Uncovering the Unparalleled Quality of this Republican Contender

The second 2024 Republican presidential primary debate on Wednesday evening proved that sometimes less is more when it comes to presidential debates. Todd Graham, a professor of debate at Southern Illinois University, has an impressive record, with his teams winning five national championships. He has been recognized as the national debate coach of the year three times and has been honored with the lifetime achievement award in academia and debate. You can find more of his opinions on CNN, as well as on his website, Facebook, and Twitter.

Heres a look at how the seven debaterswith a noticeably absent former president and party front-runnerdid on the night.

Nikki Haley

{{img_placeholder_0}}

Mike Blake/Reuters

The ex-governor of South Carolina and former ambassador to the United Nations delivered an impressive performance. I appreciated that Nikki Haley was not seeking to be the focal point of the debate during its initial half. She believed in prioritizing substance over quantity when it came to speaking time. However, things took a turn when she seemed to consciously choose to become more engaged, which ultimately led to her engaging in cross-talk, interruptions, and petty arguments. It is truly unfortunate, as Haley's responses to the debate questions were at a higher level compared to all others on the stage.

Haley distinguished herself by providing thoughtful responses to questions about striking workers and our educational system. Her approach to discussing former President Donald Trump was particularly effective as she tactfully highlighted areas where he could have placed more emphasis, without alienating the Republican base. Haley's plan is to build upon Trump's unfinished work. Regardless of the subject, I found Haley's grasp of the issues and the thoroughness of her answers to be unmatched.

Ron DeSantis

{{img_placeholder_1}}

Mike Blake/Reuters

Ron DeSantis demonstrated some improvements in this debate compared to the last one. He effectively highlighted his accomplishments as the governor of Florida, strengthening his stance. However, DeSantis faced challenges when it came to defending certain proposals, which somewhat diminished the impact of his approach. Similar to the previous debate, it began with a closeup of DeSantis, awkwardly forcing a smile, which is not an ideal start. Nevertheless, he provided insightful answers regarding China and its potential threats. DeSantis pursued a strategy of emphasizing "big fights and big victories," which made for a persuasive rhetorical approach. Only time will determine whether these notable battles, such as the disputes with Disney, redistricting voting maps, and education policies, will truly be considered victories as many of them are still ongoing.

DeSantis encountered difficulty with regards to Ukraine. His sweeping assertion to put an end to the war created an impression that he might wish to accommodate Russia. As former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie hinted during the debate, Russia has perpetrated heinous acts against Ukraine and its people. It is an offensive and incorrect parallel for DeSantis to claim that the United States is also facing an invasion, merely referring to immigration.

Mike Pence

{{img_placeholder_2}}

Mark J. Terrill/AP

Former vice president, Mike Pence, failed to impress during crunch time. He lacked a significant presence on the debate stage and did not take charge of any discussions. Despite once holding the position of vice president, Pence appeared lacking in power during the debate. He was notably devoid of any sign of confidence. Perhaps he can take inspiration from businessman Vivek Ramaswamy.

One effective argument does not constitute a complete debate. Although Pence successfully pointed out Ramaswamy's lack of voting in presidential elections, it was not sufficient. Pence alternated between being timid and pandering, particularly evident in his stance on mass shootings. Since Pence was the vice president during numerous mass shootings, his outrage and proposed solution of the death penalty (which he cannot prove solves mass shootings) fell short. Additionally, when asked about curbing violence against the LGBTQ community, Pence's response was inadequate. While mentioning that he has been married to a teacher for 38 years, he suggested that protecting the LGBTQ community could be achieved by banning or limiting transgender surgery. To clarify, Pence intends to protect the LGBTQ community by excluding transgender individuals. Research has shown that such exclusion would actually increase the likelihood of issues like bullying, suicides, and depression, as denying access to gender-affirming care for children is detrimental.

Doug Burgum

{{img_placeholder_3}}

Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images

In terms of expertise and problem-solving skills, the governor of North Dakota is comparable to Haley. The issue lies not in his policies but rather in his failure to prioritize and highlight his most compelling arguments within the limited time available for debates. It is clear that Doug Burgum has yet to fully grasp the art of debating, as once he does, he could become a formidable opponent to contend with, or at the very least, as influential as any governor from North Dakota can be.

Burgum's initial debating strategy was to wait to be called upon, but that proved ineffective. Subsequently, he decided to take the opposite approach by engaging in cross-talk and interrupting others. However, this approach also did not yield positive results as Burgum failed to capture the attention of the camera or the audience. Moreover, his disruptive behavior caught the moderators' attention, particularly Dana Perino from Fox News, who was unforgiving towards him. Unlike other candidates who frequently spoke out of turn without consequence, Perino consistently reprimanded Burgum for doing the same. This unfair treatment was evident throughout the debate.

A larger problem was Burgum's inability to prioritize his arguments effectively. Debates have limited time, so it is crucial to focus on the strongest arguments rather than trying to cover multiple points. However, Burgum failed to grasp this concept. For instance, when discussing healthcare, he presented an underdeveloped argument centered around software from 2008, which left the audience confused. He then further undermined his argument by introducing a seemingly unrelated topic of quarterly required lease sales. This lack of coherence and poor argument prioritization was detrimental to Burgum's performance.

D

Chris Christie

{{img_placeholder_4}}

Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images

The former governor of New Jersey had the opportunity to criticize Trump, and he landed a few solid punches. Knowing that Trump would be watching, Christie directly addressed him through the camera. It was a clever move. However, Christie made a mistake by lacking a central theme or focus in his attacks. Furthermore, he seemed to hold back instead of being bold, even though it was a now-or-never situation.

Christie's public image took a hit when he was quoted as saying that immigrants should be tracked like FedEx packages. Moreover, when he attacked the teachers union, he went too far for my liking. He stated, "When you have the president of the US sleeping with a member of the teachers union, there is no chance that you can take the stranglehold away from the teachers union every day." This statement surprised most people, but in a negative way.

D 

Vivek Ramaswamy

{{img_placeholder_5}}

Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images

Vivek Ramaswamy's confidence is undermined by his lack of substance. Despite his arrogance, he fails to provide knowledgeable insights or effective policy solutions. Throughout the debate, it becomes apparent that Ramaswamy's aloofness and smugness are inherent traits. His responses are consistently predictable and superficial, such as his statement, "We need to win elections," regardless of the topic or question. Similar to Trump's famous "I alone can fix it" line, Ramaswamy boasts that he is the only Republican who prioritizes connecting with young people. He also arrogantly asserts that he is the sole individual well-versed in the 14th Amendment. These bombastic comments often interrupted the others' speaking time.

Furthermore, it is unclear if Ramaswamy's statement to ban genital mutilation under the age of 18 covers circumcision, as he failed to address this point explicitly during the debate.

D

Tim Scott

{{img_placeholder_6}}

Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images

The Senator from South Carolina had a lackluster performance during the first half of the debate. However, Tim Scott's credibility took a nosedive in the second half with responses that were either clichéd, contradictory, or bordering on absurd.

His responses were all too familiar and unoriginal. Each one resembled a motivational speech, with an identical rhythm, pitch, and a climactic ending. Scott's approach was to share personal anecdotes that invariably concluded with a sermon on the merits of the American Dream. While this may serve as a quick fix during debates, allowing for evasive tactics when specific questions arise, it is far from ideal.

Believe it or not, that is actually an improvement compared to Scott's previous attempt at a deeper dive. Instead of uniting around a common cause, why waste time complaining about a simple curtain?

Oh my goodness! Those who stopped paying attention early missed out on the absurd curtain controversy. I kid you not. Haley and Scott engaged in a lengthy discussion (they even brought up former President Barack Obama) about a stupid curtain during a presidential debate. For some inexplicable reason, Scott felt it was crucial for him to win this particular argument, so he resorted to using visual effects. Scott attempted to mimic someone hanging curtains. I'm sorry, but Scott is either terrible at charades or he has never hung a curtain in his entire life.

Finally, the highlight of the debate for me was Scott unintentionally expressing support for critical race theory. I was genuinely taken aback by his phrasing regarding black families, as he claimed, "We endured discrimination woven into our nation's laws." This aligns with the very essence of critical race theory, as it acknowledges the presence of discrimination embedded within our legal system.