The Republican party showcased its presidential hopefuls – 10 of them holding the main stage Thursday on U.S. prime-time television in Cleveland, Ohio – and what emerged is a party still grappling with issues of immigration, gay marriage and how to protect the civil liberties of citizens whose records are being collected by a vast national security surveillance system.
In the 2012 election, the party was criticized for appearing too harsh on immigration and issues of contraception, abortion and gay marriage – saddling its eventual nominee, Mitt Romney, with an ultra-conservative image during the general election and failing to build a broad and diverse coalition to beat Barack Obama.
Will the 2016 presidential race produce a different outcome for the Republican party? U.S. politics experts offered their take after Thursday night’s debate.
The women’s vote
Arguably one of the most awkward moments of the night involved front-runner Donald Trump – and he did command several key moments during the debate – being questioned about calling women “fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.”
He has been accused by Democrats – including Hillary Clinton – of being part of the Republican “war on women.” Mr. Trump was unapologetic – and no other candidate on the stage challenged Mr. Trump on his answer.
“Insulting women is limited to Donald Trump. It doesn’t necessary translate [negatively] to the entire Republican party or the other nine contenders on the stage,” said Steffen Schmidt, a political scientist at Iowa State University.
Prof. Schmidt sees abortion as the area in which Republicans will get hurt on the “gender gap.” The gap refers to the Democratic party advantage among women voters. In Thursday night’s debate, Senator Marco Rubio said he supports anti-abortion legislation and is opposed to exemptions that would allow for abortions in cases of rape and incest.
“Marco Rubio got trapped on abortion. That, I think, has a much deeper impact on the gender gap that the Republicans have had,” Prof. Schmidt said.
But it’s not all bad news for Mr. Rubio. Barbara Perry, co-chair of the Miller Center’s Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia, said Mr. Rubio proved himself on the stage and offers a glimmer of hope to a party searching for a 21st century, millennial-appealing candidate. His age, national profile, immigrant background, and economic vision are all appealing qualities in a presidential candidate, she said. “He has the gravitas despite his youth,” she added.
Illegal immigration
The Republican presidential candidate in 2012 won 27 per cent of the Latino vote. In 2016, the GOP nominee will have to do better than Mitt Romney.
It doesn’t help that Mr. Trump doubled down on his harsh anti-immigration stand during the debate and other candidates more or less followed suit.
“Anything restricting immigration was a big applause line and they all wanted to go there,” said David Lublin, a professor of government at American University in Washington, D.C.
Many political observers and Latino groups have wondered whether the party will reposition itself on the issue of what to do with 11 million undocumented workers.
Compared to the group vying for the 2012 nomination, “it is a different party – it is an even more right-wing party,” Prof. Lublin said. “I was struck by how right-wing the group was … So the Republican party continues its march to the right.”
The only candidate who offered a measured position on the issue of undocumented workers and on giving them a path to legal status in Thursday’s debate was former Florida governor Jeb Bush.
“It’s a conundrum and dilemma that’s unsolvable in a way,” Prof. Schmidt said.
Candidates need the anti-immigration vote to win the Republican leadership, but then they need to moderate their position in the general election. That is not easy to do, as Mitt Romney learned, he added.
National security
The big dust-up of the night occurre between New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, over the bulk collection of personal data by the country’s vast national surveillance program.
Mr. Paul has been a strong critic of government casting a wide net to collect metadata without a warrant. He came up against a strong national-security argument from Mr. Christie.
“Maybe that moment showed security will trump anti-government feelings,” Prof. Lublin said. The argument against government surveillance works well among Republicans when it is aimed at President Barack Obama, but not when imagining a Republican president having to make decisions on national security, he said.
The issue is not going away. Many Republican party voters do not trust government and find the collection of data repulsive, Prof. Schmidt said.
LGBT rights
Ohio Governor John Kasich got loud applause from a hometown crowd in his answer to a question about what he would do if one of his children said they were gay.
He said that although he supported traditional marriage, he would accept gay marriages as the law of the country after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right to same-sex marriages.
That is without doubt a softer image and stand than what the Republican party has previously projected.
“That was a very touching moment – and the audience responded positively. Even though we are moving in the country to acceptance, in the south it’s a different story,” said Prof. Schmidt, referring to southern states where opposition to gay marriage is still strong. He also pointed to his home state of Iowa, where 40 per cent of Republican voters are evangelical Christians.
Third-party candidates
There is a nightmare scenario that troubles the Republican party – a candidate running as independent and winning enough votes from Republicans to spoil the party’s shot at beating the Democratic presidential candidate.
That happened in the 1992 general election. Prof. Schmidt calls it the “Ross Perot problem,” after the wealthy independent candidate who upended then-President George Bush’s dream of winning a second term.
Mr. Trump refused to pledge that he would not run as an independent if he loses the nomination.
“He loves making trouble and being the 800-pound gorilla and showing ankle as a third-party candidate,” said Prof. Schmidt. “That caused real panic and acid and indigestion among Republicans.”
And for good reason: it could cost the party the 2016 presidential election.