Donald Trump, who impetuously got into politics hoping to get a tugjob in the toilet adjacent to the Lincoln Bedroom, is Barry Goldwater at a Gathering of the Juggalos. 

One of the happiest turns in the media world in 2015 was a wonderful talent like James Poniewozik becoming the TV critic at the New York Times. It may not be his favorite assignment, but the writer stifled his gag reflex long enough to review the awfulness of last night’s Pants-Off Dance-Off known as the GOP debate. What follows is an excerpt from his work and one from Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo.

_____________________________

From Poniewozik:

Mr. Trump turns subtext into text, whether it’s about immigration or torture. Republican candidates had sent certain messages to voters for years, and now the party hears them coming back from Mr. Trump translated, or perhaps decoded.

On Thursday, his opponents made plenty of substantive, detailed attacks on him, and maybe they worked, but tying them to questions of character risks underscoring his reality-TV-style directness.

But what’s the alternative? Mr. Rubio tried speaking Mr. Trump’s language at the previous debate, and afterward. He mocked, he taunted, he said that Mr. Trump may have wet himself. It worked, or it didn’t — Mr. Rubio didn’t have a great Super Tuesday. And at this debate, he seemed a little sheepish about having tried it. He was still on the attack, but in his own language.

It seems the best way to beat Mr. Trump is to make him small, and the best way to make him small is to beat him. Maybe Thursday’s media whirlwind was the start of that — who knows anything anymore? — but it made the debate, the news cycle, the world, all about him, Trump Trump Trumpity-Trump. It was done, to borrow the hashtag of the social-media movement against him, in the spirit of #NeverTrump, but the practical effect was #AllTrump, #AllTheTime.

The Republican Party hung a giant target on Mr. Trump’s back. But that meant he ended the day reassured, for the umpteenth time, that his was in fact bigger.•

_____________________________

From Marshall:

There was one point maybe in the 3rd quarter hour of the debate where Rubio and Trump were basically just yelling at each other. It was very messy. Trump was clearly unable to dominate the stage. And yet, as I watched, I thought: this is not doing Marco Rubio any good. It may be bloodying Trump but not to Rubio’s benefit. They knocked him off his perch a bit but they looked like ridiculous animals wrestling with him on the ground.

The other thing I wonder about tonight is the effect of Fox News’ attacks on Trump. Trump’s the frontrunner. His dirty laundry is only now really getting a close look from the press. It makes sense that the moderators would press him more than the others. But it went well beyond that. They were out to get him. No one could watch this debate and not get that. Given how much Trump’s base constituency is driven by resentment against ‘establishments’ and perceived unfairness to themselves and those they support, will this redound to Trump’s benefit? Will it at least not hurt him? I think it’s definitely possible.

I have little doubt that the cross-country exchange with Romney today actually did help Trump. If you’re for Trump, you’re against the establishment and all it stands for. Romney is the establishment wing of the establishment and even the attack itself was fairly feckless. It only confirms Trump’s message. On a stage he owned, a short while later in Maine, Trump mutilated Romney in his response. I’m much less sure this debate helped Trump in the same way.

My cautious, initial take is that all the attacks combined didn’t do much if anything to shake Trump’s support. But they may have started to put an actual ceiling on that support. It may have stopped him from building on his current numbers. I’m truly not sure.•