GOP Debate: Someone Has to Win, Right?

Republican presidential candidates debated a range of economic issues in their third debate, from what to do about Medicare and social security to taxes policy and even a brief exchange on daily fantasy sports activities. The moderators became part of the scrum, and Hillary Clinton and her other Democrats took a few bashes, as GOP contenders strove to stand out. Here is an instant evaluation from three scholars.

Candidates as well as media spar, but Americans get their moment

– Thomas Kochan, MIT Sloan School of Management

We were promised the debate over economic issues, but what we got for the first hour was protracted sparring between TV interviewers appearing gotcha questions hoping to egg upon candidates to attack each other and candidates turning the tables by blaming the nation’s problems on a left-leaning media. Which was a sorry performance through people on both sides of the microphone.

Yet once they got past that part of the circus, the actual candidates did start to recite some of the big economic issues of the day, including the 30 years of wage stagnation; the growing quantity of women in poverty; the high cost of education, and the financial challenges facing Medicare as well as social security.

A few ideas for reform came through on the couple of these issues. At least four candidates – John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie – suggested social security and Medicare could be stabilized via some combination of raising the years of eligibility, reducing advantages for high-income earners and retirees, as well as adjusting benefit formulas with regard to younger workers. Kasich was probably the most focused on concrete ideas when he proposed using public service to pay down student debt and also the expansion of online courses and better hyperlinks between high school, two-year, and four-year colleges to bring down the cost of higher education.

These Republicans as well as their Democratic counterparts recognize they have to focus on the issues holding back operating families from realizing their dreams. Senator Rubio said it most obviously: if we do not address these problems directly, the next generation is destined to have a lower standard of living than their parents.

Therefore, the good news within tonight’s debate, indeed in this campaign, is that the American community is being heard.

Candidates are getting the content that the next president has to focus like a laser upon these economic issues. The question is can we go beyond the personal assaults the media feeds on as well as insist on getting more thoughtful solutions to the problems Americans care about. Perhaps it is time for the media professionals to catch up with the applicants and start listening to what typical Americans want to hear.

Issues overlooked: housing and inequality

– Mechele Dickerson, University associated with Texas at Austin

Other than the fact that they attacked the moderators a lot more than they attacked each other, probably the biggest surprise during the third Republican presidential debate may be that quite a few of them now seem to see that they cannot keep ignoring the center class.

Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul did not attack the Top 1% or hedge fund managers with the fervor Bernie Sanders exhibited throughout the Democratic debate, and Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio did not explain what they would do to solve the problem of flat middle-class wages or close the wages inequality gap. However, they do at least mention the economic woes facing the middle class.

Unfortunately, only one candidate (Paul) even mentioned the housing crisis and it was in the context associated with attacking Federal Reserve policies. None of the Republican or Democratic candidates seems to understand the link between rising rents and housing unaffordability. Housing unaffordability keeps getting even worse, and it will not improve until we recognize the link between it and income inequality.

This issue, of course, is not a problem for hedge fund managers or other highly paid workers who have consistently received raises during the last 30 years. They are not facing the housing affordability crisis. In comparison, as both Republican and Democratic candidates mentioned during their debates, wages have all but stagnated for lower- and middle-income workers. These workers simply cannot afford their rents. In addition, the problem is most obvious in cities like Memphis and Detroit, where incomes have not stored pace with even modestly rising rents, according to a recent analysis.

The crisis is due to obtain much worse. More People in america are being forced to rent because they cannot afford to buy a home. At the same time, the share of renters investing more than half of their income upon housing may soon achieve almost one in three.

The income inequality space and rising housing unaffordability tend to be interrelated and solving all of them must be one of the top priorities of the next president. Unfortunately, you would not know that we are still facing a housing unaffordability crisis by listening to the presidential debates.

Marco Rubio walks a tightrope

– Lisa Garcíthe Bedolla, University of California at Berkeley

Much of presidential campaigning is about symbolism.

In tonight’s debate, Marco Rubio set himself as the candidate who is concerning the future and achieving the American Dream. To do this, he had just to walk a fine line, emphasizing their youth and his immigrant story, while trying to ensure Republican voters do not observe him as inexperienced as well as “other.”

In comparison with the other Republican candidates on the stage this evening, Marco Rubio’s relative youth is striking. Rubio’s age had been the basis for criticism through Donald Trump earlier in the campaign.

Instead of trying to present himself because seasoned and experienced, Rubio emphasized the urgency of the moment and his hopefulness for the future. By stating, he did not want to “wait around his turn” to run, he implied that what he didn’t have in experience he made upward for in enthusiasm as well as optimism. Consistent with that information, he refrained from attacking his opponents while still ably defending himself from a direct assault from Jeb Bush.

Similarly, Rubio made a reason for presenting himself as an “everyman,” putting an emphasis on his humble origins, their need to pay his way via school, and his awareness of what it means to struggle to support a household. He also referred to his parents’ migration story, connecting that to his support for and belief in the American Dream.

Rubio is actually running for the nomination of a celebration that has strong negative feelings towards immigrants in general and Latino immigration in particular. He is attempting to emphasize his working class origins while espousing economic policies that mainly benefit the wealthiest People in america. In addition, he needs to do both those things while appearing authentic and presidential.

It is telling that his weakest second in the debate was when the moderator pointed out the contradiction between who benefits from his tax plan and his rhetorical focus on people “residing paycheck to paycheck.” The exchange made evident the fundamentally contradictory message he is attempting to package and sell to Republican voters.

Unlike in previous debates, Rubio mentioned his parents’ migration but not where they came from, de-emphasizing his Cuban roots.

With bombastic “outsider” candidates Donald Trump and Bill Carson currently leading the Republican field, it will be interesting to see if Rubio’s youth and migration story permit him to distance himself from Washington.  Alternatively, if the contradictions inherent in their message, his story, as well as immigrants’ relationship to Republican primary voters end up being too much for him to beat with hope and a smile.

Scholars on the GOP debate: middle-class struggles take center stage because Rubio walks tightrope is republished with permission from The Conversation