poverty and you get a $100 fine or your car towed, a lot of times you lose your job.”
Had Paul presented himself as an independent leader rooted in a distinctive tradition, much like the socialist Bernie Sanders in the Democratic race, he might have attracted the attention that Sanders and “the elephant not in the room” last night—Donald Trump—have found so beneficial.
Indeed, authenticity also allows a candidate to share Trump’s unique selling proposition: strength. By not apologizing for being the billionaire son of a multimillionaire—albeit with an outer-borough chip on each shoulder and “New York values” in his heart of hearts—Trump appeals to alienated voters searching for someone to drive a hard bargain on their behalf. In contrast, candidates who seem to flinch after being attacked or to calculate what to conceal about their own backgrounds and beliefs end up projecting hesitation, not heft.
If Bush had owned up to his aristocratic sense of noblesse earlier and Paul had presented himself as philosophically skeptical of big government in all its forms, they, too, might have been elephants in the room.
Playing it Safe
January 29, 2016
By James A. Barnes
James A. Barnes is a senior writer for Ballotpedia. He is the founding editor of the National Journal Political Insiders Poll and is a co-author of the 2016 edition of the Almanac of American Politics.
Debates on the eve of a pivotal caucus or primary usually don’t shake up the dynamics of a presidential nominating contest. In 1980, on the Saturday night before the New Hampshire primary, Ronald Reagan famously challenged a debate moderator: “I’ve paid for this microphone, Mr. Green,” when he confronted Jon Breen, editor of the Nashua Telegraph, who balked at allowing other GOP candidates to join Reagan and George H.W. Bush in the debate. (The media excluded candidates from the main stage back then, too.)
Reagan looked strong and magnanimous, and the elder Bush came across as weak when he ducked the chance to endorse Reagan’s request to open up the debate. Three days later, New Hampshire GOP primary voters rewarded Reagan with a resounding victory.
But most of the time, candidates play it safe and revert to form in these situations, and that’s largely what occurred in Thursday night’s Fox News – Google debate in Des Moines, just four days before Iowans will caucus on Feb. 1.
The big news going into the debate was Donald Trump’s decision not to participate. And for one evening, at least, he did not dominate the discussion of the 2016 Republican White House hopefuls. Trump was mostly an afterthought—or the target of some well-rehearsed barbs—for the seven other GOP contenders who showed up.
When asked about Trump’s absence at the start of the debate, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz joked, “I’m a maniac and everyone on this stage is stupid, fat, and ugly. And [Dr.] Ben [Carson], you’re a terrible surgeon. Now that we've gotten the Donald Trump portion out of the way...” But moments later, Cruz pirouetted and played up to Trump’s supporters, saying, “I am glad Donald is running. I’m glad he has produced enormous enthusiasm, and, every Donald Trump voter or potential voter, I hope to earn your support.”
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said that Trump had been a “little teddy bear” towards him, a bit of self-deprecating humor since the brash billionaire has mauled Bush like a Grizzly in previous debates. Later on, Fox moderator Chris Wallace teed up a question for Bush when an American Muslim YouTube creator asked how the candidates would “promote increased tolerance in the United States?” Bush swung away, resuming his familiar role as Trump’s chief critic in the GOP race: “Mr. Trump believed that in reaction to people's fears that we should ban all Muslims. Well, that creates an environment that’s toxic in our own country.” In case anybody missed his point, Bush continued, “I’ve been critical of Donald Trump. Disparaging women, disparaging Hispanics, that’s not a sign of strength. Making fun of disabled people...” While still a bit awkward, for once, Bush actually seemed to be at ease and enjoying himself in a debate.
Cruz had a rockier night. Normally, the Texan is a disciplined and talented debater, as Ballotpedia commentator David Kusnet has ably described. But Cruz appeared to be knocked off his stride sparring with Wallace over whether he deserved a rebuttal and Wallace shot back, “Sir, I know you like to argue about the rules, but we're going to conduct a debate.” When Wallace did turn to Cruz for a response, he came across as put upon: “Chris, I would note that that the last four questions have been, ‘Rand, please attack Ted. Marco, please attack Ted. Chris, please attack Ted. Jeb, please attack Ted...’” Some in the audience moaned. Later, Cruz tried to make light of the situation and skewer Trump: “Gosh, if you guys ask one more mean question I may have to leave the stage.” That joke fell flat.
Often an inspiring and articulate debater, on Thursday night, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio sounded more insistent than eloquent. He uttered the phrase “when I am president” no less than eight times. Unlike previous debates, sometimes Rubio’s comments seemed forced instead of forceful.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie again made his patented observation that Members of Congress often rely on legislative legerdemain to dodge responsibility for inaction in Washington while “I’ve been held accountable for six years as the governor of New Jersey and with a Democratic legislature, I’ve gotten conservative things done.”
Ohio Gov. John Kasich reminded the audience of the job growth he’s presided over in his state and his role as a reformer in Congress on welfare, defense and budget issues. His demeanor and stage presence has notably improved from some of his earlier debate outings when he occasionally came across as whiny and frenetic.
Kentucky Sen. Raud Paul was just happy to be back in the main ring after having been relegated to the undercard bout in the previous round of debates. He gave his most consistent defense of his libertarian stance on issues in this season’s GOP debates. He seemed more comfortable and composed than in prior encounters.
Retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson was his humble self. That has been an appealing trait for Carson before—especially when he finds himself wedged between some of the more towering and preening egos on the GOP debate stage. But when he reached again for a little humility in his closing remarks by reciting the preamble to the Constitution, it just sounded out of place. He concluded abruptly, “Folks, it’s not too late. Enough said.”
But for some of the presidential hopefuls in the final debate before the Republican balloting begins, you got the feeling that it was.
Republican Debate Schedule
Click the schedule to return back to the top of the page.
See also
- Presidential debates (2015-2016)
- Presidential candidates, 2016
- Presidential election, 2016/Polls
- 2016 presidential candidate ratings and scorecards
- Presidential election, 2016/Straw polls
Footnotes
- ↑ Politico, "Trump will skip Thursday GOP debate," January 26, 016
- ↑ The Hill, "Trump says he 'probably' won't take part in Fox's GOP debate," January 26, 2016
- ↑ Fox News, "FOX NEWS CHANNEL ANNOUNCES CRITERIA FOR UPCOMING REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY DEBATE," January 21, 2016
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ The Washington Post, "7th Republican debate transcript, annotated: Who said what and what it meant," January 28, 2016
- ↑ NPR, "Who spoke the most during the debate?" January 28, 2016
| |||||||||||
