Second GOP debate can't fix public distrust and anger at our political class

Republican presidential candidate, businessman Donald Trump, left, speaks as Jeb Bush looks on during the CNN Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum on Wednesday, Sept. 16, 2015, in Simi Valley, Calif. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)

There was no clear winner in Wednesday night’s GOP debate.  That’s probably good for Donald Trump and Ben Carson, each of whom had some good moments and some less than good moments in the three-hour debate.

The first two hours were largely riveting and compelling, but the third hour when Carson and Trump debated autism hit a low and should be a guide for future debate planners that two hours should be the limit – it certainly is for me.

That being said, I think it was a good and substantive debate where each candidate was able to demonstrate their strengths. The candidates were able to demonstrate their opinion in a cogent and coherent way.

Wednesday night’s debate produced more specific policy exchanges than we’ve heard previously, particularly on foreign policy and immigration. Voters were able to see the clear differences that exist.

Wednesday night’s debate produced more specific policy exchanges than we’ve heard previously, particularly on foreign policy and immigration. Voters were able to see the clear differences that exist.

But debates are about winning and losing.

As I indicated, Trump and Carson both did well but Carson was better able to better achieve his objectives as the unifying outsider in this debate. He will no doubt be able to build on his success. Trump had a number of good one liners and zingers, but also was put on his back-foot a couple of times by both Carly Fiorina and, to a lesser extent, Jeb Bush.

All in all, given the 11 candidates on the stage and the limited time they had it’s my sense that there will not be much of a dramatic change in candidate positions.

Jeb Bush proved himself to be a much stronger force than we’ve seen before. He dealt with the legacy of his brother well, offering that if anything George W. Bush “kept us safe,” drawing a clear contrast to the circumstances we’re facing today.

Bush was also very strong on the balance between using military force and diplomacy, citing the importance of reestablishing our support for Israel as well as holding Iran to account. And on immigration, he offered a conservative approach that still made clear that mass deportation tears apart families and is incredibly costly.

Carly Fiorina showed that she more than deserved her spot on that stage. She had some of the best lines of the night on Planned Parenthood and foreign policy. Fiorina was both well researched and thoughtful, especially on foreign policy where she mixed a desire to build up and strengthen our military with the pursuit of stronger diplomatic ties.

If anything, this debate showed the return of the insiders as Chris Christie told Trump and Fiorina that he gets why they’re successful in hopes to draw attention to his record and that, presumably, of the other candidates with experience in elected office. Whether that works remains to be seen.

I don’t believe this moment, or any others, from Wednesday evening will ebb the tide of public distrust and anger at the political class. Many of the establishment candidates acknowledged this point themselves to show that they understand how powerful this sentiment is and how conservative they are.

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz also bear mentioning. Rubio was strong on foreign policy and immigration, showing perhaps the deepest understanding of the intricacies of the challenges facing our nation in dealing with our illegal immigrant population and securing the border. His emphasis on an immigration plan based on what people can contribute is likely to become a major talking point. And Ted Cruz’s impassioned defense of the constitution and the rights of an unborn child will surely be remembered.

Rand Paul started weakly, but got stronger. And Kasich’s emphasis on unity sounded compelling, but as a Democrat I’m aware that anything I like will be received less well by a more conservative audience.

There was less bluster tonight and more substance than the last debate, but I don’t see a major shakeup in the field coming as a result.