The Republican presidential candidates will gather Wednesday in Boulder, Colorado, for their third debate of the primary season. The "undercard" debate starts at 6 p.m. Eastern, and the main event starts at 8 p.m. We asked Jonathan Martin, a national political correspondent for The Times, for his insights on what to watch for as the race takes new turns. (This interview has been edited and condensed.)
Q: What is the state of the Republican race going into the debate?
A: It does feel like a number of candidates face a new level of urgency. The most obvious one is Donald Trump. He's been dominating this race both in terms of his polling and in terms of the coverage.
He's now lost his lead in Iowa. And he appears to be slipping nationally. What does this mean for somebody whose entire political life and identity is wrapped up in him being a winner? How does he respond when he's not winning?
Q: Ben Carson is not a forceful debater, but he's suddenly on top of the polls. What are you watching for with Carson?
A: How does he respond to attacks? Now that he's the top dog, the moderators are going to try to prompt Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and perhaps others into attacking him. How does he counter? He upended conventional wisdom in the first two debates, he was kind of a laconic presence, but people didn't really care. Can he do that again? Or is he going to actually have to stand up for himself?
Q: If you were a Jeb Bush strategist, what would you suggest he do differently tonight?
A: You have to want it. You have to show that you want it. That you care about winning, that you've got some fire in you, that you are angry about what's happened during the Obama years and you want to do something very different. But he can't just do it in a way that sounds like whining about a party that's gone around the bend and is flirting with unlikable candidates. He has to frame it in a way of, "I understand why you're angry. I'm angry too."
Q: Carly Fiorina came out of one debate as the big story. She seems like she's receded since — why is that?
A: One of the biggest surprises to me was that she didn't have a second act. The second that she got into that second debate, the second they knew there was going to be an extra lectern up there for her, her staff knew that she had it in her to have a strong debate. Why weren't they thinking about, "How can we capitalize on this?" And to me there was no plan. There was nothing. It was just — she had a good debate. Period. The end.
Q: A lot of readers are especially interested in Chris Christie, even though he hasn't registered powerfully in the polls. What are you looking for from Christie?
A: We all kind of knew going into the campaign that there was going to be a brash, swaggering, tell-it-like-it-is candidate from the tristate area. We just didn't know it was going to be Donald Trump, not Chris Christie. So Trump has stolen the Christie persona in this race. So this is a debate where Christie needs to come out and show that if you like the Trump swagger, but you have concerns about the Trump electability, I can be your guy.
Q: What do you think, if Hillary Clinton is watching this debate, she thinks of the Republican field?
A: She and her strategists love debates because invariably the Republican candidates race one another to sound tougher, more hard-line, more willing to attack the president, more willing to stake out conservative turf. And for the Clinton camp, that's wonderful, because they can just hold that up again in the general election. So it's pretty positive for her.
Q: You're a student of history and political debates. There has been a lot of chatter this season that these are essentially spectacles, circuses. Do you feel you're learning anything watching?
A: It's an insight as to the persona of the candidates. And how they respond to pressure and criticism can be revealing. But I do feel like these debates have really crystallized what has been taking place slowly but surely in recent primaries, which is the transition to a more nationally televised primary, right? The sort of cliché, Currier & Ives, images of snowy New Hampshire town halls and coffee shops have given way to the reality of modern presidential primaries, which are campaigns that take place in debates and national television appearances, and are shaped in large part by a steady diet of polls.
Q: If you were on the panel moderating this debate, what is the one question you'd be certain to ask?
A: I think you can press them on, because this is an economic debate, how can they make the case that the country should dramatically change its fiscal policies from those of President Obama, given the fact that unemployment has now come down to well below where it was when he began? And there's an answer to that, by the way, that they have, but that's a pretty straightforward question.
Q: We're seeing the Democratic field start to shrink. When will we see something similar on the Republican side?
A: That's been one of the most striking parts to me about this year — how many candidates have insisted on staying in the race, and I think that is yet another byproduct of the Trump phenomenon. There's been this patience among candidates and their supporters to wait him out. And now you've got Carson on top and I think you'll see something similar: "Well, can that really last? I think we can stay just a little bit longer." The only two candidates who dropped out did so because they couldn't keep the lights on. Whereas the other candidates seem willing to just run with a backpack, a boxed lunch and a station wagon, and go across Iowa and sort of grit it out. And that's because they want to see what's going to happen.
Q: Free association. I will say a candidate's name. You say the first thing that pops into your head.
A: OK
Q: Ted Cruz?
A: Shrewd.
Q: Carly Fiorina?
A: Driven.
Q: Chris Christie?
A: Pugnacious.
Q: Marco Rubio?
A: Waiting.
Q: Donald Trump?
A: New York.
Q: Jeb Bush?
A: Exasperated.