Debate coach evaluation: One candidate excelled, the other fell short
Expert debate coach Todd Graham evaluates the performances of Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis in CNN's Iowa debate, awarding Haley a respectable B and DeSantis a below-average D+ grade
Todd Graham, a debate professor at Southern Illinois University, has an impressive track record including five national championships and being named national debate coach of the year three times. He has also received the lifetime achievement award in academia and debate. You can find more of his work on his website, Facebook, and X. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. Check out more opinion pieces at CNN.
Rarely does a presidential candidate start a debate by resorting to name-calling, such as referring to their opponent as "mealy mouthed," or openly discussing their opponent's dishonesty.
I am, of course, joking.
Rudeness, it seems, is the norm for Republican presidential debates.
In CNN's Wednesday night debate in Iowa, only two candidates took the stage. Nikki Haley, the former Ambassador to the United Nations and former governor of South Carolina, faced off against Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida. This was their final debate before the Iowa caucus. Here's how each of them performed:
Nikki Haley: B
Haley still needs to work on improving her debating techniques, particularly her opening tone. Instead of immediately calling DeSantis a liar, there are better terms that she could use, such as "disingenuous," that would set a more positive tone for the debate. Additionally, it would be beneficial for Haley to focus on being likeable on stage, as this would enhance her overall strategy. Calling DeSantis a liar was a major error in this regard.
Haley should have started the debate with her disclaimer instead of placing it near the end. She expressed regret for having to create the website, DeSantisLies.com, to document his mistruths, but she should have made that the focal point of her opening statement.
Another issue for Haley is her tendency to cram as many topics as possible into each of her answers, making it seem as though she believes she can win the entire presidency in an instant. She addressed deep topics such as the debt limit, supporting Ukraine, Iowa campaigning, renewable fuel standards, and social security all in one crowded answer.
When Haley discovered her stride, it was partially due to her decision to shift her focus away from the DeSantisLies website. Haley's standout moments in these debates came when she discussed the importance of leaders bringing out the best in people. This aligns much better with Haley's persona and sets her apart from the other candidates.
CNN
Opinion: Who won the Republican presidential debate?
Haley's responses regarding Ukraine were astute, and she subtly inserted a statement emphasizing the importance of taking dictators' threats seriously, as "dictators always do what they say they're going to do."
In the Disney debate, Haley outshone DeSantis by arguing against government vindictiveness. She highlighted that Disney has always been associated with being "woke," yet it was only when they criticized DeSantis that he initiated a conflict with the company.
Haley's most effective move was borrowing and improving on a tactic used by Trump. She used DeSantis' low poll numbers and the squandering of a $150 million war chest on private planes to taunt him. Trump effectively used a similar tactic in the 2016 debates by calling out opponents' low poll numbers. Bandwagoning and ad populum attacks are effective persuasion tools because people prefer to support what or who everyone else is.
Haley's new tactic is to attribute DeSantis' low polling numbers to his poor campaigning skills, and questions why his decisions on any topic should be trusted. This can be cleverly utilized at any point in the debate.
In a strategic move, Haley skillfully redirected the conversation away from Trump. She expressed stronger criticisms of the former president than she had in previous debates. Haley recognizes the importance of highlighting their differing styles and policies at this critical time. This could serve as a valuable foundation for future debates.
Ron DeSantis: D+
Lanzoni/CNN reported that there are two areas where DeSantis could improve and emphasize. While his debates have highlighted his strengths, DeSantis tends to move on from his accomplishments quickly without giving them sufficient attention before shifting to other topics.
Debate strategies require debaters to thoroughly analyze and discuss each topic to maintain credibility. DeSantis' extensive list of Florida's achievements during the debate made it difficult to remember the specific details. When accomplishments are presented without sufficient evidence, it can lead to doubt. DeSantis should focus on highlighting his achievements more effectively in future debates.
Another commendable aspect of DeSantis' performance was his criticism of the mayors of "sanctuary cities" as hypocritical. Setting aside his controversial use of human props in Marthas Vineyard (given Florida's location), DeSantis made a valid point. He questioned why border states like Texas bear the brunt of immigration issues when it is a national concern. DeSantis also highlighted the challenges faced by these cities in managing only a fraction of the migration flow at the borders.
His answers became alarmingly policy-free and could easily fit on bumper stickers. Thats what doomed DeSantis.
Todd Graham
Unfortunately, his responses during the debate quickly declined in quality. They became worryingly lacking in policy and could have been reduced to simple slogans. This ultimately led to DeSantis' downfall. He made it clear that he was unwilling to tackle the more complex issues. When Haley made a valid point, DeSantis replied with, "She's focused on a lot of political stuff - things that no voter cares about." It was the wrong move. Haley had been making sense, despite DeSantis repeatedly accusing her of speaking in "word salad." It seemed as though DeSantis had only just learned that phrase, "word salad," and didn't fully understand it.
His responses to important topics were often lacking in substance. Haley presented compelling reasons why we should support Ukraine and help it resist Russia's invasion. DeSantis' response? "I think a lot of people have died. We need to find a way to end this." Okay... but Haley had just explained how.
"DeSantis stated that he would only consider implementing a flat tax if it would benefit the people. This was his response during the debate. I wish my team could use that kind of reasoning!"
Random opponent: "Hey, SIU, what's your strategy?"
Southern Illinois University: "We're considering a flat tax, but only if we can prove that it's better than the current system. Otherwise, we won't pursue it."
Opposing contender: "That seems like a reasonable and standard approach to debating and decision-making."
Then came his flip-flop on abortion. I had praised Haley's handling of the abortion issue before. DeSantis seemed torn. Should he critique Haley's previous stance OR adopt it because it was popular? DeSantis's choice? Both.
Sign up for our free weekly newsletter now!
Sign up for CNN Opinions newsletter
Join us on Twitter and Facebook
DeSantis somehow managed to advocate for compassion, but it's often seen as a language of the left, used to criticize anti-abortion activists. It's tragic that anyone would view compassion with contempt, but it's not the first time this has happened in a Republican presidential debate. Remember when the Republican audience booed the golden rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
Despite how troubling DeSantis's statement was, it was hard not to chuckle at his request for compassion. Perhaps he should have added a "Ta-Da!" along with his famous "fake" smile when he finished his whirlwind of an answer.
DeSantis' response to being asked about the government going after businesses that disagree with him, specifically regarding Disney's criticism, was shocking. He claimed he took action to protect the children. This explanation was disingenuous.
