Washington Free Beacon Editor-in-Chief Matthew Continetti appeared on an MSNBC panel on Friday to discuss the Republican presidential field.
Continetti said that the unexpected success of anti-establishment candidate Donald Trump had worked to the advantage of Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Tx.). Cruz , a conservative firebrand with a more traditional presidential resume, could be seen as a compromise candidate for the establishment and base of the party.
"It’s that concept from political science, the Overton Window: how do you frame the acceptable choices in politics?" Continetti said on Meet the Press Daily. "Before Donald Trump entered this campaign, Cruz was on the right edge of that window. Trump comes in and he moves the whole thing to places where we would have never expected. So he makes Cruz more establishment even by comparison."
Continetti said that Trump would go on the attack against Cruz if he fell behind in polls for the Iowa caucus, as he has done against challengers like neurosurgeon Ben Carson.
"He will attack Iowa, which he has done before, and then I think he will attack Ted Cruz," Continetti said. "It didn’t take much for him to go after Ben Carson when it looked like Carson was gaining on him in Iowa."
Trump’s personal attacks have been successful in the past, but Continetti noted that his insults have not stuck to Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.).
"Rubio is the one exception," Continetti said.
Transcript below:
CHUCK TODD: Let's bring in our panel. Coming back, it’s the Washington Free Beacon’s Matthew Continetti. As well as Daniella Leger from the Center for American Progress. And Ashley Parker from the New York Times.
TODD: What did Ted Cruz say that there was an attack on Donald Trump? It’s hard to characterize it as an attack. Is it?
ASHLEY PARKER: It is a little hard to characterize it as an attack. One thing Donald Trump might be able to seize on is that he did it behind closed doors, so it maybe feels a little hypocritical, It's something that he's not willing to say publicly. And Trump tweeted, if you're going to say this, say it publicly. Join in the fun, it will be more fun that way. So I don't think it was an attack, but it gives Trump the opening if he wants to.
TODD: Is that a Washington gaffe? Cruz just said what was obvious.
DANIELLA LEGER: Yes. It's kind of ridiculous that Donald immediately took it to, oh, you're attacking me, come and say it to my face. I'm enjoying this immensely.
TODD: I’m sure you are. They're having a good time with it.
LEGER: Indeed. Although, I do wish that everything was a little more elevated. I think this is serious times and Donald Trump is entertaining, but I think we've moved beyond that point where it's not funny anymore. Like, he may win the nomination, and that should scare people.
TODD: I think that was the point of your column today, a lot of people’s columns today. It's like suddenly a lot of people said, it's time to stop pretending this is going to go away. Matthew, isn't Donald Trump the best thing to happen to Ted Cruz? Because the establishment hates Cruz. You know, and yet Trump has made Cruz nominatable.
MATTHEW CONTINETTI: It's that concept from political science, the Overton Window—how do you frame the acceptable choices in politics? Before Donald Trump entered this campaign, Cruz was on the right edge of that window. Trump comes in and he moves the whole thing to places where we would have never expected. So he makes Cruz more establishment even by comparison. I think it was an attack on Donald Trump, for this reason: he was, for the first time, questioning Donald Trump's judgment, basically saying he doesn't have the judgment to be commander-in-chief. And he was also being an insider, as Ashley said, as opposed to the frontal perspective—
TODD: Love the judgment thing and I have no doubt that, with Cruz's campaign being so well organized, that has been, in my anecdotal focus group of conservatives, the first thing they will say is that finger on the button—that that's the thing that can move voters. Let's take a quick break, you're all coming back.
...
TODD: Let me bring back the panel. Matthew, let me start with Carson's statement. I think I know what he's trying to get at here, he’s basically saying this better not be some orchestration to nominate somebody that didn't even run and nominate somebody that doesn't finish in the top tier of the campaign. Right?
CONTINETTI: Right, and that won't happen until the brokered convention. So he's got his chronology wrong. I think with the meeting that he was responding to, it's basically a logistical one. What happens if we enter the Republican convention without any single candidate having a majority of the delegates necessary to win? Which some political analysts like Sean Trende at RealClearPolitics say is a possibility.
TODD: It's all in the hands of Donald Trump. We know there's normally been two wings of the party, and Trump's created this third thing. But in this day and age of transparency, of a diversified and fragmented media, ideological people, there's no way a smoke-filled room is going to be tolerated by anybody, right?
PARKER: Right, no. Probably not. Although I do have to say, it would not be good for the Republican Party to have any of these nominees break off and run as an independent. And one thing that was interesting, the RNC was very bullish about getting everyone to sign this pledge they would run as a Republican. And they thought they had this trick to nail Donald Trump down, right? To not run as an independent. But of course Donald Trump will run as an independent or third party, he has no problem breaking that pledge. But what it has done is tie all the other Republican nominees who have to sit there and squirm and say, I would support Donald Trump if he's the nominee, even though that won't happen.
TODD: It has. Daniella, I guess I just go to this whole transparency thing. This won't be—so, for historical precedent, there were multiple ballots in '52 and in '44. Since then we have had this magical way of picking a nominee through actual voters going to primaries.
LEGER: There is no way that this process is going to be hidden from anybody. I will say I think it is a little much ado about nothing. They were having a logistical meeting—
TODD: It wasn't even a formal meeting. It was an informal dinner.
LEGER: —Having dinner and I think you do your due diligence to talk about all possible outcomes. I will say, as someone who has worked on many conventions, the thought of a brokered convention makes me want to cry.
TODD: There is one piece of good news if you're Reince. It is an early convention. The throwback of this convention is that he is doing as early a convention as we have seen in a long time.
CONTINETTI: He did. But given the track record of the reforms to the primary process in the hopes of not repeating mistakes of 2012, I fear even that—hoping for an earlier convention—will backfire in Reince's hands.
TODD: Hillary Clinton has been sort of overshadowed of late. She puts out a policy position probably every couple of days and doesn't get a lot of attention. At what point is she so overshadowed that people don't know what she is talking about? Is there a concern among you folks—
LEGER: I don't think there is a concern among Democrats more broadly about her being overshadowed. The closer we get to Iowa the focus turns back on the race again. I think folks are focused on the Republican side. I don't think there is danger in her message not getting out.
TODD: Out of sight, out of mind?
LEGER: I don't think so. It is Hillary Clinton. She is never out of mind.
TODD: That may be true. Stick around.
...
TODD: With Iowa and New Hampshire fast approaching Ashley Parker reports the Bush campaign is doing the best to sidestep Mitt Romney's mistakes. She reports in the Times that in conversations months ago the Bush team tried to learn from Mr. Romney's mistakes. Also with me are Matthew Continetti and Daniella Leger. It's weird at this point for a candidate stuck in the low digits to say these things, someplace Mitt Romney never was. It is a head scratcher.
PARKER: I think the Bush campaign, which has a lot of veterans from the Romney campaign, realized early on their candidates have a lot of the same similarities which as one Obama adviser put it to me as America’s awkward dad. They’re policy wonks, they inspire tremendous loyalty from their staffs but they can't quite connect with voters. You hear from both of them if only America could see the Jeb Bush, the Mitt Romney we knew. So they looked at that and used Mitt Romney as a reverse playbook and they said what can we learn from this? The things they decided were Romney didn't talk to the press that much and it created a vacuum where any sort of verbal misstep or gaffe was magnified. They have Jeb talking to the press all the time. He does a lot of interviews, he stops and answers questions. Even when his aides don’t want him to he answers questions. And they are trying to show the embrace the dorky side of him rather than cover it up.
TODD: Ultimately, Matthew, I don't think this is really about tactics. Isn't this about the fact that he's burdened with the last name in a year of anti-elitism.
CONTINETTI: Absolutely. What I liked about Ashley's piece is how it revealed the thinking of the Bush campaign when they entered the race which is we are going to be the inevitable candidate. We will kind of be the Hillary Clinton on the Republican side. We will have the money, we will wow everybody. We will have the name, the brand and we are just going to intimidate people. The only person they seem to have intimidated, ironically, was Mitt Romney. All the other people they wanted to muscle out have stayed in and we have watched as not only the last name has hurt him but, as I believe, the party has moved beyond the Bush years.
TODD: What is funny is as of a month ago you talk to Clinton people they were still convinced that they were going to face Bush—they are thinking in the old way. They still haven't figured out. They will figure that out.
LEGER: I don't know if they are still saying that today.
TODD: But about a month ago, am I right? That was the thinking.
LEGER: I don't understand how he can think his name wouldn't have been a hindrance coming in.
TODD: They always knew that. I think they knew to a point.
LEGER: When you look back and compare the brothers like everyone said Jeb is a better campaigner and candidate. It is totally proven not to be the case. I don't know what lessons are out there that he can possibly learn that is going to get him out of the position he is in right now.
TODD: I want to go quickly to Trump. The Des Moines Register poll is coming out this weekend. They use a system of caucus-goers. If it is the same trend as we saw with the Monmouth poll and Cruz is ahead, how does Trump respond?
CONTINETTI: He will attack Iowa which he has done before and then I think he will attack Ted Cruz. It didn't take much for him to go after Ben Carson when it looked like Carson was gaining on him in Iowa. So I think he will go after Cruz.
TODD: Ashley? Attacking works. When have Trump's attacks not been effective? Jeb Bush, low energy.
CONTINETTI: Rubio is the one exception.
TODD: So far.
PARKER: The brilliance of his attacks is they have more than a grain of truth in a lot of them and something the voters can pick up on. You are talking to voters in an event and you hear it parroted back. With Jeb and low energy, voters said his posture isn't great. He seems a little low energy the way he moves his shoulders. It's the Trump attack.
TODD: We'll see about Cruz because Cruz is somebody who continues to want to suck up to him and usually Trump is softer on people who suck up to him. Anyway. Thank you all.