What's up, doc? Dan Palazzolo on the Republican Debate and campaign trail

What's up, Doc? is a Q&A series where The Collegian asks a University of Richmond professor five questions on a prominent current events topic that aligns with their expertise.

In case you haven't heard, a bunch of people want to be America's next president. Eleven Republican hopefuls shared a stage Wednesday night aiming to convince voters and donors why they are best suited for the Republican nomination. Well, who won the debate? Do these early debates actually matter? And, of course, what has Donald Trump been up to recently? Dan Palazzolo, the head of University of Richmond's political science department, spoke with me to answer some of these questions. Palazzolo will lead a discussion titled "The Trump Card: Presidential Politics and the Road to 2016" in the Tyler Hanes Commons Friday at 12:00 p.m. where he will field questions regarding the campaign.

Jack Nicholson: What was your general reaction to the debate, and who do you think helped themselves the most?

Dan Palazzolo: The particular challenge in this debate was for non-traditional politicians to give voice to this grassroots movement that is fed up with the establishment and the system. If you look at what happened – what did these individuals have to do to gain ground among the electorate and among those who invest – I would put Carly Fiorina (left) at the top. Number 1, If you look at polls, she’s not that well known. Number 2, I thought she was particularly forceful, very serious, and extremely knowledgeable. So, in a sense, for those who are interested in change from a really serious person – and I’m going to contrast her with Donald Trump – as an outside, I thought she had a really good night. I thought she stood out as someone who showed some leadership qualities. Now, she will ride in the polls, and she’s going to have to account for her business experience and what happened as a CEO, which is a checkered record. But for today, she did the best, in terms of moving her position.

Jeb Bush, someone who is viewed as yesterday’s news and part of the establishment, I thought he humanized himself. In talking about the marijuana, in talking about policy issues, in talking about what he did in Florida, and trying to be proud of his father and brother, but begin to separate himself. I thought he had a good night. Whether it will show up in the polls, I’m not sure, but I thought he gave a lot of confidence to the elites; I think he gave a lot of confidence to his donors, to the people who are working for him.

Chris Christie, I thought, was strong. He turned the message to populism – this about you, this is not about anyone one of us, this about you – and I think that’s what people want to hear. I thought he was strong on foreign policy. As an outside, I thought he was able to give confidence to people that he wasn’t just another politician. He has huge challenges, don’t get me wrong, I’m not talking about winning the nomination, I’m talking about last night.

Scott Walker, by comparison to the first debate, was much stronger, much more relaxed, much more confidant. I thought he gave good answers.

I felt like Trump didn’t go anywhere – I don’t think he went down or up. I think what you saw was a stark contrast between what he and Ben Carson knows and what everyone else on the stage knows. He and Carson are, in my mind, lightweights when it comes to governing. They don’t understand politics; they don’t understand how to govern. They are personalities.

JN: Why do these debates happen so early, and how much do they matter?

DP: The answer to that is really embedded in reforms that took place in the late 60s and early 70s that basically opened up the nomination process to the public. The goal is for the candidates to achieve a majority of delegates at the national convention. These delegates are decided by caucuses and primaries in every state. By opening up the process -- instead of allowing party regulars or party officials in a smoke-filled rooms to decide who the presidential candidates are, which is what used to happen – it meant that individuals would have to create their own campaign organization, which means they have to raise their own money, get their own staff, their own volunteers, build their own strategy, do their own poling. And they had to get ready, because the Iowa Causes and the New Hampshire Primary are right at the beginning of the election year. So in order to get all these pieces in place, which is a massive organizational and financial challenge, you really have to start early.

Once candidates begin to move, it’s a news item. That’s when the media get involved, and everyday campaigns provide a story, which creates momentum. The two national parties have an incentive to winnow this pool; the nomination is open to everybody. So they want to get it smaller; that’s kind of their objective, because the larger the pool the more conflict within the party and the harder it is to position for the general election. So basically this whole process of having debates is part of a process of winnowing or shrinking the pool.

We are in a period right now that used to be called the invisible primary, but it’s actually pretty visible, so we now call it the pre-primary phase. If a candidate doesn’t compete in this pre-primary phase, he or she almost has no chance. You cannot get into this election in December – too much has already happened. People are talking about that for Joe Biden, for example, saying that if he were to get into this race he really needs to do it now, certainly no later than the end of September. Even though he’s such a brand name, you still have to have boots on the ground, you got to have endorsements, you got to have money, and that just takes a lot of time and effort.

JN: What exactly is the Trump-Phenomena?

DP: There’s always been an anti-establishment, populist vein in American politics. Recently it’s become much more prevalent – you see it on the right with the Tea Party movement, you see it on the left with the Occupy movement. There’s a sense out there among the people and those who organize [these movements] that there’s just something wrong. We, the people, are being ruled by a plutocracy, a class of very powerful – whether it’s politically powerful or financially powerful – people, and we are losing some control. And that’s part of what motivates this.

Specifically to the Republican Party, since Ronald Reagan, Republican politicians have been saying, “The Government is too big. It spends too much. We need to cut back.” And a lot of these folks in the grassroots who bought into are saying, “Well that hasn’t happened. Why isn’t that happening? Why can’t the Republicans check Obama? Why do we continue to compromise?” So in some ways, you sort of reap what you sew. Here we have a significantly engaged population within the Republican ranks, if you will, that really is really fed up with politicians. The opening for an outsider is probably greater now than it was 10 or 15 years ago.

In comes Donald Trump. Trump is different, and he’s different for a few reasons. If you look at pools of candidates in the Republican field, we’ve had businessmen and businesswomen; we’ve had wealthy people that can self-finance their campaign; we’ve had people who are very good at managing media; and we’ve had the outside. But I don’t think ever we’ve had all four of those in one person.

Trump is someone who gained some popularity in the entertainment industry, so he’s known to a population. He’s somebody running as an outsider, driving this theme that he’s not a politician. He’s somebody who has a massive amount of cash that he can burn. He’s obviously a highly colorful figure.

Trump has tapped into a frustration with politicians. He has this persona of someone who can get things done and is not politically correct – all of that is actually quite endearing to certain people, and he’s garnered that market.

JN: Where has Ben Carson’s recent rise come from?

DP: The outsider part is definitely there. There was a poll released recently that was revealing, in the sense that 50 to 60 percent of Republicans would like to see somebody other than a government official [win the nomination]. The Carson phenomena is partly a function of the outsider status, but he’s also someone who is well known in conservative circles. He’s actually raised a lot of money, he’s been out there, Republican conservatives know who Ben Carson is.

He’s not as well known as Trump, but he is well known. They are fighting for the same vote, so to speak, and Carly Fiorina is too. This is a powerful message – “Washington is broken and it needs somebody from the outside. Don’t go electing someone who is already there, because they are just part of the establishment.” That’s where that appeal comes from.

I think Carson is very socially conservative. He differs from Trump in this respect: Trump is primarily about himself. His whole frame is, “I can get things done. You can win with me.” He has no real thematic policy frame, or anything like that. Whereas I think is a social conservative, and he speaks more about what the country needs than what he personally can do. He appeals a little bit more to those who looking for some substantive direction, with respect to the role of government.

JN: Should Jeb Bush be concerned as outsiders, such as Trump and Carson, continue to surge?

DP: Well I suppose he would rather be on top, but it’s too early to draw anything from [the early poll numbers], because of a two reasons: One is that we really don’t know how strong these preferences are. If a voter says, “I’m voting for Trump today,” we don’t know how committed they are. The other thing is the campaign hasn’t really begun in earnest, in a way that it’s all being conducted by the news media. Bush ran a couple of ads against Trump, but there hasn’t been a sustained effort to try to shape a message, and move somebody out of first position. As the pool gets winnowed, then somebody like a Bush would gain a larger vote share than he is now.

Bush should be concerned, but I don’t think necessarily being the front-runner in September necessarily a bellwether to who the nominee is going to be. I’m inclined to suggest that unless this year is completely different from every other year we’ve had under this nomination system, there’s a pretty good chance that Trump cannot ultimately prevail, and Bush is actually in pretty good shape, from the standpoint of having raised a lot money, gained a lot of endorsements, etc. Eventually, this may settle down, but it may not – it could be that this populist push is so strong that Bush is too much of an establishment figure and cannot convince enough people to vote for him. I’m guessing that’s probably going to change a little bit, as we get closer to the point of decision and has the field begins to shrink down.

Contact editor-in-chief Jack Nicholson at jack.nicholson@richmond.edu